Hi PearlNova,I can see why E is tempting: the grief of the relatives
feels like the emotional heart of the argument, so it's easy to mistake it for the main point. But E is actually the ethicist's
reason, not the ethicist's
conclusion.
Look at the signal word the ethicist uses:
"
since the relatives of the patients who die... would be particularly grieved, the financial saving involved in using ASA over TPA
must also be weighed against such considerations."
The word
"since" always introduces a premise - the support. So the grief of the relatives is the
evidence. What that evidence is offered to prove comes after the comma: that the money saved must
also be weighed against these considerations. That "must be weighed" claim is the point the whole argument is driving toward - and that is exactly what
(C) restates.
A quick test you can always run: put the two statements in a "because" sentence and see which order makes sense.
- "The cost can't be judged only against lives saved,
because relatives would grieve." ✅ Makes sense.
- "Relatives would grieve,
because the cost can't be judged only against lives saved." ❌ Backwards.
The statement that sits in the
because slot is the premise - that's E. The statement it's supporting is the conclusion - that's C.
One more note: E also slightly misreads the stimulus. The ethicist doesn't compare how
much relatives grieve under ASA vs. TPA; it just says relatives of those who die on the cheaper drug would be particularly grieved. So even on its own wording, E adds a comparison the argument never makes.
Bottom line: E is the
why, C is the
point. Whenever you spot "since" or "because," the real conclusion is on the
other side of it.
Answer: CPearlNova
HI
I still don't get why E can't be the answer because in my opinion, that is the main conclusion.
Someone please help.