The author concludes that the doctors who advised the 25% of patients “were more interested in an opportunity to practice their skills and in their fee than in helping the patient.” The author reaches this conclusion on the basis of the fact that the 25% did not benefit from the surgery. In other words, simply because the 25% did not benefit from their surgeries, the advising doctors had ulterior motives.

With that in mind, here’s (C):


(C) indicates that most patients who underwent surgery did so because they were advised that it would reduce the risk of future heart attacks. But we don’t actually know whether the doctors advising those patients were genuine and telling the truth or merely promising benefits to sell a surgery. It’s possible that they were genuine, and the surgery simply failed to benefit the patients. But it’s equally possible that the doctors promised the hope of a reduced risk of future heart attacks simply in order to practice their skills and receive a fee.

For that reason, (C) neither weakens nor strengthens the argument, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi, In my process of elimination, I ended up in options D and E. Both E and E are weakening the conclusion. How come E is better than D ?. Please guide.

Check out this post and see whether that clears it up!
_________________