Competitive figure skaters are judged by panels of up to nine judges,

To make an inference, assume all the statements in the stimulus are true, and look for one that must be true as a consequence.

This is one of those rare Inference questions based on an argument instead of a set of premises. Figure skating should adopt diving’s fairer scoring system. How come? Because diving knocks off the top and bottom scores from judges in order to eliminate bias (that is, the bias of a judge who might seek artificially to boost or damage a diver’s score). Since diving takes steps to eliminate the extreme scores, while figure skating just adds all scores up, there must be more room within figure skating to admit the bias an extreme score might represent. That’s exactly what correct choice (B) says.

(A) No inference can be made about relative levels of disagreement. If all judges agree, then their individual scores will be close together, and that’s fine. The issue is, rather, what happens if most scores are quite close but one maverick decides, through bias, to buck the trend.

(C) is a 180. The author clearly feels that diving scores offer less room for bias than figure skating scores. That’s why she wants the latter to adopt the system of the former.

(D) focuses on irrelevant details—details included, frankly, largely to support wrong choice (D). The six- and ten-point details, introduced in passing, aren’t material to any correction for bias.

(E) goes too far. If the omission of outlying scores were discontinued, at most we could infer that diving would be as vulnerable to bias as skating currently is. There’s no grounds for believing it would be more so.