This isn’t the problem that the author’s trying to solve in P4 or anywhere else. The problem isn’t how well cultural relationships in general can be described by abstract models in general. The problem is specifically how comms specialists can properly understand the impact that other cultures’ media have on people.

Anti-supported. This says that if comms specialists ignore the author’s recommendations in P4, their dominance view will hold up to criticism. But the author already shows in P1 and P2 that the dominance view doesn’t hold up, with or without the recommendations in P4.

This reinforces and sums up the author’s point in P4, which is that comms specialists need to follow the author’s recommendation in order to solve the problem of how to accurately model the impact that imported media have on people.

Too strong. We know the author believes that comms specialists must follow her recommendations in P4 in order to address shortcomings in their understanding. But the author never suggests that such specialists lack credibility overall, or that they passionately crave it. (D) is pushing an argument that the author isn’t trying to make.

This shifts the focus of P4 away from purpose of the paragraph or the passage and introduces a completely new position, so it doesn’t make for a good logical extension. P4 says that the model must emphasize certain things in order to properly describe how imported media impact people. (E) changes topic by saying that what really matters about the model is actually something else: its economic insights.