"I have CONSIDERABLE doubt that ANY amount of scientific evidence can remove it from our criminal justice processes" sounds like a forceful rejection of the premises of passage A that reference neurological science...

My interpretation of D was that they were winnowing down the initial pool of peptides to those that were most effective, i.e. they have made progress towards the goal of perfecting the product, homing in on a manageable pool realistically sized for commercial application. I would think that the earlier R&D stages involve testing billions of peptides and that proof of progress towards the final product would be a smaller, more refined pool.

Having read the explanation for why B is wrong, isn't it still an assumption that the the heat wouldn't just be fed, but fed in a way that makes it possible for the generators to convert it into electricity? Like I get that the author's conclusion is conditioned on it being fed into the generators, but that condition doesn't extend all the way to the successful conversion of the heat into electricity. I see that the premise states that these generators convert heat into electricity, but it doesn't state that they can do so regardless of how the heat is supplied. In other words, I get why B would be wrong if it didn't include the "in such a way..." part...but it does...

I don't agree that C is a sufficiently/unambiguously better answer than B for it to be included in an admissions test. Pls help me find a way to be ok w/ this question:

In saying "I suggest they merely reflect the majority opinion at any given moment", doesn't passage B answer the question posed by answer B? Like author of passage B's answer is that the majority opinion at any given moment in time is what can be learned from studying stock market mvmt. Furthermore, by saying they avoid spoofing bc ppl have to pay, she's telling us more about about what can be learned - that it reflects majority opinion, without the spoofing.

The only other factors I could think of to make C sufficiently better is (1) that B is specifically about "stock markets" rather than "markets" which I guess could also mean "prediction markets", but the 7sage explanation for why B is wrong ("passage A primarily concerned w/ answering this") implies that they are the same, since A spends a lot of time on markets not specified as "stock" markets. Or (2) That B doesn't talk enough about "movement" specifically, in the way that A does when discussing how the markets responded in real time to what people knew. However, I could argue that by saying they reflect the majority at a snapshot in time, the author is saying that any movement would be an indication of where the majority has moved.

In explanation, dude verbatim says argument is flawed because "that assumes that the only thing moving your limbs faster is good for is to catch prey", which is B. Is it wrong because B specifies predators and not mammals in general?