The sentence before literally says "such illustrations would be inadmissible as evidence in the courtroom unless a medical expert were present". Therefore, for something to be admissible, would it not need a medical expert present to testify its accuracy? Having a hard time understanding why A is wrong

For me, I have difficulties remembering and fully comprehending complex reading comprehension passages. With the Lo-res summaries, I feel that they are too short for me to get a good grasp of the passage itself. It's only when I write a few sentences per paragraph as a summary that I understand the passage completely. I know that this method isn't the best, especially for time, but is there a way around this?