In other words, I think A confuses the sources and target of the analogy

doesnt A also commit the error of comparing two things in the wrong direction? my translation of A: by comparing "biases and prejudices of author is incorrect" to show "perception of physical environment is inaccurate", while in reality the stim compares the two the other way around.

I keep confusing correlation with causation. I mistook the two as interchangeable concepts because if there is causation present, then there must be some kind of correlation, right?? That's why I chose C bc I thought, oh if A --> B and B --> A are both true, then A and B will almost certainly be correlated, so yeah that strengthens the argument.

Can someone please point out why my thinking is wrong?

Isn't the question asking about the "discrepancy between the 2 studies"? I chose E because at first glance it doesnt even address the 12-years study or anything related to the comparison between foods v.s. supplements, so how are E reaffirming the logic of bc-supp =no=cause=> cancer/heart-disease? #help #feedback

For me, the lesson was not to bring outside info/my own bias. I assumed "guaranteed to be disease-free" to be "the raspberries ARE disease-free". So I was trying to nitpick on Wally's not being a large nursery and fell for the trap answers. Big mistake.