After reading my post you will see how this is not that bad!
This is a long argument, but not really complex.
The conclusion is:
The relaxation of regulations governing the manufacture and sale of new medicines to increase their availability should not be part of a larger act to relax all regulations with industrial activity.
In other words, the author wants to make sure only a certain part of regulations are relaxed. While it may be a good thing for that part to be relaxed, the author does not want an across the board relaxation of rules for industrial activity, just the manufacture and sale of new medicines. The reason the author wants this done is so that the availability of medicines will increase.
Sounds good.
However, why in the world would the author not want to relax regulations across the board for industrial activity?
The author tells us!
Unless strict environmental regulations are maintained, endangered species of plants and animals will become extinct.
In other words,
endangered species of plants and animals do not become extinct ---> strict enviro. regs. are maintained
Well, la dee dah!
Who cares about endangered species of plants and animals. Weren't we talking about new medicines and their increase availability here? Maybe relaxing these regulations will help to increase the new meds availability.
I am thinking, where is this author going?
Next line!
A large majority of those new meds are derived from plants and animals.
Then the author tells us that since those new meds are derived from plants and animals, a general relaxation of regs in industrial activity
could undermine the original intent of relaxing the regs concerning sale and manufacture of new meds.
The question stem asks us for the role played by the part "large majority of new medicines are derived from plants and animals."
We know that this role can be seen as a premise supporting the subsidiary conclusion of "a general relaxation of regs in industrial activity could undermine the original intent of relaxing the regs concerning sale and manufacture of new meds.
And we know that the subsidiary conclusion is supporting the main conclusion of the should statement in the first sentence of this stimulus.
Answer choices:
A) Not a single mention of research in the stimulus. Eliminate.
B) This is evidence used to support the author's own statement. Eliminate.
C) Cannot infer anything about
overregulation of industrial activity.
D) Looks good. Does not have that abstract wording that we are familiar with on the LSAT, but this statement of "large majority of new meds..." shows us the relevance to why any decrease to the number of plant and animal species
could undermine the intent of INCREASING availability of new meds.
E) The author does not say that only narrow efforts of deregulation has beneficial results. The author is targeting a goal of increasing availability of new meds. Perhaps in a different subject matter, relaxing regs can be beneficial as part of a wide effort of deregulation.