same :(

It's not E because they're not giving a manual for overcoming low cohesion.

Sentence prior: Talking about cohesion and its definition

Sentence in q: provides contrast to the opposite

Sentence after: the language seems like it's going towards a manual on how to overcome this fear in low cohesion, BUT they are actually describing a highly cohesive group and why they don't censor; so basically providing support to the principle stated in the beginning of the sentence and the last sentence of the paragraph.

It's mainly not D because the idea that groupthink can "develop" goes against the necessary/sufficient rule they stated:

Cohesiveness of the decision-making group is an essential antecedent condition for this syndrome but not a sufficient one...

So if gt->then coh

but coh cannot ->gt

And the idea of it developing is unsupported by the author. Yes, in the beginning, they discuss how cohesion may reduce censorship as a group which leads you to infer that there is possibility for ground that a groupthink may come out of this. Also they state the group is "closely associated" (not parallel to cohesion btw), but the whole basis of their argument is based upon how groupthink is a major pitfall to cohesive groups. The q is asking about the author's POV.

Wow, i was stuck on the "latter" part, i thought they meant the museum store sole works later than 20th century ;_;