Each of two drugs, S and T

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: side effects3% picked this

   Drug S has certain side effects not shared by

   We can't say the author needed to assume anything about side effects, since she never brought that topic up. If we negated this and learned that S and T have the same side effects, that wouldn't hurt her argument in any way.

   3%
2. B

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   Drug T is much newer than drug S, and had far

   Out of Scope: newer / development costs Causal Speculation We can't say the author needed to assume anything about which is newer or which was more costly to develop, since she never brought that topic up. This is trying to invite people to invent a causal backstory for why drug T is more expensive for treatment. Maybe it's because drug T had higher development costs it needs to recoup, but maybe it's for a different reason. If we negated this and learned that S and T are the same age and had comparable development costs, that wouldn't hurt her argument in any way. It's still a fact that T is $2k more per treatment than is S.

   3%
3. C

   Contradicted, if anything13% picked this

   After a heart attack, drug T remains relatively effective if given at a time at which drug S

   The author never discusses any specific dosage timeline like this answer describes, so we have no idea what her position on this would be. But, given that we're told that both S and T greatly reduce the effects of potentially fatal heart attacks if given as soon as possible after the attack begins, it sounds like both drugs are thought to be effective if given immediately. This answer is saying that even once it's too late for S to be effective, T would still be effective, but we have no idea if that's the case. If we negate this and say that T's effectiveness window ends around the same time that S's does, it wouldn't weaken anything.

   13%
4. D

   Correct77% picked this

   There is no quick, practical, and relatively inexpensive way of telling for any individual case whether drug S will be

   Why this is right

   Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and we see an answer Ruling Out an idea with "not / no", we want to take a good look, because tons of correct answers on Necessary Assumption have this form. (We call them Defender answers) If we negate this, it's saying, "There is a quick, practical, and relatively cheap way to know for each person whether T would be more effective". This means that the author's thinking of multiplying $2k (the extra cost of T) times 120 patients (since T saves 1 out of 120) is wrong. We don't need to give the more expensive drug to everyone if there's a quick, practical, cheap way to know whether T would be more effective in an individual case. If it's easy to diagnose when T would be worthwhile, then the policy decision we'll face is "whether or not to pay the $2,000 it would cost to use drug T in order to save one additional patient".

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

   77%
5. E

   Unknown Comparison: faster Causal Speculation4% picked this

   Drug T works significantly faster than

   We aren't told anything about how fast either drug works. This answer is trying to invite people to speculate a causal backstory for why T is able to save an extra 1 out of 120 patients ... "maybe it's because T works way faster?" Sure, maybe. But maybe it's for a different reason. It's not necessary that a drug work faster in order for it to work more successfully.

   4%