For those stumped by answer choice B

For those stumped by answer choice B, it's important to remember that in general, a correct answer choice on the LSAT will not baldly contradict a stated premise. The argument states (Premise) prepublication peer review is the only way to ensure potentially harmful information does not reach the public that (premise) is ill equipped to judge medical research. So (conclusion) peer reviewed published research in a *medical journal* is necessary before the public can get its hands on the information. At this point your mind should be asking if there is not another option where peer review can take place because you can't contradict: Premise 1: peer review is necessary Premise 2: the public is ill equipped to judge the merits of the research Answer choice (A) gets at our anticipation here because it highlights the assumption that peer review can't take place outside of medical journals whereas (B) is already a stated premise in the argument and its negation would be contradicting the premise. Im not an instructor but this is how I think about this question. If an instructor disagrees, please defer to the expert and disregard this.