The answer is A.We'll use the
Logical
approach, since this question is all about following the logic of the argument.
The claim can be summarised thusly: 1) we shouldn't authorise drugs without enough information, 2) we don't have enough information about antihistamine, 3) conclusion: we should reduce drugs in general.
This argument doesn't make any sense, UNLESS we assume that we know even less about most drugs than we do about antihistamine. This is exactly what (A) tells us.
As always, we can also go the
Alternative
route and use the answers, though this may not be as efficient.
(A) The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being used
great! if we know men less about other drugs, we definitely don't want to approve them(B) The social impact of some of the new drugs beings tested is poorly understood
this does somewhat strengthen the argument somewhat, but not as much as (A). We are only told this about SOME new drugs, whereas the conclusion is about all of them(C) The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.
Which new drugs? how many? and is their economic success high or low? without more information, this doesn't mean much (D) The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested
this tells us SOME of the new drugs should be reduced, but the conclusion is about most of them(E) The new antihistamine should be on the market only if most new drugs should be on the market also
confusing and not informative