Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.

Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.

Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.

Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?

(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.

(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.

(C) She uses the word “value” in two different senses.

(D) She assumes that all ordinary consumer products aid in the preservation of human life.（E）

(E) She fails to show how mere support for human values actually preserves human lives.

我看了讨论集合里面没有关于这道题目的求助呢~可是我怎么都不明白为什么选E啊~我选的是A~因为觉得她第一次说的理由是cures for human ailments，第二次给的理由又是worthwhile human values，仔细想想选E的理由是不是意思是没有解释清楚human value和preseve human lives之间的关系？但是明显cleanliness, convenience, and beauty 与preseve human lives没有联系啊~

请NN们赐教啊！