The point of this question is to figure out how the logic is flawed. Try to see what the author is overlooking. The fact that the premise is saying it should not allow for C is why it is flawed. If one scientist thinks it's 99% reliable and another thinks it is 98% reliable they do not agree how reliable it is, but it is indeed reliable. I got this question right because my thinking was the flipped answer. For example, if all scientists agree that the DNA test is extremely unreliable, it should be allowed in court just because they all agreed how reliable it is. Idk if this is right thinking but it got me there.

I'm pretty sure he's saying the LSAT is not going to test whether you can differentiate between those two types of arguments. So to avoid overcomplicating things for no reason, he is going to act as if they're identical arguments.