As D is deemed to be the right answer for question 7, why is a complete detachment being equated to objectivity? It states that the author would agree that "they were incorrect in assuming that researchers in the social sciences are able to gather data in an entirely objective manner." But, the passage states, that they subscribed the view that effective data gathering must be conducted from a "position of complete detachment." I am not understanding how the question is considering this position of complete detachment as an "objective manner." What's to say that research with complete immersion can't be objective to the same degree?

In fact, it seems counterintuitive. If the author is claiming that this view is unrealistic prior in the sentence, how would it be simultaneously true for this author to also consider this as an entirely "objective" practice?

On the other hand, the explanation for why option C is wrong does not make sense to me. The explanation states that we have no reason to think that the author believes personal involvement in one's research improves scientific rigor. I would argue that we do have reasons to believe this. The author praises Dunham's prolonged immersion for valuable and accurate results it generated that otherwise would not have been produced through complete detachment.

For Q7, it does not make sense to me how D is the right answer. The question asks for a statement that can be inferred to be in agreement by both authors. However, passage A does not mention a predictable course of music, but rather continuous sound. Continuous sound does not necessarily have to be predictable, just continuous. This question is pretty aggressively equating continuity with predictability.

On the other hand, I would argue that both authors would agree on E. Passage A mentions that danger tends to be accompanied by sudden, unexpected sounds and even soft discontinuous sounds can be "disturbing". In this case, a switch from soft to loud would be considered a sudden, unexpected sound, if not a soft discontinuous sound at the minimum. In passage B, it is stated that an extreme mismatch of expectations will result in negative emotions in a listener. The switch from soft to loud would reasonably go against someone's expectations of a song, which would create negative emotions like that of disturbance and unpleasantness.

I'm a little hung up on the use of language in option C as part of question 3. Particularly, the word "disprove" is throwing me off. The stimulus states he "never refuted." How are "disprove" and "never refuted" used interchangeably in this context? Wouldn't "disproving" require Smith to provide evidence that completely extinguishes that reality as opposed to simply not expressing disagreement? Their connotational differences make it confusing especially as we are advised to watch out for extreme language in these lessons.