This one confuses me; doesn't it require an assumption that the drug company manager cares about the overall position of the company? That doesn't seem reasonable to me, and isn't supported at all by the stimulus. The argument deals exclusively in terms of the product, and doesn't introduce a premise that relies on the company's performance as a whole.

If the argument is simply:

1) a new marketing campaign could save the product

c) we should try it

then why would D weaken that, since it doesn't attack the only premise, 1?

The other answers are pretty bad, but D seems among the worst options. Certainly worse than the other popular answer, B, as B reduces the strength of 1) by making stronger the context provided describing the likelihood of success of the marketing campaign.

This Q came at the perfect time to smack me back into reality.

"Come on HBO. Do this for me."

Why would you want this lol