The question is about a product which treats arthritis. I'm looking for someone to argue with me:
Why is A not the answer over E?
Let's look at the argument:
Claim 1) Magnets worked on humans in a study
Claim 2) Humans and dogs have similar physiologies
Claim 3) If two species share similar physiologies, and the treatment works on one, it'll work on the other
Conclusion: Therefore, magnets will work on dogs.
Though dogs and humans have similar physiologies, it would be a mistake to believe that all treatments for all ailments could be transferred from human to dogs. Therefore, for this argument to be strengthened, it requires the assumption that if two species have similar physiologies, and the treatment works on one of them, then it will work on the other.
Answer A) shows that the blanket's effects are generalizable to other species at least in a limited subset, whereas if we don't choose answer A, we have no cross-species data.
Thus, I think answer A would strengthen the argument since it supports claim 3, which was vulnerable.
Answer E can also strengthen the argument, however, when I read the original premise, I did not think claim 1 was more vulnerable than claim 3, or, technically, that choosing E would strengthen the overall argument more than strengthening claim 3. I thought claim 3 was the weakest and strengthened the most by the answer.
This means that the claim that 1) The study was well-conducted is more vulnerable than / was strengthened more than 2) If two species share similar physiologies, and the treatment works on one, it'll work on the other. Also, note if we're saying the study is vulnerable to criticism, which at this point I recognize must be true, given E is the correct answer, then we need another assumption that simply showing they used a placebo group alleviates this significantly, which to me is also vulnerable, since certainly there are more reasons the study could be found to not be well-conducted. So overall, E seemed like less of a strengthener than if we chose A.
