Q7 - After being subjected to

[sumukh09]

The core of this argument is:

nonprescription herbal remedy was found to be effective - via a study - in treating painful joints ----> manufacturer cited test results of the study as proof that chemical agents are unnecessary for treating painful joints

Essentially we're asked to justify the claim made by the manufacturer ie) that chemical agents are indeed unnecessary for treating painful joints

A) the likelihood of people switching remedies has no bearing on the claim made by the manufacturer -- eliminate on grounds of irrelevance

B) this is the correct answer because it validates the claim made by the manufacturer. If there were no chemical agents present in the herbal remedy (which was proven to be just as effective as prescription drugs), then it can be safely concluded that chemical agents are not necessary in treating painful joints; which is exactly what the manufacturer was claiming

C) Whether or not the participants tried the herbal remedy is irrelevant

D) okay? how does that help proving what the manufacturer claimed? Eliminate

E) completely out of scope - has no bearing on the conclusion

[ohthatpatrick]

Great explanation!

This problem is a good example of why I love Sufficient Assumption. When there is a key term in the Conclusion that ONLY appears in the conclusion, that key term MUST be in the correct answer.

This conclusion is trying to prove that "Chemical agents are unnecessary for treating joint pain".

"Chemical agents" were never mentioned. That term only appears in (B). Boom. One-stop shopping.

It's unusual for a new term to get us all the way to the answer, but it's very common for at least a couple answers to automatically be garbage because they don't contain the new term in the Conclusion.

Keep up the good work.