Hi @Ashley-Tien, thanks for your post. Since the correct answer here is (C), we assume you meant to ask why (C) is right. Let us know if you have additional questions about answer choice (E).
As always, let's start with a careful analysis of the stimulus. Is this an argument? Yes. What is the conclusion? "There is *no* established medical reason for doctors to use drug Z rather than drug Y on their heart-attack victims."
What premise is given for this conclusion? "Since Drug Z does not clearly treat the problem more effectively than Drug Y . . ."
Notice that the premise talks about only one issue - effectiveness. But the conclusion is much broader - it says "no established medical reason." The narrow, given premise is not enough to really establish this much broader conclusion.
Answer choice (C) correctly identifies the flaw in the argument: that it "fails to recognize that there may be medical criteria relevant to the choice between the two drugs other than their effectiveness as a treatment." That is correct. For example, think about ingredient quality. What is Drug Z is made only of high quality, all natural ingredients, and Drug Y consists of synthetic, low quality ingredients? Then, even if the ultimate effectiveness of the two drugs is roughly the same, there might be a strong medical reason for doctors to use Drug Z rather than Drug Y - it might be less harmful to their patients over the long term. Right?
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Julie-VJuly 30, 2019
Thank you for the helpful explanation! I noticed that the last two sentences were basically all you need to answer this question, so how do we know when to identify the fluff in a stimulus and divert our attention away from it so it doesn't distract us from choosing the right answer? For example, I feel like someone might see the sentence about the questionable marketing practices and think it would be support for choice (E).
