Asthmagon was long considered the

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens, if anything2% picked this

   In Rhiago, where asthmagon had been the most widely prescribed of the beta-2 agonists, the number of asthma deaths

   The fact that deaths from asthma are increasing in the same area where this drug is the most widely prescribed treatment makes it sound like this drug isn't particularly effective. If a drug isn't that effective and carries serious side effects for 1/5 of its users, that would strengthen the case for banning it. Had this answer said, "when we started using asthmagon as the most widely prescribed beta-2 agonists, the number of asthma deaths decreased", that would give us a way to argue, "sure, it has serious side effects, but we shouldn't ban it, since it's saving lives".

   2%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   Many of the patients under observation to whom asthmagon was administered had not previously taken

   We don't really care whether patients had / hadn't taken a beta-2 agonist prior to Asthmagon. If they had, then does that give us some common sense expectation about whether they would or wouldn't suffer serious side effects? If they hadn't? There's no common sense payoff to knowing they've had a drug "of this general type" before or that they've never had it. Finally, the word "many" only means like "at least 5", so it's not a very compelling or impactful idea no matter what.

   4%
3. C

   No Impact5% picked this

   Despite the growing concern about the drug, many physicians in Rhiago still prescribe asthmagon

   What people currently do or don't do with the drug is pretty irrelevant to whether it should / shouldn't be banned. We could try to use this answer to say, "Even though asthmagon produces serious side effects in 1/5 of its users, we shouldn't ban it because many doctors still prescribe it." But that's a very weak objection. Just because many (at least 5) doctors prescribe it doesn't mean we shouldn't ban it. Many people still say the N-word, but we can still say, "we should ban usage of the N-word".

   5%
4. D

   Correct89% picked this

   Among the patients observed, only those who had very high cholesterol counts suffered side effects

   Why this is right

   This is a weird correct answer, but it gives us a pretty good way to argue the Anti-Conclusion, because it's revealing to us that the 1/5 of people who suffer serious side effects aren't some random sampling of the population. It was only those who had very high cholesterol counts that had severe side effects. Thus, we can argue, "Even though 1/5 of the users in the study had serious side effects, we shouldn't ban the drug, because we could just continue to use it but refrain from prescribing it to anyone who has very high cholesterol." You may remember when Viagra filled the airwaves with commercials, there was always a disclaimer at the end, "Do not take Viagra if you are currently taking nitrates for you heart". That's because during the clinical studies of Viagra, they found that patients taking nitrates for their heart (a very specific subpopulation) had serious side effects from Viagra. That doesn't stop it from becoming FDA-approved; it just means that nurses and doctors know that there is a potential complication in administering it that they need to be aware of.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   89%
5. E

   Strengthens1% picked this

   Asthmagon increases the severity of asthma attacks in some people because the drug can cause

   This just makes the side effects sound scarier, which works more in the direction of banning the drug than not banning it.

   1%