Not supported, because the author never endorses Steele’s hypothesis. We don’t know that the author thinks Steele’s proposed mechanism for passing along acquired characteristics actually occurs.

Supported, because the author notes that reverse transcription has been observed “in other contexts,”. If it had been observed in immune cells, then it wouldn’t make sense for the author to mention that it’s been observed in other contexts without also mentioning that it’s been observed in immune cells. Furthermore, the author states that Steele “hypothesizes” that altered RNA is reverse transcribed back into DNA. If he had actually observed this occuring, it would be strange for the author to describe Steele as “hypothesizing” this occurrence, which implies that Steele doesn’t know whether this occurs.

Not supported, because the author never endorses Steele’s hypothesis. We don’t know that the author thinks Steele’s proposed mechanism for passing along acquired characteristics actually occurs.

Although Steele’s hypothesis happens to involve the immune system, the author doesn’t suggest that the passage of acquired characteristics is limited to the immune system.

Although the author does call Steele’s theory speculative, this doesn’t imply that she believes any hypothesis that can’t be confirmed by direct observation is speculative. We can’t say that she thinks, for example, Darwin’s theory of evolution is speculative. In addition, the author doesn’t believe Steele’s theory isn’t “science.” Something can be science and still speculative. The author never draws a division between speculation and science.