Critical Reasoning

Continuous indoor fluorescent light benefits the health of hamsters with inherited heart disease. A group of them exposed to continuous fluorescent light survived twenty-five percent longer than a similar group exposed instead to equal periods of indoor fluorescent light and of darkness.

The method of the research described above is most likely to be applicable in addressing which of the following questions?

(A) Can industrial workers who need to see their work do so better by sunlight or by fluorescent light?

(B) Can hospital lighting be improved to promote the recovery of patients?

(C) How do deep-sea fish survive in total darkness?

(D) What are the inherited illnesses to which hamsters are subject?

(E) Are there plants that require specific periods of darkness in order to bloom?

Because only B talks about artificial lighting .. i.e. indoor. Rest all talk about natural light such as sunlight which is irrevelant.

I don't think the "method" concerns itself with the florescent lighting per se. The method of the study relates to improvement in something by means of continuous exposure vs intermitent exposure. By process of elimination I get answer E

In C, we are testing the difference between current lighting and optimal lighting - but eventually light will be on for same periods of time

do you have OA?

I will Go with option E in this case