New and interesting research conducted by Suleiman A. Al-Sweedan and Moath Alhaj is inspired by their

Choice B is the best answer because it most logically and precisely completes the text’s discussion of studies of altitude’s effect on blood chemistry. In this context, “paucity of” means lack of. In describing the inspiration behind Al-Sweedan and Alhaj’s research, the text uses the word “though” to suggest a contrasting relationship between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. This contrasting relationship and the text’s use of the word “many” provide context suggesting that there are few, if any, examples of the second type of study, whereas there are numerous examples of the first type.

Choice A is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense in context for there to be a “quarrel about,” or open disagreement about, studies of the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. The text’s use of the words “though” and “many” suggests a contrasting relationship in terms of amount between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. There’s nothing in the text to suggest that the contrast between the two types of studies involves the extent to which researchers broadly agree or disagree about the contents of either type. Choice C is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense in context for there to be a “profusion of,” or great abundance of, studies of the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. The text’s use of the words “though” and “many” suggests a contrasting relationship in terms of amount between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. Rather than logically completing this contrast, “profusion of” would indie that the two types of studies are similar in terms of amount, with many examples existing of both types. Choice D is incorrect because it wouldn’t make sense in context for there to be a “verisimilitude in,” or appearance of truth in, studies of the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. The text’s use of the words “though” and “many” suggests a contrasting relationship in terms of amount between two types of studies: those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living at a high altitude and those examining the effect on blood chemistry of living in loions below sea level. There’s nothing in the text to suggest that the contrast between the two types of studies involves the extent to which either type of study presents an appearance of truth.