Premises: Herbs are safe -> patients cannot be harmed
patients may be helped
Concl: Should always be allowed to prescribe herbs for serious illnesses despite little evidence of effect
A. At first I missed the relevance of this to the argument but this is stating prescribed herbs something that is actually effective should weakens our argument
B. I was very tempted by this by on second review, the argument already acknowledged the little evidence for effect
C. Out of scope
D. This is trying to get you to believe they are equally as likely to prescribe for financial gain as patients health but this doesn't help or hurt the argument that herbs should be prescribed despite unknown effectiveness
E. This only boosts the premise that herbs are not actually effective