The author of the stimulus argues that the relaxation of certain regulations to increase the availability of new medicines should not be accompanied by a lifting of all regulations which restrict general industrial activity.
Why? Because strict environmental regulations are necessary to ensure that endangered species of plants and animals do not become extinct.
Why does this matter if we are discussing the availability of new medicines? Because a large majority of new medicines are derived from plants and animals. Therefore, if all regulations restricting general industrial activity are lifted, then endangered species are likely to become extinct. If these species no longer exist, then they cannot be used to manufacture medicines, thereby undermining the original goal of relaxing regulations by decreasing the availability of new medicines.
By answering this second question I have posed above, the statement that a large majority of new medicines are derived from plants and animals links the extinction of species to the availability of new medicines. This is restated by answer choice (D) which is our correct answer.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the argument is not designed to undermine a specific point of view. The author of the stimulus argues that general restrictions regulating industrial activity should not be lifted; however, we do not know that this is necessarily anyone's point of view. Rather, this point is the conclusion of the argument which is supported by the relationship between species and the availability of new medicines outlined above.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
