[求助]另一道WEAKEN 题

Medical researchf fndings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had hem reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review.It is claimed that this parctice delays public access to potentially beneficial information that , in extreme instances, could save lives. Yet prepublication peer review is the ony way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own. Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research.

The argument asssumes that

A  unless medical research findings are brought to peer revies by a meical journal, peer review will not occur.

B anyone who does not serve on a medical reviews panel dose not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research findings.

C the general public does not have access to the medical journals in which research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review.

D all medical research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review.

E  peer review penels are sometimes subject to political and professional pressures that can make their judgments less than impartial.

答案为A 我怎么就是想不通呢？虽然如果在A 的基础上家NOT，上面的ARGUMENT就说不过去了，但是着怎么衔接得上呢？有没有其他的分析思路？我觉得B 也不错，前提是大众（非审阅小组成员）都没有相关方面的知识，这才使得审阅是必要的呀？才可以用来"paid to pretect the public from...

这题有点意思，  就说A,B吧，  取非削弱说的最清楚

结论说： 为了保护公众不被非标准化研究误导，等待杂志的出现 是 必然的代价

A： 如果说 A 这条不满足会怎样呢， PEER REVIEW 即使不上在杂志也可以出现，是不是公众就可以通过其它途径得知药品的质量，所以完全可以不等待杂志的出现， 就削弱结论了贝

B：如果B不满足会如何呢， 其他不在杂志上评论的人也懂药品评价， 这有什么用呢， 如果它们会向消费者传达药品信息，才会削弱， 但没说这句话， 就是无关喽