A new drug
A new drug, taken twice daily for one month, is an effective treatment for a certain disease. The drug now most commonly prescribed for the disease occasionally has serious side effects such as seizures; the new drug has side effects much more frequently, but the worst of them is mild nausea. Therefore, the new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A) It is possible that the drug now most commonly prescribed has side effects that have not yet been attributed to it.
B) People who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely.
C) Other drugs for the disease have typically been prescribed only for patients allergic to the most commonly prescribed drug.
D) People who have received effective treatment for disease do not generally contract the disease again.
E) There is a nonprescription medication that when taken with the new drug prevents the onset of nausea.
My Ques: Please explain how is B Right?
The new drug is effective against a certain disease
The new drug has more frequent side effects but the side effects are minimal like mild nausea
The new drug is clearly preferable as a treatment because of the above. What the argument fails to consider is the fact that the new drug is effective only if taken twice daily for one month.
According to B, if people who experience nausea are prone to discontinue use of the new drug prematurely and don’t complete the course of the medicine, then the new drug cannot effectively treat the disease
Hope this helps!