Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in

I think I would go with (E). The first gold portion seem to undermine the need for warnings - drugs are safer (hence acknowledgement of something against the conclusion); the second part is the conclusion (warnings are still necessary even though drugs are safer).

Is OA available?

IMO B


Public health advocate: Generally over the past 30 years in the United States, it is true that medications that undergo the extensive FDA Phase III clinical safety testing are much safer than less-researched drugs. It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks. However, eliminating the requirement that even FDA-tested medications continue to include extensive warnings about individual risk factors would almost certainly harm rather than help public health. Consumers would tend to rely on the FDA’s general certification of safety, and if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

The two bolded statements serve what purpose in the context of the public health advocate’s argument?

A.The first is a general pattern that the advocate accepts as true; the second is said to be a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies -->1st: correct, 2nd: it's not a "must follow" -->wrong
B.The first is a causal relationship that the advocate believes will happen again in the case at issue; the second admits a situation in which the relationship would not hold -->1st true: (it will happen if nothing unusual occurs), 2nd true: it states a situation that when people are no longer encouraged to read the warning, the 1st will not happen --> the best
C.The first describes a cause and effect relationship that the advocate believes will not hold in the case at issue; the second suggests a consideration that supports that belief -->1st: no info stated that the advocates believes it will not happen -->wrong
D.The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction -->both are totally wrong
E.The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance -->1st: does not weaken any stance of the author, it is weakened by another situation --> wrong

betweeb [spoiler]B[/spoiler] and [spoiler]C[/spoiler], i think [spoiler]C[/spoiler] fits better here...

[spoiler]B[/spoiler] says

Advocate believes that this relationship will not hold if consumers are not encouraged to see the warning labels. In the context of the whole argument, he never believes that this relationship will again be valid in future, rather he predicts the opposite which is what [spoiler]C[/spoiler] says