I understand that a "source attack" is an inaccurate means of justifying a flaw on the LSAT. However, believing that such an innately biased source is truthful in the first place without providing further evidence in a real-life setting and then stating that a rebuttal on those grounds is problematic is a burden of proof fallacy.

Need a better explanation for how answer E is wrong in that the conclusions does not portray a casual relationship than just "the answer is too cookie-cutter and a causal link would be stupid"