7. The researcher does not do a full cost-benefit analysis. S/he provides reasons why the drug should be discontinued, but does not consider the wanted effects of the treatment. Perhaps the drug is the only treatment that effectively cures the disease, and, that the alternative to not taking the treatment is much worse than the side effects.

(A) Although the Researcher does not specify this, it is not a reasoning flaw. Suppose the Researcher did specify this information. If so, the reasoning would be unaffected.

For (C), there is no indication as to how many patients are treated with the drug.

(D) The author does not make any mention of the wanted effects of the drug. If the author had claimed that the side effects appeared within a specific time period of first administering the drug, but the wanted effects had not appeared yet, then (D) might be a legitimate criticism.

For (E), the author does acknowledge that the drug "usually" (more than half the time) wreaks havoc. The author does not address the desired effects of the drug, and needs to. But, s/he needs to address what those effects are, not whether the severity is always the same.

 

8. Otis assumes that treatment of a family friend and another are "relevantly similar". Tyra challenges this assumption, and (B) is the correct choice.

For (A), the two disagree as to whether the principle may be applied to a specific case -- dentists' scheduling of appointments, but no debate occurs as to whether the principle is widely applicable.

(C) is too broad -- "relevantly similar cases" means all such cases whereas the two authors are focused on doing favors for friends.

(D) states "willing", but the issue is whether Aristotle's principle may be used to determine whether the action is wrong or not, not whether or not the action should actually be performed.

(E) The content of Aristotle's views is not at issue, rather the applicability of Aristotle's views to a specific situation is. Both accept the principle.

 

9. The author does not actually conclude that the increased unsaturated fat consumption will, in fact, replace the saturated fat consumption. Instead, the author assumes that it will. (A) is the correct choice and may be negated by placing "not" between "will eat". If people continue eating the same amount of saturated fat, and increase their amount of unsaturated fat, perhaps they will not lower their risk of heart disease.

(B), (C), (D) provide statements that the author might believe, but the argument does not require these statements.

For (B), other health benefits are out of scope -- the argument is focused on lowering the risk of heart disease.

For (C), although it is necessary that diet be a factor, it is not necessary that diet be the most important factor.

For (D), the author never mentions increasing one's life expectancy.

(E) refers to the difficulty level of changing one's diet, which is irrelevant. Also, the argument is about the shift from saturated to unsaturated fat, not "very little".