- In a survey, more of those who had taken anti-seasickness meds had symptoms of seasickness than those who had not taken such medication
→
People would be better off not taking anti-seasickness meds.
The phrase that is a little bit fishy is the whole "better off" thing. Just because you still have symptoms doesn't mean that you aren't necessarily any "better off." Some people are really prone to getting seasickness and maybe taking the meds certainly helped, making them "better off" anyway.
(A) But how does this relate to the medication? All this says is that most passengers will have seasickness.
(B) We aren't trying to doubt the clinical tests conducted. It isn't apart of our scope but rather is just an introduction to the conclusion: "despite claims by...clinical tests..."
(C) Question about this one: We don't have to doubt they survey, correct? We seem to have enough ammunition for this question just by knowing that there were MORE people who reported seasickness with the medication than without. Now this answer choice would seem to strengthen either way because it is showing that there would probably be a very similar number of people WITH and WITHOUT the meds who answered the survey. Yet what if the answer choice was something like "very few people who took medication actually responded to the survey." This may doubt the conclusion a little bit but just knowing that there were a few people who still had these effects of seasickness despite the medication seems to be enough evidence. What do you think?
(D) This is exactly what I predicted. If those symptoms would have been more severe without the medication, I would strongly disagree with the idea that they would be "better off" without the medication. The medication helps alleviate the symptoms!
(E) Whether or not they admit it, are they or aren't they better off? You don't have to admit to being better off. Even if they didn't "admit to" having seasickness without the medication, we don't know how the medication would have affected them.