confusing CR "human ailments"

[vivekcall81]

This is a CR question i found in NOVA GMAT:
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.
OA is E select the line to see OA.

i feel that the A should be the logical flaw because the use of animals for testing soap and cosmetics contradicts the earlier philospyhy of useing the animals for curing human ailments.

[helloriteshranjan]

A: "...her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments..."

susan never said "... justifiable only if..."

[whuannou]

(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.

The two do not contardict each other but they are simply not in the same direction of reasoning.
In her first statement she started with "cures for human ailments" and then in her 2nd statement she jumped to "cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support" without any explanation of where the link between the two is.