Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at what (E) is saying. The argument provides a counterexample to show that causes don’t always precede their effects. And that would seem to refer to the counterexample that challenges the implicit assumption of eating chocolate being the only cause for acne outbreaks. But does the author conclude that effects sometimes precede her causes? That would be like if you burnt yourself and then touched something hot. That’s really weird, and also not anything that the author says. She doesn’t talk at all about the timing of the cause and effect. And so (E) isn’t quite right.
Now take a look at (B). The author is providing additional evidence that points to an alternative interpretation of the evidence being offered. Well, that is what’s going on, right? Because we know that these studies are interpreting the evidence about eating chocolate being followed by acne in another way. And that’s exactly what (E) says.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
