Critical Reasoning

Scientists have long searched for magnetic monopoles, hypothetical particles left over from the Big Bang. In 1982, a detector at Stanford recorded a single event that seemed to be the passage of a monopole. However, despite the fact that the Stanford experimental design has withstood all serious challenges, no other detectors have ever recorded similar events. Even though one team of physicists has recently claimed to have found indirect evidence that magnetic monopoles must exist, the consensus of the physics community is that monopoles, if they do exist, have not yet been discovered.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A)The first is a difficulty that contradicts the status quo view of the majority of physicists; the second is that status quo view.
B)The first is a comment that supports a minority position among physicists; the second is an alternative to that minority position.
C)The first is evidence strengthening an unrepeated experimental result; the second is a claim supported by that evidence.
D)The first is an assertion that undermines a hypothesis commonly thought to be unproven; the second is that hypothesis.
E)The first is a corroboration of an assertion that lacks experimental support; the second is that assertion.

Here is my reasoning-
P1: Scientist has long searched for Magnetic monopoles.
F1: In 1986 Standford detector claimed to detect monopoles. (single event)
F2: the detector withstood all serious challenge.
F3: No other event proving the same.

F4: A team has found indirect evidence that Monopoles exist.
Conclusion: Majority of scientists believes that Monopoles are not discovered yet.


F2 supports F1 which is against Conclusion. F4 has no link with conclusion its neither against nor supportive.
I am not fully convinced of OA C second part. As F2 doesn't support F4 directly.
In my opinion[spoiler] E [/spoiler]is the best answer.

Further explanation -


F2 supports "magnetic poles exists" which lacks experimental support. F2 is claim stating "magnetic poles exits".

I was attracted by word "lacks".

IMO C. I found it the most straightforward answer.

The first is evidence strengthening an unrepeated experimental result - the Stanford experimental design has withstood all serious challenges.yes it is strengthening F1 (our experimental result)

The second is a claim supported by that evidence - magnetic monopoles must exist (this is what our evidence i.e. the Stanford experimental design supporting all challenges supports.)

Am not sure why not E,would look forward for more discussions.