A new drug was recently brought to market with the claim that it facil

Hi jasmeet, though I wouldn't blame you for falling for C as the correct answer choice. It's imperative to look closely at the other answer choices and see how they stand against C. And when you do that you will see that option D stands taller than C when compared.
As per the question stem, there is no mention of the marketing company being used by the company. So, C is bringing in some new information that can be questioned as follows: What percentage of press coverage did the marketing company provide the drug company? Was it 100%? Or was it only a small number? Did majority of the public came to know about the drug through this marketing company or they came to know about it through other means, say, social media or drug company's own website? What if the marketing company came later into the picture and till then the drug company had already published the results of their new drug to the public via, lets say, there own public website/news paper/social media. So, even if the company that came into the picture late has a tainted reputation, it can not necessarily lead to a negative impact on the excitement surrounding the drug. You can say, it's a bit far fetched idea, but it is something that can certainly be a case.
For D, on the other hand, if the public comes to know about the results of the drug being short-lasting, that could seriously dampen the excitement.
Consider a case, where you read a news regarding some really cool gadget but then come to know that it lasts only two days, would you be as excited after hearing that? Certainly no! This is the reason why D outshines C and is the correct answer choice.

Why can E) not be the correct answer choice here?

Could someone help me negate option E

The option E tells us about the original trial. As passage mentions trials - it is highly possible that successive trials may not have produced those side effects.

Hence option “D”.

So why I chose E is because we are trying to dampen the excitement caused because of the potential that the drug is showing based on the original trial. If something that brings the original trial in question itself there is no potential in the drug at all. Isn't this more concrete reasong to weaken the excitement?

Hi,

I think we can look at it this way:

Goal: Increase in hair growth due to new drug

Option E says that "Some" have side effects. We dont know what % is equivalent to "Some" out of the total people who were given the drug. Also, what if the side effects are temporary?.

Whereas Option D clearly says that all those who were given the drug had hair loss in few days which will directly weaken/dampen the goal.