In simple terms, isn't E basically saying that out of this study of 100 people, there are 4 people who take lots of BC and smoke and then there are 50 people who take very little BC and smoke. If so, can we just say that it would be wrong to draw any conclusions when the group allocations are this off? Of course the results of the study are going to be wrong if the group numbers can distort things.

I am not a big fan of the wording of the answer. I got this question correct via POE but I feel like we are glossing over the fact that the stimulus maintains that "SOME critics claim ..." and then the answer choice jumps to "the public benefit is not a requirement for justification ...". This may seem trivial, but does the answer choice not make it sound like the scientist are making a normative statement about the critics claim which would not be supported by the scientist since they are simple restating what SOME critics say. I would feel a lot better if the answer choice said something like "the critics claim that ...".

If I am missing something that might clear this up, plz do let me know! Thanks.

Hmm ... what if we found a way to genetically modify panthers to adapt to a this current habitat? The stimulus does not necessarily demand that the current habitat be made larger, the stimulus leaves open other possibilities no matter how unlikely. Therefore, C would not qualify as MBT?

Just speculating - it is clear that C is incorrect via POE.