Antibacterial hand soaps have been available since the 1920s, but only recently have they been mass marketed to consumers in containers bearing labels identifying them as containing an antibacterial agent. None of the antibacterial hand soaps presently available for over-the-counter use, however, truly sterilizes in the way that germ-killing scrubs used by hospitals do. So consumers wind up paying more for an enhancement that really is ineffective.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
A) antibacterial agents are also used extensively in other products such as home cleaners for fabrics, rugs, kitchen counters, and toilet bowls
B) experts generally agree that one of the most effective ways of preventing the spread of disease by personal contact or food handling is by the practice of thoroughly washing one's hands
C) studies show that the agents in antibacterial hand soaps are effective in killing most germs and stopping the growth of common bacteria for as long as 6 hours
D) the first germ-killing body and hand soaps, which were introduced in the 1970s, did not include mention on their labels of the antibacterial agents they contained
E) overuse of antibacterial agents in widely used products such as hand soaps may cause bacteria to produce strains that are resistant to the antibacterial agents
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

C it is...
all other answers don't come close

C conquers


The author of the argument states that antibacterial soaps are inefective.

C proves that antibacterial soaps are effective

i'll go for B.

The argument is comparing scrubs with soaps. B describes cases in which a soap will be more effective than scrubs.

C for me as well
We have to think of a premise that will weaken the conclusion that states that soaps are ineffective. C does this neatly!

(C) looks fine to me.
(A),(B),(D) doest not affect the argument,
(E) streghtens the argument but we are looking for weakener.

OA is C
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul