b v E

I am not a tutor, but I think that both speakers disagree with this statement, because S in the second sentence predicates her necessary condition "the actual words chosen make no difference to an argument's soundness" on on the condition that the words be "clearly defined." And B states that a "word can be defined without taking into account its social and political connotations." Well if a word has those connotations, then leaving them out would fail Sabrina's predicate/trigger that the words b clearly defined. Having said that, I think that an LSAT expert would play it safe and argue that only E discussed social and political connotations, and that S never discussed words with social and political connotations, and so we cannot make that jump to establish answer B as their point of disagreement. E, however, is phrased broadly which makes it difficult to pick, especially that this is not a principle question, but the vague word "factor" (hence the broadening/abstraction of E's phraseology) refers to "the words used in expressing facts." S would say has no bearing on whether an argument is good, whereas E says yes it does! I hope that an LSAT expert corrects me if I am wrong! Mazen