A new medication for migraine seems effective, but there is concern th

Premises (In logical chronological order)
1) New medication for migraine seems effectvie <-- not effective, but seems to be
2) Concern about new medication is it might exacerbate heart disease <-- use of 'might' (maybe)
3) Concer about side effects is unfounded
4) If patients with heart disease take medication under medical supervision ---> then side effects can be averted (conclusion)


If A then B, If Non B, then non A

We want an assumption to hold up the conclusion.

The argument depends on which one of the following assumptions?

(A) The new medication actually is effective when taken by patients with heart disease.
- Doesn't help. In fact refutes the premise given in the passage. A is out.

(B) No migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication except under careful medical supervision.
- Non A doesn't mean Non B. So this is out.

(C) Most migraine sufferers who have taken the new medication in trials also had heart disease.
- This most supports the conclusion that taking the medication under supervision (trials) can avert the side effects

(D) The new medication has various other side effects, but none as serious as that of exacerbating heart disease.
- Doesn't help

(E) The new medication will displace all migraine medications currently being used.
- Still doesn't tell us how medical supervision can avert side effects

C it is