From my understanding, (E) is wrong because the absence of cell walls in some bacteria "results from changes in the interactions among genes, without any attendant changes in the genes themselves" (P2). Meanwhile, horizontal transmission has to do with a newly "acquired" gene. So, while the absence of the cell wall could be an example of an "environmental agent" changing the expression of a gene, it's not inserting or deleting a gene itself since the bacteria already have the gene that allows them to "break down rigid cell walls as necessary..."

Also, the next paragraph's intro sentence says, "A fundamentally different kind of environmentally induced heritable characteristic occurs when specific genes are added to or eliminated from an organism." So we know the absence of the cell wall is NOT this.

Isn't B wrong because it would support the argument? I don't see how it is bait... The timeframes line up, even if it could be referring to earlier times.

I do not get how a director's changing of the entire setting and time of a play is equivalent to a reader bringing their own life experiences in their interpretations of a book... idk

But by the same logic that makes (E) right, couldn’t (C) also be valid? Like:

• It’s possible the total actual number of crimes has increased,

• while the per capita actual crime rate has decreased,

• and at the same time, the per capita reported crime rate has increased (due to higher reporting rates).

So shouldn’t that make (C) a potential resolution too?