The first two paragraphs present the background information about the drug, but the fourth paragraph introduces the point the author was trying to make by writing it. Until now there has been no mention of misleading information. Yet from now until the end of the article, the author cites ways in which the media presented false or misleading information regarding the drug’s legitimacy. The author argues that the media acted with haste to publish the medical field’s findings, but is not arguing a point presented by anyone who made such findings, so choice a is incorrect. The fourth paragraph is contrary to objectivity, so choice b is incorrect. The study isn’t being denounced, it is only suggested that it needs more research before a conclusion can be reached, so choice d is incorrect. This paragraph does not compare the opinions of medical professionals, so choice e is incorrect.

The author acknowledges that medical advances have been made regarding the treatment of Alzheimer’s, but shows disdain for the media’s inaccurate and premature conclusions. The advancements are surely exciting, but when IVIG will be available is unknown. Although the author states that more research is needed regarding IVIG, there is never any mention of testing on mice, so choice b is incorrect. The answer is not choice c. There is never mention of coercing abnormal clumps rather than attacking them. The answer is not choice d. The author never suggests why the media presented misleading information, but only that it was done. The author hasn’t made reference to a national healthcare system, so choice e is incorrect.