For this question I think I overanalyzed the wording here. I was down between D and E and chose E because of the plurality of "conflicts" which matched up the starting paragraph 3 "these difficulties". Also, my justification for picking E is that the concept of there being 2 different equipoise is something the author himself introduces. Therefore, to other current clinical researchers, the "general notion of equipoise" is just simply the theoretical one.

This may have been too far of a leap to make considering the other answer choices specify the type of equipoise, but the "main difficulty" part really threw me off.

Answer choice B appeared to have so many assumptions associated that I ruled it out in favor of AC(D), which at least gave a hint that Belcher and Hu's research was doing something, namely (maybe) narrowing down peptides grown thanks to better control of parameters. I know this is also a huge assumption but it just seemed more relevant to me than AC(B) would have been. How are we sure that the peptide friendly materials are the ones that can substitute?

Also, the reasoning for D being wrong is that "it only tells us what happened in the past, not giving any indication of what will or might happen". Meanwhile, B is just stating a fact about semiconductor material in general, leaving us to make all the connections to Belcher and Hu's research results.

I hope my actual exam won't have a question like this.

This was really helpful as a review of the question types in LR. Thank you!

@Daisy228 the preceding clause of "many editorialists criticize these attacks" should indicate that the author is still talking about the "attacks" rather than the politicians when stating "voters pay them scant attention".

I'm confused on what makes something an argument based on the definition of support, which is one claim being true increases the likelihood of the other to also be true. What if in this argument, the conclusion claim was instead: "Walt has never been to the Magical Kingdom?" If all the premises are true, it doesnt neccessitate the fact that Walt has NEVER been to the Magical Kingdom, but it does logically increase the likelihood of him never being there because he's never kneeled at Goofy's altar? Would this still be an argument just with very weak support? What if the conclusion was worded as "Walt has probably never been to the Magical Kingdom?"