Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply

Ethicist: Surely there can be no doubt that animals suffer. Simply observe the reactions of animals when subjected to various pain causing procedures. Since all humans agree that bad things should be avoided and most agree that pain is bad, there is no compelling reason to subject animals to any sort of scientific experimentation.

The bolded phrases play which of the following roles in the argument above?

A. The first statement is a scientific fact offered to support the conclusion reached in the second statement. - wrong
The first statement is a scientific fact - False -> it is a intermediate conclusion of ethicist
Second is the conclusion - True ->

B. The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion while the first statement is a baseless emotional appeal. - wrong
The second statement offers the ethicists main conclusion - True
first statement is a baseless emotional appeal - False -> Ethicist offers justification ('observe the reactions of animals'). It is also not an emotional appeal

C. The second statement is the conclusion the argument is structured to lead to while the first statement contains unimportant information. - wrong
The second statement is the conclusion the argument - True
first statement contains unimportant information - False -> The first is the intermediate conclusion and it is important.

D. The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion while the first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion. - Correct
The second statement is the argument’s main conclusion - True
first statement contains a subsidiary conclusion - True

E. The first statement is a conclusion that the second statement is designed to undermine. - Wrong
first statement is a conclusion - False -> Its a subsidiary conclusion
second statement is designed to undermine - False -> The second statement doesn't undermine the first statement. The first statement supports the conclusion which is the second statement