I had chosen answer choice D. Would overall doctors opinions of what to prescribe not undermine the argument more than laboratory tests on animals?
Emil-KunkinMay 28, 2022
Hi Sallyanne,
(A) is not out of scope, as we are not actually told about the side effects in human patients. We are told it had the same positive changes, and we know about speed and cost, but we are never explicitly told that the patients in question did not suffer side effects from X (or from Y for that matter).
Additionally, it is possible (and likely) that the nonhuman tests were conducted over a longer time frame, and perhaps the human trials are not yet far enough along.
Either way, the mere suggestion that one medicine has a greater potential for side effects, even if they have not yet been observed in humans, is enough to weaken the argument.
(D) does not weaken the argument, because doctors' present behavior can be influenced by so many factors. Perhaps X lacks regulatory approval, or perhaps Y simply has a better marketing team. Most significantly it seems quite possible that these studies are contradicting a previously held consensus that Y had a greater beneficial change. The fact that people tend to do something does not mean that that thing is good.
