Studies have shown that treating certain illnesses with treatment X produces the same beneficial changes in patients’ conditions as treating the same illnesses with treatment Y. Furthermore, treatment X is quicker and less expensive than treatment Y. Thus, in treating these illnesses, treatment X should be preferred to treatment Y.
Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?The argument says treatment X gives the same benefits as treatment Y, but is quicker and cheaper. So it concludes that X should be preferred.
The key weakness would be evidence that X has an important
disadvantage that Y does not have.
(A) Unlike treatment Y, treatment X has produced harmful side effects in laboratory animals.
This is correct. If X may have harmful side effects and Y does not, then X may not be preferable even though it is quicker and cheaper.
(B) There are other illnesses for which treatment Y is more effective than treatment X.
This is irrelevant. The argument is only about “these illnesses,” not other illnesses.
(C) Until recently, treatment X was more expensive than treatment Y.
This does not weaken the argument. The argument is about which treatment should be preferred now.
(D) Treatment Y is prescribed more often by physicians than treatment X.
This does not weaken the argument much. What doctors currently prescribe more often does not show that Y is actually better.
(E) A third treatment, treatment Z, is even quicker and less expensive than treatment X.
This does not weaken the comparison between X and Y. Z may be even better, but X could still be preferred to Y.
Answer: (A)