The notion that Jane’s headache will not be relieved is undercut by the stimulus’ premise that all headache pills can stop headaches.

The difference isn’t whether these pills stop headaches, but how quickly they stop headaches.

(B) is spot on except for the distinction described in the analysis: the advertisement’s guarantee that no pill stops pain more quickly than Danaxil includes the possibility that Evelyn’s and Jane’s headaches will be cured equally quickly.

(D) and (B) are actually two sides of the same coin – both single out one part of “equally quickly or more quickly” and leave out the other.

(C) stays on the right side of the “not more = the same or less” distinction: saying Evelyn’s headache will be relieved at least as quickly as Jane’s means it’ll either be cured equally quickly or more quickly.

While it’s possible their headaches will be cured at the same time, it’s also possible that Evelyn’s headache will be relieved more quickly than Jane’s.

(D) and (B) are actually two sides of the same coin – both single out one part of “equally quickly or more quickly” and leave out the other.

(E) might sound good as a way to round out the advertisement’s script – like “oh boy, you can bet next time Jane will use Danaxil!” while some footage of Evelyn frolicking through a field plays in the background – but it’s not a claim that’s directly supported by the stimulus.

Currently, of course, she’s not taking Danaxil – she’s taking a competing pill. And in the future? Who knows!