Summarize Argument
The writer argues that Lemaître’s is inadequate because, although its prediction matches our current observations of galaxies speeding away from each other, the oscillating universe theory makes exactly this same prediction.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The writer presents two theories—Lemaître's theory and the oscillating universe theory—that both predicted our current observations. She then concludes that Lemaître's theory is inadequate just because the oscillating universe theory makes the same prediction.
However, the writer gives no real reason to dismiss Lemaître's theory. What if it is adequate? What if the two theories are actually complementary? Simply pointing out that another theory makes the same prediction isn't enough to prove that Lemaître's theory is inadequate.
A
The conclusion is derived partly from assertions attributed to a purported expert whose credibility is not established.
Presumably Lemaître is a credible expert, but either way, the writer’s argument doesn’t rely on his credibility or the credibility of any other expert. Instead, she addresses the accuracy of two theories’ predictions and the inadequacy of Lemaître's theory.
B
The conclusion is based on a shift in meaning of a key term from one part of the argument to another part.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in two different ways. The writer doesn’t make this mistake; all of her terms are used clearly and consistently throughout her argument.
C
The science writer takes for granted the existence of a causal connection between observed phenomena.
The writer doesn’t assume that one observed phenomenon caused another. In fact, she only addresses one observed phenomenon in the first place— galaxies accelerating away from each other.
D
The science writer fails to see that one theory’s correctly predicting observed data cannot itself constitute evidence against an alternative theory that also does this.
In other words, the fact that the oscillating universe theory also predicted the observed data doesn't prove that Lemaître's theory is inadequate.
E
The science writer presumes, without providing justification, that there are only two possible explanations for the phenomena in question.
The writer never assumes that Lemaître's theory and the oscillating universe theory are the only explanations for why galaxies are accelerating away from each other. Instead, she assumes that because both theories predicted this phenomenon, Lemaître's theory must be inadequate.
Summary
Every employed artist is not interested in the prospect of great personal fame. And all unemployed artists are sympathetic to social justice.
Notable Valid Inferences
Artists interested in the prospect of great personal fame are also sympathetic to social justice.
A
If there are artists interested in the prospect of great personal fame, they are sympathetic to social justice.
Must be true. As shown below, we can take the contrapositive of the second statement in the stimulus and chain it with the first statement. 
B
All artists uninterested in the prospect of great personal fame are sympathetic to social justice.
Could be false. We don’t have any information in the stimulus about uninterested artists.
C
Every unemployed artist is interested in the prospect of great personal fame.
Could be false. This answer choice confuses sufficiency for necessity. As shown on our diagram, we know that all interested artists are unemployed, but we don’t know if all unemployed artists are interested.
D
If an artist is sympathetic to social justice, that artist is unemployed.
Could be false. This answer choice confuses sufficiency for necessity. As shown on our diagram, we know that all unemployed artists are sympathetic, but we don’t know if all sympathetic artists are unemployed.
E
All artists are either sympathetic to social justice or are interested in the prospect of great personal fame.
Could be false. As shown on our diagram, we know all interested artists are also sympathetic.