Three hurdles in this question:

(1) Understand the stimulus and find out the premise and the conclusion. Here, the premise is "fully understand->consider evidence impartially" and that the conclusion is "take a strong position->consider evidence impartially." It is important to realize that "consider evidence impartially" is shared by both the premise and the conclusion, as the referential phrase "that position" tells.

(2) Putting pieces together and figuring out the missing P->C link. In this question, the link is "take a strong position->fully understand."

(3) Finding the right answer. Correct answer (C) is veiled by contrapositives: /fully understand->/take a strong position. The key is to "flip" it quickly in mind. Incorrect answer (A) is very tempting, but it is wrong because "reasonable" is a prescriptive term that doesn't constitute a conditional argument and that its logical relationship is "fully understand->take a strong position," which is against the P->C link we try to secure.

I wasn't able to find the right answer in time because a single misstep can lead me to the wrong answer, or simply a waste of time. More practice and reflection is the only solution.

This is my humble reflection on this question (not necessarily conforming to the video or text explanation):

To do this question well, you have to ID three assumptions (or at least have a gut feeling about them): (1) biology is analogous to physics; (2) solution to the problem of fraud in peer review in biology can be analogous to that in physics; (3) fixing fraud in peer review systems can lead to progress. A correct answer that strengthens the argument should address at least one of these assumptions, which are totally unwarranted. The first two analogies (one at discipline level, one at solution level) should sound the alarm in your mind when you read them; the last assumption should also alert you when you finish the last sentence (what the fuck is progress? Maybe a bit of a fraud is actually what keeps scientific communities healthy).

Incorrect answers (B) (C) and (E) are neutral/merely consistent with the argument. (B) says that biology is really good; (C) says peer review systems don't have to be perfect; and (E) says that physics is really good. All of them only talk about one aspect of the analogies. Neither of them addresses the three assumptions at play.

Incorrect answer (D) undermines the argument by disanalogizing the two disciplines, showing that they are different and thus incomparable. If two things are incomparable, why should you recommend the same solution to both things? It's totally unreasonable.

Correct answer(A) strengthens by addressing the bridge between "progress" and "having the same system of peer review." It also fixes the analogies issue by stating that this is a rule that applies in any discipline. All problems fixed.

In short, three answers of neutrality, one answer of incorrect weakening, and one answer of correct strengthening. This "311" structure seems to be a pattern for many WSE answers.

This question tests our ability of identifying, questioning, and working on analogies (between subjects and solutions) and assumptions (commonsense that fixing fraud leads to progress isn't reasonable on the LSAT). To strengthen the argument, we should abridge the unwarranted analogies and abridge the assumptions. To weaken the argument, we should disanalogize the analogies or confirm these assumptions.

Well designed question, although it gave me a headache when I first did it.

Got a 5/5! I was really surprised because I struggled through SA lessons and found most of them very convoluted. I didn't even expect myself to complete the questions in time.

What I did was getting my regular work done at night, talking to family about my study progress, having some high quality sleep, and getting up early to do these questions. All of a sudden I found that I can reason accurately and smoothly, doing all the logical diagrams in my mind without losing track of them. I guess sometimes you have to pace yourself. If you fail, take a break and try again.

It's just so helpful to learn the difference between LR and RC with the analogies of real-world lawyers.

RC=lawyers reading high court decisions=understand the rules and apply

LR=lawyers at trial=find logical flaws and attack

It seems to me that the test makers are trying to gauge my ability of understanding the difference between "qualification" and "performance" by presenting (A) and (B) back-to-back. Just because I am qualified to do something doesn't mean I can do well about something, and vice versa.

Parsing the conditional relationships: For J, it's /a member of the era->/write well. if we run the contrapositive, it's write well->a member of the era. For R, (/a member of the era) has no causal relationship with (/write well), basically negating the causal relationship J proposes. Neither party is discussing whether those people who are members of that era can or cannot write well. The point at issue is the sufficient condition of "writing well," namely, whether one is a member of the era he/she writes or not.

Ofc this is my way of understanding why it's (A) but not (B), but hopefully this helps others.