interested!

Not sure this will help others, or if this is how the question should be looked at, but in my mind, this was how it became completely clear that D was the correct answer (I originally couldn't wrap my head around why B or C were worse choices than D).

When I viewed the "situation" referred to in answer D as the entirety of "Nuclear Accident then Bankruptcy", I understood that "The government sometimes makes unsupported claims about what situations will and could happen, but it (the Government) doesn't act to prevent a certain kind of situation (Bankruptcy due to a Nuclear Accident) unless there is a real danger such a situation will (or could) arise."

Looking at it this way proves (in my mind anyway) that yeah, the conclusion is supported or justified by answer D. The publics fears are well rounded. Why? Because the government would not act to prevent a situation (Bankruptcy due to a Nuclear Accident) unless there was a real danger that it could happen.

Okay.. 27. How is the answer not E. I just don't see where she states or implies something that is "detrimental" to society like the answer choice suggests. She does however state that further progression will require cooperation and nurturance. In my mind this implies that if continuation is to happen, cooperation and nurturance in society would inevitably need to happen (E).

Of course, I can see the argument for A, and I personally went back and forth on the answer in blind review. I just cant wrap my head around why theres more evidence for A than E.

Any input would be appreciated.

I chose B in 26 because the passage specifically talks about two different interpretations of Darwinist theory (this first one mentioned, and the latter, held by Gilman) and choice B refers to an intellectual controversy that the writer played a role in.

Choice E states nothing about 2 different interpretations, it actually implies that there was only 1. The reader wasn't "introduced to only 1 general scientific theory" we were in fact introduced to 2 of them, and sure, we were given a "detailed presentation" of Gilman's version of the second.

It just seemed to fit answer choice B better when I looked at it like that.