Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she

Professor Branch, who is chair of the sociology department, claims she saw a flying saucer the other night. But since she is a sociologist rather than a physicist, she cannot possibly be acquainted with the most recent writings of our finest scientists that tend to discount such sightings, so we can conclude that her report is unreliable.

Which of the following would be the most appropriate criticism of the author's analysis?

The argument concluded that Branch's report is unreliable since the finest physicist have recently discounted such sightings through their recent writings. Any point that would affect the claim that recent writings of the finest scientists could be wrong should be the answer i.e. the most valid criticism.

A) The author makes an irrelevant attack on Professor Branch's credentials. --> No irrelevant claims are made. She's chair of sociology dept, there's nothing to refute that.
B) The author may not be a physicist, and may therefore not be acquainted with the writings cited. ---> irrelevant.
C) Even the US Air Force cannot explain all of the sightings of UFOs which are reported to it each year. ----> irrelevant.
D) A sociologist is sufficiently well educated to read and understand scientific literature in a field other than her own. ---> While true, but it could be possible that despite being sufficiently educated enough, professor branch was still not acquainted with most 'recent' writings. Hence, not a weakener.
E) It is impossible to get complete agreement on matters such as the possibility of life on other planets. ---> Should be correct. Since, the basis of conclusion is that the finest scientists tend to discount such sightings, implying that UFO's don't exist, if scientists themselves were wrong, then professor brach's report could be reliable.


IMHO correct answer should be E.


Please give kudos if this helps!