« on: August 27, 2009, 08:14:50 AM »
Main claim of the stimulus is that the definition of addiction - dependence on and abuse - is incorrect. to support this, the stimulus says cancer patients can become dependent on morphine but is not abusing it. Also, a person can abuse a drug without being dependent on it. the premise basically infers that the two - dependence and abuse - do not go together; thus the definition being incorrect for saying they do. so the author thinks the definition of addiction should be something like "either one is dependent or abusive of substance".
choice (C) makes this possible by saying patients being dependent on morphine are addicted to it (satisfying the "or").
choice (A) is wrong because if you were to negate it, it would be something like "patients sometimes abuse morphine" and it would have no affect on the conclusion. Plus, this is a supporter assumption question according to the LRB, so you need to "bridge" the existing gap. and (A) just doesn't have any relation to the conclusion.
hope this helps.