PT30.S4.Q20 - Consumer Advocate: The introduction of a new drug

shegotit

Admin edit: Please review our forum rules. Posting licensed LSAC materials is against the rule.
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-30-section-4-question-20/

I thought B was correct because the conclusion is that general reductions need to be taken when it comes to the pace of bringing the marketplaces new drugs being tested. I figured that since the social impact of antihistamine was far from clear than that means that it wasn't understood which then also lead me to believe that maybe there needs to be a reduction of the pace when it comes to drugs being tested because they are not clearly being understood which is what lead me to answer choice B. I see how B could be wrong when it comes to the wording of some. How is A correct though?

Admin note: edited title

Logic Gainz

We know that the new antihistamine drug's social impact is understood
somewhat since it's being marketed. This inference needs to be made in order to understand the stimulus fully. The first contextual sentence tells us that drugs can be marketed to the extent that we understand its social impact. The fact that the antihistamine drug is being marketed at all is enough for us to infer that we at least know a little bit about it's social impact. Otherwise, we wouldn't have marketed the drug.

We are told, however, that our understanding of its social impact isn't perfect. From this premise, we then conclude that the drugs in the pipeline definitely shouldn't be brought to market. The argument seems to emphasize that our understanding of the antihistamine drug leaves a lot to be desired, but the way the conclusion is drawn, it seems like we at least know more about this new antihistamine drug than we know about these drugs being tested. That's what, A, says. If you begin by reading the stimulus again, but start with the second sentence, this argument core will become more clear.

B is wrong because it doesn't connect the second sentence, the main premise, with the conclusion. That's essentially what strengtheners are supposed to do. B doesn't support that structure because it doesn't incorporate anything about the antihistamine statement. Why was that statement about the antihistamine drug even said if B is all we need to strengthen the conclusion?