Many children in the public schooling system who are aged 6-8 suffer from temper tantrums in classrooms. Most of these temper tantrums are preceded by the child experiencing a growing aggravation. The use of a new learning-conducive medication can prevent up to 80% of these aggravation-spawned temper tantrums by limiting the rise in heart rate, a psychosomatic facilitator of a strong sense of aggravation.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the view that it would NOT be advisable to treat children with the new learning-conducive medication?

A) Many emotional states conducive to learning are preceded by a rise in heart rate.
B) Medical research has proven that twenty percent of aggravation-related temper tantrums continue to occur when a child uses the medication.
C) Since the medication is only efficient for 8 hours, the child will have to take the medication daily to avoid temper tantrums.
D) Though tried on an initial reference group, it will take years until large scale production is available.
E) Some of the temper tantrums can be addressed through calming the child by a teacher's aid.
_________________

Hello Mechmeera
I think that B is wrong because we have a lot of medicines that does not work for some percent of people.
Some people even have contraindications to some medicines but all thess facts can not be a reason to not advise these medications to people.

A is correct because it gives bad consequence for children: they will not be productive in learning after use these medications
_________________

please explain why A is the answer

OE:

This is a tricky question since the conclusion to be strengthened appears in the question stem, rather than as part of the argument. The last premise may be mistaken for a conclusion, but it is presented as factual data. To solve this Conclusion Strengthening question, let's first break down the argument:

Premise A: children suffer from tantrums preceded by growing aggravation
+
Premise B: the medication limits the heart rate
+
Premise C: as a result, 80% of the aggravation and following tantrums are prevented

Question Stem/Conclusion: the medicine should NOT be used

Strengthening Data: ?

You are required to find data that supports NOT treating children with the medication, or, in other words, that weakens the opinion that children should be treated with it.

This answer choice supports the view in the question stem. If the medication also prevents positive conditions characterized by an increased heart rate, then it wouldn't be advisable to use it as it defeats the purpose - helping children at school. Therefore, the conclusion NOT to treat children with the medication is strengthened.
_________________

Premise: Children aged 6-8 suffer from temper tantrum in classroom that is proceeded by growing aggravation.
New learning-conducive medication can prevent aggravation by limiting the rise in heart rate.

Pre-thinking: The purpose of the drug is to promote learning by limiting the rise in heart rate. Need to find an answer that will show that this won't be achieved and therefore it won't be advisable to treat the children with this medication.