Need help

@JayDee8732 the problem with this analogy is every strand of rope has the same importance. This is obviously not the case with circumstantial evidence, i.e. some pieces of evidence are more critical than others. As such, if a really important piece of evidence is discredited, it would not be true that the overall body of evidence retains its basic strength. This is why (A) is the correct answer, i.e. "takes for granted that no items in a body of circumstantial evidence are significantly more critical to the strength of the evidence than other items in that body." Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Hi, I got this one correct but could you explain what answer choice (B) is actually saying?

but the author also goes from "if one strand breaks" to "even If a few break" wouldn't that be fallacious reasoning as well?