Self-study
A new medication for migraine seems effective, but there is concern that the medication might exacerbate heart disease. ██ ████████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The author starts by introducing some people's concern that this new migraine medication will exacerbate heart disease. He then argues against this concern by pointing out that if people with heart disease take the medication under careful medical supervision, "harmful side effects can definitely be avoided." On this basis, he claims that concern about those side effects is "unfounded."
Analysis: Identify Assumptions
The author claims that "The concern about those side effects is unfounded." To be "unfounded" is to have no basis in reality; he is saying that there is no reason to be concerned that people taking this medication will exacerbate their heart disease. But the only reason the author provides against this concern is a conditional one: if people take this medication under careful medical supervision, then harmful side effects can be averted.
In other words, the author's argument requires the assumption that the sufficient condition will be met: i.e., that people with heart disease will only take this migraine under careful medical supervision. If many people won't, or if that level of careful medical supervision isn't available to everyone taking the medication, this undermines the author's claim that the concern about this medication is "unfounded."
3.
The argument depends on which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████
a
The new medication ████████ ██ █████████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ████████
Incorrect. The argument isn't about whether the medicine achieves its primary effect of averting migraines in people with heart disease. The focus of the argument is entirely on whether people with heart disease taking this medication can avoid its harmful secondary effects. The author is arguing against concern about the side effects, not arguing in favor of taking this medication because it is definitely effective. So (A) isn't a necessary assumption.
b
No migraine sufferers ████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████████████
Correct. If we negate this, we get: "Some migraine sufferers with heart disease will take the new medication without careful medical supervision." If this is true, then it is not true that the concern about this medication exacerbating heart disease is "unfounded." In some people, there would still be a chance of the medication's side effects exacerbating heart disease.
c
Most migraine sufferers ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████████
Incorrect. The argument doesn't require any assumptions about who took this medication in the initial trials. The stimulus doesn't reference the trial stage of this medication at all.
d
The new medication ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████████
Incorrect. The author argues that harmful side effects in general can be avoided by careful medical supervision. He doesn't make any distinction between more or less harmful side effects, or assume that exacerbating heart disease is the most serious of these side effects. The real assumption is that people will actually be under careful medical supervision when they take the medication.
e
The new medication ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████████ █████████ █████ █████
Incorrect. Nothing in the argument requires the assumption that this medication will replace all other migraine medications.