Gixxer stated "She fails to make the connection between the two and her argument falls apart".
He is correct but the omission of evidence cited in E causes the argument to fail the Sufficiency Prinicple of argumentation. However, It does not represent a logical flaw.
The Sufficiency Principle of Argumentation states: "One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion."
While it is clear Susan fails on this principle, such failure does not equate to a 'logical flaw' which is precisely what the questions asks.
I think a good lesson to learn is that being good at the GMAT means only one thing....you're good at the GMAT. If you read through any reference materials you'll see that they are teaching you to excel on the GMAT and not in real life. The same thing holds true for grammar and some math concepts. It's best to learn what what the GMAT wants. Thats why it would be way more productive taking a prep course instead of taking a math or verbal class.
This one is actaully an LSAT question and here are multiple threads confirming E11-t15936?hilit=+animal+experimentation11-t19808?hilit=+animal+experimentation11-t21159?hilit=+animal+experimentation