Pamela: Physicians training for a medical specialty serve as resident staff physicians in hospitals. They work such long hours up to 36 consecutive hours that fatigue impairs their ability to make the best medical decisions during the final portion of their shifts. Quincy: Thousands of physicians now practicing have been trained according to the same regimen, and records show they generally made good medical decisions during their training periods. Why should what has worked in the past be changed now?

Which one of the following, if true, is the most effective counter Pamela might make to Quincy’s argument?

(A) The basic responsibilities of resident staff physicians in hospitals have not changed substantially over the past few decades.
(B) Because medical reimbursement policies now pay for less recuperation time in hospitals, patients in hospitals are, on the average, more seriously ill during their stay than in the past.
(C) It is important that emergency-room patients receive continuity of physician care, insofar as possible, over the critical period after admission, generally 24 hours.
(D) The load of work on resident physicians-in-training varies according to the medical specialty for which each is being trained.
(E) The training of physicians should include observation and recognition of the signs indicating a hospitalized patient’s progress or decline over a period of at least 36 hours.

B for me. This makes sense since the old guys had less ill (serious) patients and hence less decision making. New guys are the one in trouble.

B.
Qunicy says it worked in the past so no change.
Choice B) directly refutes with "patients have serious illness now than in the past".

(B) brings in a condition that differentiates past from present. Hence the best choice.