This is a principle question, so you're looking for the principle that would give logical support for the conclusion in the passage.
The author says that Copernicus's theory was superior to Ptolemy's even at the time it was proposed - meaning hindsight is not the reason why it was superior. Given what we know now, Copernicus was closer in his theory than Ptolemy, but the author is arguing that even without what we know now, Copernicus's theory was superior. Since the observations were the same, that's not the difference. However, Copernicus thought the earth rotating on its axis was a simpler explanation (a simpler theory), and according to the author this made it superior. So the principle that the author is using to evaluate the superiority of Copernicus's theory has to do with simplicity.
(A) This overstates the importance of simplicity, and the author only gets to the simplicity argument once he or she has made the point that the "observational evidence was equally consistent with both theories" which suggests that observational evidence is at least as important as simplicity.
(B) is a convoluted way of saying the theory with the most evidence is the superior theory...well...yeah... This doesn't have any impact on the argument in question.
(C) This gets closer, but the author says nothing about intuition or practicality. The more practical theory doesn't necessarily equal the superior theory, and the intuitive theory doesn't necessarily equal the simple theory.
(D) All things being equal (the evidence is the same), the more complex of two competing theories is the inferior theory (simpler is superior). This explains why the author claims that Copernicus's theory is superior.
(E) Wrong for the same reason (C) was wrong. Scientifically important does not equal superior.
jcefalu88@gmail.comSeptember 15, 2020
I don't see the indication that the author is claiming Copernicus's theory is superior because it is the simpler theory. It explains simplicity as being Copernicus's reason for his approach but it seems implied that the superiority of his theory is the obvious, that it was scientifically more accurate. For that reason I ruled out D and was simply confused as hell by the question, anyways I suppose I see the correct answer this just seems to be a weird question even by LSAC's standards.
