Argument:

- In a new procedure, all 3 tiny bones are replaced by a piece of fibreglass.
- It improves hearing in people who have experienced damage to these bones
- It is useless to people whose hearing loss stems from a neurological malfunction.
- It will benefit a relatively small percentage of the hearing-impaired population (note that this is not derived from the previous two statements. This just tells us that the number of people who have hearing loss due to damage to these 3 bones is a relatively small percentage)


A)It is possible to hear without the use of the three tiny bones in the inner ear.
Since it "improves" hearing, we can say that it is possible to hear even with damage to the 3 bones.

B)Most hearing loss is due to neurological malfunctioning.
Not necessary. We know that the number of people who have hearing loss due to damage to these 3 bones is a relatively small percentage. There could be 5 other reasons for hearing loss.

C)More people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage than because of damage to the tiny bones of the inner ear.
Again, not necessary. We don't know how many people have impaired hearing because of neurological damage. It could be a small number or a big number. We just know that people who have hearing loss due to damage to these 3 bones is a relatively small percentage

D)Hearing loss due to neurological damage is more severe than hearing loss due to damage to the tiny bones in the inner ear.
Not known. Which loss is more severe is certainly not known. We just know that a piece of fibreglass can fix the 3 bones damage. How and how much can we fix the neurological damage, we cannot say.

E)The use of fiberglass cannot help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage.
Not known. This procedure (replacing 3 tiny bones with a piece of fibreglass) does not help people who have lost hearing due to neurological damage. Can use of fibreglass in some other way help people with neurological damage, we can't say.

Answer (A)