PT10.S1.Q23 - no one knows what purposes

NotMyName

PSA are just not clicking for me and I feel very uncomfortable answering them even when I get them right. I'm drilling them this afternoon and I had some trouble with this question. Any tips on PSA in general would be great as well as input on this question.

Context:
There is a hypothesis that dreams are produced when the brain erases "parasitic connections" which accumulate during the day and take up space in our brain. Ant-eaters are the only mammals that doesn't have REM (when we humans have our most vivid dreams). The ant-eater has a very large brain in relation to the animal's size.

Conclusion:
This fact (ant-eaters don't REM and have big brains) provides some confirmation for the hypothesis above.

Premise:
The hypothesis predicts that for an animal have an effective memory and not dream, that animal would need extra space in the brain to account for the parasitic connections which aren't erased each night.

What I'm looking for:
Most of this question is context and that made it a little difficult for me to zone in on the conclusion and premise, not to mention it is a pretty wordy stimulus. We need to connect the premise to the conclusion. The ant-eater's anatomy aligns with the hypothesis' prediction and the argument concludes that that provides support for some confirmation of that hypothesis.

Answer Choices:
A) Facts about one species of animal (ant-eaters don't REM and have big brains) can provide confirmation for hypotheses about all species that are similar in relevant ways. I really liked this under timed conditions because it seemed to fit the mold I was looking for. Ant-eaters are mammals (similar in the relevant ways) and the author is using the facts about that animal to provide support for the hypothesis. The issue with this AC is that despite the strong language, it doesn't meet the level of sufficiency needed because it says "can". Well, does it?

Strike 1: we only have 1 prediction. Strike 2: how can we know that the majority of predictions is confirmed when we don't enough know how many predictions there are? Eliminate.

C) That's not the method of partial confirmation. Our stimulus provides a little confirmation by fitting the predicted circumstances when the hypothesis is irrelevant. Eliminate.

D) "Partially confirmed"... that's good. And the second half is good as well. The hypothesis itself doesn't explain why ant-eaters wouldn't dream, but its anatomy fits the prediction made about cases that do not fall under the hypothesis. I didn't fully grasp the different between the prediction and the hypothesis under times conditions. And I latched onto A and brought confirmation bias into the remaining AC. Correct.

E) There is only 1 hypothesis. Eliminate.