IMO E stands out of the given options to weaken Susan claims of value..
she has not given reason on how experiment on animals could help in finding cure for human ailments where as the testing of consumer products is given by susan as a justifiable argument

These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds : The grounds are that of her argument only , i.e "it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments."
We can conclude that Susan considers cure for human ailments and supporting human values (by cleanliness, convenience and beauty) as the same thing.

But she hasn't stated any reasons behind this conclusion. Therefore option (E).
What do you think?

GMATNinja

Although i chose E, i was conflicted between E and A. I disregarded A because A says "such experimentation is justifiable ONLY if it leads to cures for human ailments" whereas Susan never said animal suffering is justifiable ONLY if it leads to cures.

Am I right in my thought process ? What other reason is justified in disregarding A.

Thanks,
-K

Pre-thinking:

Susan points out that animal suffering is an unfortunate necessity in the pursuit to save human lives and cure human ailments. Melvin counters that, on the other hand, much of experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics. Susan replies that this too is justified on the same grounds since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values.

Straightaway we can notice a language shift in the argument. While initially Susan justifies animal suffering quoting the saving of human lives, later on she only puts forth "worthwhile human values". Therefore the connection between "worthwhile human values" and "saving human lives" is not made out clearly.

Let us examine the answer options.

(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. She doesn't claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments. Eliminate.

(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life. While this is true, it cannot be treated as a "logical" flaw, which is what the question asks us to locate. Eliminate.

(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses. Same as (B). Eliminate.

(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life. She does not make any such assumption in her argument. Eliminate.

(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives. Correct answer and consistent with our pre-thinking.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________