Hi
KevinMercurio let me try to help
The introduction of new drugs into the market is frequently prevented by a shortage of human subjects for the clinical trials needed to show that the drugs are safe and effective.- Author has presented a general relation between drugs and human clinical trials. New drugs introduction in market is frequently prevented when there is a shortage of human for clinical trials.
Since the lives and health of people in future generations may depend on treatments that are currently experimental,- Future possibility is presented, which states that people's health and lives relies on currently ongoing experimental treatment
practicing physicians are morally in the wrong- Author concludes physicians are morally wrong
when, in the absence of any treatment proven to be effective, they fail to encourage suitable patients to volunteer for clinical trials.- this is the reason for the conclusion.
Which of the following, if true, casts most doubt on the conclusion of the argument?
We need to find the option that creates doubt on the conclusion. So Author basically assumed if the practicing physicians would have succeeded in convincing the people for trial, we clinical trials would have improved, and that is the moral thung to do.
But just think is the convincing patient a parameter to judge morality. What if the morality lies somewhere else.
Now let's look at choices C and E
(C) Usually, half the patients in a clinical trial serve as a control group and receive a nonactive drug in place of the drug being tested.- it does not talks how morality is acting here. The conclusion still holds.
(E) Physicians have an overriding moral and legal duty to care for the health and safety of their current patients.-this option says physicians lies somewhere else, and that is moral thing to do, so he is morally right to not convince
Hope this helps
KevinMercurio
I don’t understand why E and not C.
E just states what we are trying to find, but it doesn’t actually attack why they are morally in the wrong, it just states what we are looking for.
C on the other hand actually, attacks and weakens the argument. It states that half the patients are the control group. This indicates that doctors are acting morally in the right since there is an inherent risk that they test subject may not receive the drug at all, and even worse no treatment at all (since they are the control group)