When a study of aspirin's ability to prevent heart attacks in humans yielded positive results, researchers immediately submitted those results to a medical journal, which published them six weeks later. Had the results been published sooner, many of the heart attacks that occurred during the delay could have been prevented.
The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that
(A) the medical journal's staff worked overtime in order to publish the study's results as soon as possible
(B) studies of aspirin's usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive
(C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers
(D) the medical journal's official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process
(E) a person's risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years
[spoiler]OA - E; How can we drop B (when the test is inconclusive, how can we say with certainity that heart attachs could hv been prevented. Does it not also weaken the agrument, though, to a lesser degree than E.[/spoiler]
The conclusion drawn above would be most undermined if it were true that
(A) the medical journal's staff worked overtime in order to publish the study's results as soon as possible
(B) studies of aspirin's usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals remain inconclusive
(C) people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of stomach ulcers
(D) the medical journal's official policy is to publish articles only after an extensive review process
(E) a person's risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin regularly for two years
[spoiler]OA - E; How can we drop B (when the test is inconclusive, how can we say with certainity that heart attachs could hv been prevented. Does it not also weaken the agrument, though, to a lesser degree than E.[/spoiler]
