Q3 - A new medication for migraine

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The concern about this med's side effects is unfounded.
Evidence: If patients take the med under careful medical supervision, harmful side effects can definitely be averted.

Answer Anticipation:
Okay … what if patients DON'T take the meds under careful medical supervision? Wouldn't we have reason to be concerned about the side effects in that case?

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The author is only trying to convince us we don't have to worry about side effects. Whether the meds are effective has nothing to do with whether or not the side effects are worrisome.

(B) Yes! Sounds extreme, but it sounds like what we wanted. If we negate it, we get "some people who take the new meds will NOT be under careful medical supervision", which was our original objection.

(C) Too specific. "Most"? Does it matter if 51% vs. 49% of people in the trials had both migraines and heart disease?

(D) Sounds reasonable, but the author doesn't NEED to assume there are other side effects. If we negate this, we get "There are NO other side effects besides the ones we talked about". That wouldn't hurt the argument in any way.

(E) Extreme. "All"? The author is committed to the idea that this new med will conquer ALL other migraine meds? That's crazy. The only point our author is arguing for is that we needn't be worried about the side effects of this med.

Takeaway/Pattern: In order for the author's conclusion to work, he has to assume that patients WILL be under careful medical supervision. He only convinced us that "under medical supervision, we don't have to worry about these side effects".

#officialexplanation

[skdygks03]

Can somebody explain the answer choices of this question?