Which of the following represents a logical flaw in the argument below?
A pharmaceutical company representative states that the company has not received any complaints about a new asthma medication. Therefore, the representative claims, the product must not be causing any unexpected side effects.
(A) The company has assumed that only certain side effects will generate complaints.
I see why you’d pick this. Its actual claim is about any unexpected side effects which may or may not be some side effects of a greater batch of all side effects
(B) The company has assumed that their clinical trials were exhaustive and representative.
No mention of this stuff in the argument. So no.
(C) The company has assumed that its representatives are not acting out of selfish interest.
No it didn’t. What is C even talking about?
(D) The company is not aware of all the possible side effects of their drugs.
(E) The company has assumed that any side effects would result in complaints to the company.
This is the correct answer simply because the argument directly assumes that all side effects will result in complaints. Therefore, since there are no complaints there are not any side effects according to the argument. But still I see some flaw in this answer because there may be side effects that aren’t unexpected but still cause complaints. Right? And this assumption applies to those side effects too though nothing in the stem applies to them.
Please explain in detail
He that is in me > he that is in the world. - source 1 John 4:4