Question Type:
Procedure
Stimulus Breakdown:
Because one drug increased the risk of heart attack, and a second drug is similar in one way, Mark concludes that the second drug probably also increases the risk of heart attack. Kathy responds by pointing out a relevant difference between the drugs, which could undermine Mark's conclusion.
Answer Anticipation:
We're looking for an answer that involves pointing out a relevant difference.
Correct Answer:
(E)
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This is out of scope. Nothing in Kathy's response involves a product's overall safety record.
(B) This is also out of scope. Kathy doesn't compare Mark's argument to another.
(C) The Out of Scope Answer Parade continues! Mark does mention studies, but Kathy does not question their validity.
(D) This is also out of scope. We don't know if any part of Kathy's response involves a fundamental principle of medicine.
(E) This is correct. In this case, "argument from analogy" refers to the way Mark cites a known similarity between the two drugs and uses it as a basis to conclude that they are similar in another way. Kathy challenges this by noting a way in which they are dissimilar.
Takeaway/Pattern: Watch out for answer choices that seem relevant, but do not accurately describe what's happening in the stimulus.
#officialexplanation