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
Bunuel wrote:
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(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.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.
(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.
(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.
_________________
If you liked my solution then please give Kudos. Kudos encourage active discussions.
close
29% (02:33) correct 
