The medicine portion argues medicine should only be taken when the costs of taking the medication are less than the costs of not taking the medication.

This does not imply anything about the overall amount of harm arising from either condition. It can be true that a medicine creates significant harm, but not taking the medicine would be more harmful. JY's example of chemotherapy is helpful to see this concept, chemotherapy itself causes a lot of harm to the body but it saves lives so it is still justifiable.

Answer choice B eliminates this comparative element, stating any government action that creates significant harmful effects cannot be justified, regardless of the current costs of doing nothing. Therefore, answer choice B removes the element you identified as most important, the existence and comparison of these potential effects. This is the difference between absolute and relative language he explains in the answer choice B explanation above.

Answer choice D directly points to this comparison using the language "less damage" to compare the two choices.

Hope that helps!

Consider how it relates to the conclusion. In the Disney example, removing the information about how people can get the Genie+ pass would significantly impact the strength of the argument. In contrast, removing the sentence about the opinion of "some managers" does nothing to impact the strength of the relationship between the premise and conclusion in the argument.

You are entering an individual in that is not mentioned in the premise or conclusion. We are not discussing an individual deciding what type of pet to buy, just the general idea that some mammals are not suitable pets.

The beginning of the next lesson video discussing the reasonableness of different assumption emphasizes this well.