Let's think about how the author characterizes the traditional school of thought in the second paragraph. - Large interactive systems analyzed as if they were small orderly systems. - Studying elements separately. - Analyzing component mechanisms individually. - Response to a disturbance is proportional to that disturbance. (This contradicts the "pin drop" analogy given by the author in paragraph 1.)
The traditional school's failure to account for the "pin drop" seems to be the author's criticism of these investigators. They were focused on the components of these large systems, but did not seem to understand how these pieces fit together. This is most analogous to E. The bridge is just the sum of its parts. If all of the pieces are structurally sound, then the bridge is structurally sound. There is no discussion of how these parts are assembled.
A and D have the same type of reasoning. They both make a conclusion based on a sample. This is not analogous to the investigator's methods in paragraph 2.
