Thanks for the question! So we’re asked here about why the author mentions low group cohesiveness in line 5. Well, better go to that line, and read above and below to make sure we understand the full context of the usage here. So what’s goin on in the first paragraph really? Well, we’re told that cohesive groups can do a better job at decision making than non cohesive groups. Low cohesiveness leads to compliance out of fear of recrimination. So to overcome that, there’s a couple of things you can do. That’s the general gist of what’s goin on.
So what’s happening here? It’s kind of a compare/contrast situation. Cohesive groups? Can do a better job at decision making. Why? Well, this is what non cohesive groups look like, and they’re not that great. That’s generally what’s happening, and that supports (A), which tells us that it’s mentioned to contribute to a claim that cohesiveness can be conducive to a freer exchange of views in groups.
Now let’s talk about why (E) is wrong. Does the author mention low group cohesiveness primarily in order to lay the groundwork for a subsequent proposal for overcoming the debilitating effects of low cohesion? Well, what’s the proposal here? Are we given concrete steps about how specifically to overcome low cohesiveness? Sure, there might be a couple of general guidelines, but nothing specific, so three’s not really a proposal. And importantly, that’s not really this specific statement’s primary function in the first paragraph. So for all of these reasons, (E) is not going to be the correct answer here.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
