Each of two drugs, S and T, greatly reduces the effects of potentially fatal heart attacks if given as soon as possible after the attack begins, but a trial has shown that use of drug T instead of drug S would prevent death in one additional case out of 120.
Conclusion (Therefore)
Society is presented with a stark policy decision: should we or shouldn't we pay the $240k it would cost to use drug T in order to save one additional patient.
Evidence
Using drug T instead of drug S would prevent death in one additional case out of 120, but drug T costs $2k more per treatment than drug S.
Evaluate
The conclusion is an interesting one because it's not actually making a decision about whether we should or shouldn't pay for the more expensive drug. It's only saying, "This is a decision we face."
So if we're trying to find objections to the argument, we need to think of a way to argue that this is not a decision we face. We aren't choosing between spending $240k extra vs. losing 1 out of 120 patients we wouldn't otherwise.
How can we make that objection?
One possible piece of wiggle room is that the author seems to be boxing us into some False Choice between drugs S and T. They have never established that those two drugs are the only two options. What if drug U is at least as effective as T but is much cheaper?
Another possible line of objection involves the fact that the $240k in the conclusion is coming by multiplying $2k extra per treatment times 120. The author is thinking, if we give drug T to 120 people, we'll have spent an extra $240k and saved one additional life.
But do we have to give drug T to all 120 people? Can we just pay extra for drug T when we think it's a special situation where the patient is more vulnerable than usual? Maybe drug T can save one life out of 120, but it seems to be when that patient has diabetes.
Thus, we don't need to give drug T to all 120 people. We could just give it to the subset of patients in that 120 who have diabetes. In that case, we're not paying as much as $240k to save one additional patient.
Goal
Given that this argument was so real-world and didn't have conditional logic, it's unlikely that the correct answer will be in the Linking form. It seems more likely that we'll see a Defender answer, where it's ruling out an objection. If we negate the correct answer, it should sound like an objection (like it Weakens the argument).