Public health advocate: It is generally 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.

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.

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.

D The first is proof that the advocate uses to support a prediction; the second states that prediction.

E The first acknowledges a consideration that weighs against the stance that the advocate supports; the second is that stance.

Need to know your approach how u decided the ans.
OA after some discussion.
_________________

[i]Kudos not only to one who answered correctly but also to one who put the question...[/i]

Hi...
The con of the argument is below
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.

And the author uses the 2nd bold face to support this view / belief / prediction.
if no longer encouraged to read about individual risks and drug interactions, many patients would suffer serious adverse reactions.

1st bold face, below, is a fact that the author acknowledges to be true, but doesn't use this to support his conclusion. (can be seen by the use of key word "however" )
It is also true that whenever such trials are conducted, fewer people have experienced unexpected harmful side effects, thus reducing public health risks.

So in shot is general statement of truth and 2 is also a fact that he uses to supprort his view...!

Now to the answer choices.

D&E says 2nd is conclusion .... SO WRONG
In A the 1st part is correct, however the 2nd part is NOT A consequence of 1st bold. - Adios A
In B 1st part is the a problem here, the author believes that removing Warning would result in danger hence he believes the causality will be affected if we remove the warnings - Bye bye B

C, the answer without any doubt,

But the word "consideration" troubles me in option C. I believe that "consideration" in this case is a synonym with "fact". However the second statement does not seem like a fact. Rather, it sounds like an opinion. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
_________________

Kudos Please... If my post helped.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1

Hi,

I am sorry if I am wrong, but I have a completely different choice here.

Kindly correct me experts.

The advocate says, it is true..... therefore he certainly feels that FDA standards are much safer than less-researched drugs on any day, but uses a however, just to warn that FDA is all fine, but if you don't encourage to read health risks, you make many patients suffer.

Hence I feel, it can be either A or B.
In A, the second half says - a natural consequence that must follow if the general pattern applies.... But it is more of an exception case that the advocate is discussing, that if something doesn't, something else won`t and it is a situation in which, the causal relationship accepted as true, would not hold.
I think B.

Good discussion ..
And the OA: C
Kudos to C
Official explanation:
This is the credited response. Phrase #1 gives a generally true causal relationship (FDA testing produces safer drugs), but this relationship will not occur in a particular case where another variable is changed (i.e., if testing results in fewer required warnings). Phrase #2 explains that the usual effects (safer drugs) will not apply in such circumstances because of a REASON (i.e., because people will stop thinking about individual risks).
_________________

[i]Kudos not only to one who answered correctly but also to one who put the question...[/i]

Thanks for the link.. Generally confident in CR. Although, bold face CRs do trouble me.
_________________

Kudos Please... If my post helped.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief
My Own CR Question 1|My Own CR Question 2|My Own DS Question 1|My Own DS Question 2|
My Own PS Question 1