Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Strengthening Questions

Many children in the public schooling system who are aged 6-8 suffer from temper tantrums in classrooms. Most of these temper tantrums are preceded by the child experiencing a growing aggravation. The use of a new learning-conducive medication can prevent up to 80% of these aggravation-spawned temper tantrums by limiting the rise in heart rate, a psychosomatic facilitator of a strong sense of aggravation.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the view that it would NOT be advisable to treat children with the new learning-conducive medication? 

Excellent!

This answer choice supports the view in the question stem. If the medication also prevents positive conditions characterized by an increased heart rate, then it wouldn't be advisable to use it as it defeats the purpose - helping children at school. Therefore, the conclusion NOT to treat children with the medication is strengthened.

Incorrect.

First of all, this answer choice is a restatement of premise C - clearly if the medication can prevent 80% of the tantrums, 20% remain untreated. While this limits the effectiveness of the medication, it does make it entirely useless. Our task is to find a statement that supports NOT using the medication at all.

Incorrect.

The information in this answer choice does not strengthen the conclusion that the medication shouldn't be used. Many medicines must be taken daily to be efficient.

Incorrect.

This statement deals with the production of the medication and is irrelevant to our task. If the new medication aids the child, it should be produced. The fact that this may take time is not a reason not to produce it and, therefore, does not strengthen the conclusion that it shouldn't be used. 

Incorrect.

This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion NOT to use the medication. The fact that there are other ways to calm a child is not in itself enough to support the conclusion that the medication should not be used.