Question

Drug manufacturer: Although our company requires that patients who use our new drug also purchase from us nonreusable kits for weekly blood testing, the expense of those kits is an entirely necessary one: weekly blood testing must be done to monitor the drug's potential side effects, which can be very dangerous.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the manufacturer's argument?

• A. The expense of purchasing the blood-test kits has not prevented any patients from obtaining them or the drug.
• B. Medical laboratories can perform the blood testing at a lower cost to patients or their insurers than the price the manufacturer charges for the kits.
• C. A one-year supply of the drug and the weekly blood-test kits can cost patients or their insurers over $10,000.
• D. Most government and other health insurance programs will not reimburse patients for the full cost of both the drug and the blood-test kits.
• E. Patients who suffer one or more of the dangerous side effects of the drug can incur heavy expenses for the treatment of those side effects.

Hint:

In critical reasoning, be alert for arguments that equivocate or shift terms. The argument slides from "testing is necessary" to "our expensive product is necessary." The key to weakening such an argument is to show that the first part can be true without the second part being true.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a "weaken the argument" question. We need to identify the logical flaw in the manufacturer's reasoning and find an answer choice that exploits it.
Step 2: Key Formula or Approach:
The manufacturer's argument has this structure:
- Premise: Weekly blood testing is necessary.
- Conclusion: Therefore, the expense of our company's kits is necessary.
The logical flaw is a conflation of two different ideas: the necessity of the testing and the necessity of purchasing their specific, expensive kits to do the testing. The argument implicitly assumes that their kits are the only way to get the necessary tests done. To weaken the argument, we must show this assumption is false.
Step 3: Detailed Explanation:
- (A) This strengthens the argument by suggesting the expense is not a prohibitive barrier.
- (B) This directly attacks the flawed assumption. If other labs can perform the same necessary testing at a lower cost, then the expense of the manufacturer's kits is not necessary. Patients could get the test done elsewhere. This severs the link between the premise and the conclusion.
- (C) This highlights the high expense but doesn't challenge the manufacturer's claim that the expense is necessary.
- (D) This is similar to (C), focusing on the financial burden but not the logic of the necessity claim.
- (E) This strengthens the manufacturer's case by emphasizing how important it is to monitor for side effects, reinforcing the need for testing.
Step 4: Final Answer:
By showing that a cheaper, alternative method exists for the necessary blood testing, this option proves that the expense of the manufacturer's specific kits is not, in fact, "entirely necessary."