When a study of aspirin’s ability

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact2% picked this

   the medical journal’s staff worked overtime in order to publish the study’s results as

   The claim that the medical journal’s staff worked overtime to publish the study’s results as soon as possible does not affect whether the publication timing would have led to heart attacks being prevented. Whether they did or did not work overtime doesn't influence the assumption that earlier results would have reduced heart attacks.

   2%
2. B

   No Impact4% picked this

   studies of aspirin’s usefulness in reducing heart attacks in laboratory animals

   The inconclusive studies in laboratory animals are irrelevant to the argument about human heart attack prevention. The argument is based on human study results, and animal study results do not change the assumed benefits in humans.

   4%
3. C

   No Impact0% picked this

   people who take aspirin regularly suffer a higher-than-average incidence of

   Although regular aspirin use is associated with a higher incidence of stomach ulcers, this potential side effect does not address the timing of publication or directly affect the conclusion that earlier publication could have prevented heart attacks. It might raise a concern about aspirin use but doesn't undermine the argument's specific claim.

   0%
4. D

   No Impact11% picked this

   the medical journal’s official policy is to publish articles only after an

   This confirms that a thorough review is standard, not addressing the impact of publication timing on heart attack prevention. While it might justify a delay, it does not challenge the causality assumed in the conclusion that heart attacks could have been prevented with earlier publication.

   11%
5. E

   Correct82% picked this

   a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after that person has taken aspirin

   Why this is right

   If a person’s risk of suffering a heart attack drops only after taking aspirin regularly for two years, this significantly undermines the conclusion. It suggests that even if the publication had occurred sooner, people still wouldn't have reduced their heart attack risk significantly in the short term, thus many heart attacks during the six-week delay wouldn't have been prevented by earlier aspirin use. This targets the assumption that earlier publication would have led to immediate and meaningful heart attack prevention.

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

   82%