请教一道逻辑题

It is illegal to advertise prescription medications in Hedland except directly to physicians, either by mail or in medical journals.  A proposed law would allow general advertising of prescription medications.  Opponents object that the general population lacks the specialized knowledge to evaluate such advertisements and might ask their physicians for inappropriate medications.  But since physicians have the final say as to whether to prescribe a medication for a patient, inappropriate prescriptions would not become more common.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument? E

(A) Whether advertising for prescription medications might alert patients to the existence of effective treatments for minor ailments that they had previously thought to be untreatable

(B) Whether some people might go to a physician for no reason other than to ask for a particular medication they have seen advertised

(C) Whether the proposed law requires prescription-medication advertisements directed to the general public to provide the same information as do advertisements directed to physicians

(D) Whether advertisements for prescription medications are currently an important source of information about newly available medications for physicians

(E) Whether physicians would give in to a patient's demand for a prescription medication chosen by the patient when the one originally prescribed by the physician fails to perform as desired

這是GWD1-Q18的題目, 選項已經改寫過了, 不過基本邏輯思路是ㄧ樣的, 換湯不換藥.

題目:除了在專業醫學雜誌跟直接郵寄給醫藥師之外,任何處方藥的廣告都是非法的. 現在法律建議可以廣告處方藥,反對的人認為外行人缺乏辨識處方藥的知識,會向醫師要不適當的處方藥. 但是因為醫師有最後的話事權,所以這種反對的說法是站不住腳的. 問判斷?

E.      Whether physicians are likely to succumb to pressure from patients to prescribe inappropriate medications
  藥師是否會屈服於大眾的壓力. 如果是, 病人要什麼藥物就給什麼, 就會造成不當藥物的產生.