Premise: Medical research is not made public until it is published in a medical review, which requires peer review of all findings.
Premise: Some people think that this process delays useful information.
Premise: However, without peer review, the public might be misled by bad information.
Conclusion: Therefore, waiting for a medical journal to publish the findings is necessary to prevent bad information from reaching the public.
We need an assumption that this conclusion depends on. This is where this question confused you: there is a difference between peer review and medical journal publication. Which of these actually eliminates bad research? Peer review. Pay attention to the specific wording of the conclusion. The author claims that waiting for the medical journal publication is necessary. However, peer review is what is actually important to the author. So what would make his conclusion true? If the only possible way of getting a peer review is through a medical journal. This is given to us by A, which is the correct answer.
We are given that the public at large doesn't have the knowledge to evaluate medical research, but we cannot conclude that not a single person outside of the review panel has such knowledge. What about other doctors or professors? B is way too strong of a conclusion because of the word "anyone." Keep an eye out for words like that.
