Comparative Evaluation
Help Questions
LSAT Reading › Comparative Evaluation
Passage A and Passage B:
Passage A
In discussions of urban heat islands, commentators often treat tree planting as an uncomplicated remedy: more canopy, lower temperatures. The physical mechanism is real—shade and evapotranspiration can reduce surface heat—yet the effectiveness of planting campaigns depends on time horizons and maintenance. Saplings provide limited cooling for years, and survival rates vary with irrigation and soil conditions. Moreover, cooling benefits are not evenly distributed; a single park can lower temperatures nearby while leaving distant blocks unchanged.
For that reason, some planners recommend a portfolio approach: reflective roofing, targeted shade structures at transit stops, and building-code revisions alongside tree planting. They also caution against evaluating success solely by citywide average temperature, since health impacts cluster among residents lacking air conditioning or living near heat-retaining infrastructure. A nuanced claim follows: tree planting can be cost-effective for heat mitigation when paired with maintenance funding and sited to prioritize vulnerable populations.
Passage B
Urban heat policy is often framed as a technical puzzle about materials and microclimates, but this framing can mislead. Many of the hottest neighborhoods are those shaped by past zoning decisions, industrial siting, and disinvestment. Treating trees or reflective roofs as the central solution risks obscuring accountability for these structural choices and may encourage “green improvements” that accelerate displacement. When increased canopy raises property values, tenants may be priced out and lose any health benefit the intervention might have produced.
Therefore, effective heat mitigation should be evaluated not only by temperature reductions but also by who remains to experience them. Measures such as rent stabilization, community land trusts, and anti-displacement requirements can be as relevant to heat resilience as physical interventions. Technical strategies are valuable, but without governance mechanisms that address underlying inequities, they may redistribute risk rather than reduce it.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A and Passage B are in total conflict: Passage A denies that zoning history affects heat exposure, while Passage B denies that any physical mechanism links trees to cooling.
Passage A describes the physical mechanism by which shade and evapotranspiration can reduce surface heat.
Passage A bases its claims primarily on long‑term randomized trials of roofing materials, whereas Passage B bases its claims primarily on laboratory measurements of evapotranspiration rates.
Passage A argues that tree planting cannot meaningfully reduce heat, whereas Passage B argues that tree planting alone is sufficient to solve urban heat islands.
Passage A focuses on the practical conditions under which physical interventions like tree planting mitigate heat and recommends combining measures, whereas Passage B emphasizes the political and distributive consequences of such interventions and urges anti-displacement governance alongside them.
Explanation
This question requires comparing how the passages approach urban heat mitigation differently. Passage A takes a technical approach, acknowledging that tree planting works through shade and evapotranspiration but emphasizing practical conditions: time horizons, maintenance, uneven distribution of benefits, and targeting vulnerable populations. It recommends a portfolio approach combining multiple physical interventions. Passage B reframes the issue as fundamentally political, arguing that focusing on technical solutions like trees obscures structural causes (zoning, disinvestment) and may accelerate displacement through gentrification. Passage B emphasizes governance mechanisms like rent stabilization alongside technical measures. Choice B accurately captures this distinction: A focuses on practical conditions and combining measures, while B emphasizes political consequences and anti-displacement governance. Choice A misrepresents both passages with extreme positions neither actually takes. The key insight is that one passage treats this as an engineering problem while the other treats it as a justice problem. Always evaluate how each passage frames the core issue.
Which passage provides stronger support for the claim that vegetation-based interventions can measurably reduce neighborhood-level heat?
Passage B, because it explains how reflective surfaces, not plants, account for most cooling in cities.
Passage B, because it quantifies evapotranspiration's impact on block-level cooling using field sensors.
Neither passage, because both focus exclusively on indoor cooling rather than outdoor temperatures.
Passage A, because it reports multi-year, neighborhood-scale temperature measurements tied to vegetation installations.
Passage A, because it argues that residents' perceptions of heat are unreliable indicators.
Explanation
Passage A presents direct, repeated temperature measurements showing cooler conditions on blocks with new vegetation. Passage B downplays vegetation and does not provide empirical data attributing neighborhood-level cooling to plants, while C and D misstate who makes which claims. E is incorrect because both passages address outdoor temperatures.
Passage A
Supporters of high-speed rail (HSR) investments argue that HSR can shift travelers from cars and short-haul flights to a lower-emissions mode, while also stimulating regional economic integration. They cite corridors where rail captured substantial market share after service improvements, and they emphasize that travel-time reliability can be as important as raw speed. Yet the climate benefits depend on electricity generation mix and on ridership levels; a lightly used line powered by fossil-heavy grids may yield modest net reductions. Moreover, construction emissions and cost overruns complicate simple comparisons.
Accordingly, proponents recommend corridor selection based on projected demand, integration with local transit, and lifecycle emissions accounting. They also mention peripheral factors such as station-area zoning and procurement rules.
Passage B
Critics argue that HSR debates often treat mode shift as automatic, ignoring induced demand and land-use feedbacks. New rail capacity can encourage longer commutes and spur development patterns that increase total travel, potentially offsetting per-trip emissions gains. Additionally, the economic-development rationale can be overstated if benefits accrue mainly to already prosperous hubs while smaller cities become “bedroom communities.”
These critics favor evaluation frameworks that model behavioral and land-use responses: changes in trip frequency, relocation decisions, and housing prices near stations. They also urge comparing HSR to incremental upgrades of conventional rail, bus rapid transit, or demand-management policies. HSR may be justified in specific corridors, but its merits should be assessed through net system effects rather than through ridership projections alone.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A supports HSR with corridor-specific qualifications and lifecycle accounting, whereas Passage B questions assumptions about automatic mode shift and calls for modeling induced demand and land-use effects and for comparison to lower-cost alternatives.
Passage A argues that induced demand is decisive and therefore recommends abandoning any rail investment in favor of demand-management policies only.
Passage A concludes HSR always reduces emissions, while Passage B concludes it never affects travel behavior, and both base their conclusions on procurement rules.
Passage A treats ridership as irrelevant to climate benefits, while Passage B treats ridership projections as sufficient to guarantee equitable regional development in all cases.
Passage A relies mainly on land-use and housing-price modeling to oppose HSR, whereas Passage B relies mainly on grid mix and lifecycle emissions to advocate building HSR everywhere.
Explanation
The high-speed rail passages reveal contrasting approaches to evaluating transportation infrastructure and its climate benefits. Passage A supports HSR based on mode-shift evidence from successful corridors while acknowledging that climate benefits depend on electricity grid mix and ridership levels. It recommends corridor-specific selection with lifecycle emissions accounting and integration planning. Passage B challenges assumptions about automatic mode shift, arguing that new rail capacity can induce longer commutes and development patterns that increase total travel, potentially offsetting per-trip gains. The methodological difference is significant: Passage A focuses on direct mode substitution with corridor-specific qualifications, while Passage B emphasizes modeling behavioral responses, land-use feedbacks, and system-wide effects. Passage B urges comparison to incremental rail upgrades and demand management rather than treating HSR as inherently beneficial. Choice (D) mischaracterizes both passages' positions on ridership relevance. The core contrast is mode-shift evidence with lifecycle accounting versus induced-demand modeling with system-effect analysis and lower-cost alternative comparison.
Passage A and Passage B:
Passage A
Some museum curators argue that returning cultural artifacts to their places of origin can correct historical injustices and improve scholarship by reconnecting objects with local knowledge. Yet they caution that “origin” is not always straightforward: borders have shifted, and communities may have competing claims. Moreover, museums often provide conservation resources that are scarce elsewhere, and abrupt repatriation without capacity building can risk damage.
A pragmatic approach recommends negotiated returns, long-term loans, and shared curatorial partnerships, with attention to provenance research. The claim is qualified: repatriation is most justified when acquisition involved coercion and when agreements ensure both access and preservation.
Passage B
Repatriation debates often become exercises in case-by-case provenance analysis, as if the moral question turns solely on documentation. But focusing on paperwork can obscure the structural asymmetry that allowed artifacts to be removed in the first place. Even where records are incomplete, the broader context of colonial extraction may render possession ethically suspect.
Therefore, the primary reform should be institutional: shifting default presumptions toward return, creating funding streams controlled by source communities, and redefining museums’ mission away from universal ownership. Conservation concerns are real, but they should not function as a veto wielded by current holders.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A notes that borders have shifted and that communities may have competing claims to an artifact’s origin.
Passage A relies primarily on chemical conservation studies, whereas Passage B relies primarily on detailed border maps to identify modern nation-states.
Passage A and Passage B disagree about everything, including whether colonial extraction ever occurred and whether museums can preserve artifacts at all.
Passage A emphasizes negotiated, conditional repatriation attentive to provenance complexity and preservation capacity, whereas Passage B emphasizes structural injustice and argues for shifting institutional presumptions toward return rather than relying mainly on case-by-case documentation.
Passage A concludes that repatriation should never occur, whereas Passage B concludes that repatriation should always occur immediately regardless of circumstances.
Explanation
This question compares approaches to cultural artifact repatriation. Passage A emphasizes negotiated, case-by-case repatriation that considers provenance complexity (shifting borders, competing claims) and practical concerns about conservation capacity, recommending partnerships and shared arrangements when acquisition involved coercion and preservation can be ensured. Passage B argues that focusing on individual provenance analysis misses the structural asymmetry of colonial extraction, and that even incomplete documentation should trigger presumptions toward return rather than requiring communities to prove their claims against current holders who benefited from historical injustice. Choice B accurately captures this: A emphasizes negotiated conditional repatriation attentive to complexity and capacity, while B emphasizes structural injustice and shifting institutional presumptions toward return rather than case-by-case documentation. Choice A mischaracterizes their evidence bases. The core difference is between pragmatic case-by-case evaluation versus systemic presumption shifts based on historical injustice. Look for whether passages focus on technical implementation or structural power corrections.
Passage A and Passage B:
Passage A
Some food-policy advocates argue that front-of-package warning labels (e.g., icons indicating high sugar or sodium) help consumers make healthier choices by simplifying nutrition information. Studies in controlled settings suggest that warnings can shift purchases away from heavily processed foods. Yet real-world effects may be limited by habitual shopping patterns, price constraints, and the ability of manufacturers to reformulate products just enough to avoid labels without improving overall nutritional quality.
For that reason, proponents often support labels as part of a broader package that includes monitoring reformulation, public education, and restrictions on misleading health claims. The claim is qualified: warning labels can meaningfully influence purchasing when they are salient, standardized, and paired with enforcement against evasive marketing.
Passage B
Labeling debates typically assume that consumers, once informed, can discipline the market. But consumer-focused policies can overstate the role of individual choice and understate the power of food distribution systems. In many regions, the most accessible options are supplied through a small number of wholesalers and convenience retailers, and product placement is governed by contracts rather than by consumer demand.
Thus, interventions should target procurement and retail environments: standards for foods sold in schools and hospitals, limits on checkout placements of sugary products, and incentives for retailers to stock minimally processed options. Labels may help at the margin, but they should not be treated as the primary driver of dietary change.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A and Passage B disagree about everything, including whether prices constrain choices and whether manufacturers can reformulate products.
Passage A treats warning labels as a potentially effective information tool if designed and enforced well and combined with complementary measures, whereas Passage B argues that focusing on consumer information misses structural retail and procurement forces and favors environment-focused interventions.
Passage A notes that manufacturers might reformulate products to avoid labels without substantially improving nutrition.
Passage A supports its view mainly by analyzing wholesaler concentration, whereas Passage B supports its view mainly by reporting laboratory taste-test results for reformulated foods.
Passage A concludes that labels never affect behavior, whereas Passage B concludes that labels alone can transform diets without any other policy.
Explanation
This question compares approaches to food warning labels. Passage A treats warning labels as a potentially effective information tool that can shift purchases in controlled settings, but notes real-world limitations from habits, price constraints, and manufacturers reformulating just enough to avoid labels without meaningful nutritional improvement. It recommends pairing labels with monitoring, education, and enforcement against misleading claims. Passage B argues that focusing on consumer information overstates individual choice and understates structural forces like wholesaler concentration and retailer contracts that govern product placement and availability, advocating for procurement standards and retail environment interventions instead. Choice B accurately captures this: A treats labels as potentially effective information tools with complementary measures, while B argues focusing on consumer information misses structural retail forces and favors environment-focused interventions. Choice A mischaracterizes their evidence bases. The core difference is between improving consumer information versus changing choice environments. Look for whether passages work within individual choice frameworks or emphasize structural determinants.
Passage A and Passage B:
Passage A
Some climate policy analysts argue that carbon offsets can help firms and governments meet emissions targets at lower cost by financing reductions where they are cheapest. Offsets may fund forest conservation, methane capture, or renewable energy projects in regions with limited capital. Yet offset quality is uneven. A project credited for “avoided deforestation,” for instance, may merely shift logging elsewhere, and some reductions might have occurred without offset funding. These concerns motivate stricter standards for additionality, permanence, and verification.
A cautious view is that offsets can play a limited role if they are tightly regulated and used to complement, not replace, direct emissions cuts—especially for sectors with few near-term alternatives.
Passage B
Offset debates often revolve around technical criteria like additionality and verification. But even perfectly verified offsets can weaken climate policy by changing political incentives. If firms can purchase credits instead of reducing their own emissions, they may delay investments in cleaner infrastructure and lobby against stricter regulation. Offsets can thus entrench a status quo in which high-emitting facilities remain in place, with local pollution burdens continuing regardless of global accounting.
Therefore, climate policy should restrict offsets not merely because some credits are fraudulent, but because the mechanism itself can undermine decarbonization pathways. The priority should be direct regulation and public investment that shift energy systems, with offsets—if allowed at all—confined to narrow, temporary uses.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A explains that avoided-deforestation credits can be compromised if logging shifts to other locations.
Passage A relies primarily on political theory about lobbying behavior, whereas Passage B relies primarily on satellite-based measurements of forest canopy.
Passage A concludes that offsets are always cheaper than regulation, while Passage B concludes that offsets are always more expensive than regulation.
Passage A and Passage B disagree on virtually everything, including whether emissions accounting matters and whether any sector faces near-term alternatives.
Passage A focuses on improving offset integrity through standards and limited complementary use, whereas Passage B argues that even high‑quality offsets can distort incentives and should be tightly constrained in favor of direct decarbonization policies.
Explanation
This comparative question examines different approaches to carbon offsets. Passage A acknowledges offset quality problems (additionality, leakage, verification) but argues they can play a limited role when strictly regulated and used to complement rather than replace direct emissions cuts, especially for sectors with few near-term alternatives. Passage B argues that even high-quality offsets can undermine climate policy by changing political incentives, allowing firms to delay infrastructure investments and lobby against regulation while maintaining high-emitting facilities and local pollution burdens. Passage B favors restricting offsets in favor of direct regulation and public investment. Choice B correctly identifies this distinction: A focuses on improving offset integrity for limited complementary use, while B argues even quality offsets distort incentives and should be tightly constrained for direct decarbonization policies. Choice A mischaracterizes both with cost comparisons neither emphasizes. The key difference is between reforming a market mechanism versus questioning whether that mechanism undermines broader policy goals. Look for whether passages seek to improve existing tools or replace them entirely.
Passage A and Passage B:
Passage A
Proposals to adopt four-day workweeks often cite productivity studies suggesting that fewer hours can yield equal output by reducing meetings and fatigue. Yet the applicability of such findings varies by sector. In manufacturing or health care, output is closely tied to staffing coverage; reducing hours may require hiring more workers or paying overtime. Even in office settings, productivity gains may plateau if work is already optimized or if coordination costs rise.
Thus, some analysts advocate pilot programs with clear metrics: absenteeism, turnover, customer satisfaction, and burnout indicators, along with attention to workload intensification. A nuanced claim is that four-day schedules can improve well-being without reducing output when tasks are discretionary and when firms redesign processes rather than compressing the same workload into fewer days.
Passage B
The four-day workweek is frequently defended as a managerial experiment in efficiency. But treating it as an optimization problem can miss its broader social function. Work schedules structure caregiving, civic participation, and the distribution of leisure. When the benefits of reduced hours accrue mainly to salaried professionals, while hourly workers face unpredictable shifts or income loss, the reform may deepen inequality.
Accordingly, the central question is not whether firms can maintain output, but whether labor standards should guarantee time autonomy. Policies such as minimum-hours protections, collective bargaining support, and wage floors may be necessary complements; without them, a four-day week can become a perk rather than a right.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A and Passage B disagree about everything, including whether work schedules affect caregiving and whether any pilot programs can be measured.
Passage A relies mainly on historical comparisons of medieval labor practices, whereas Passage B relies mainly on time-motion studies of factory output.
Passage A assesses four-day workweeks through sector-dependent productivity and implementation considerations and recommends pilots, whereas Passage B reframes the issue as one of equity and labor standards, arguing that efficiency evidence is not the central concern.
Passage A discusses how coverage constraints in manufacturing and health care may limit applicability of reduced-hour schedules.
Passage A concludes that four-day workweeks always raise productivity, while Passage B concludes that four-day workweeks always reduce productivity and should therefore be prohibited.
Explanation
This question compares approaches to four-day workweeks. Passage A evaluates the policy through a productivity and implementation lens, noting sector-dependent effects and potential constraints in coverage-dependent industries, while recommending pilots with clear metrics to assess both efficiency and well-being outcomes. Passage B reframes four-day workweeks from a managerial efficiency question to a broader social equity issue, emphasizing how work schedules affect caregiving and civic participation, and warning that benefits may accrue mainly to professionals while leaving hourly workers with unpredictable shifts. Passage B argues for complementary labor standards to ensure time autonomy becomes a right rather than a perk. Choice B accurately captures this distinction: A focuses on sector-dependent productivity and recommends pilots, while B emphasizes equity and labor standards beyond efficiency concerns. Choice A overstates their positions with absolutes. The key difference is between treating this as an optimization problem versus a social justice issue. Always look for whether passages focus on technical implementation or broader distributive consequences.
Passage A and Passage B:
Passage A
Some economists contend that “right-to-repair” laws—requiring manufacturers to provide parts, tools, and manuals—would reduce electronic waste by extending product lifespans. They point to repair markets for older appliances and to the fact that many devices are discarded due to minor component failures. However, the magnitude of waste reduction depends on consumer behavior and on how repairability interacts with product design. If manufacturers respond by sealing components further or by raising prices to recoup compliance costs, the net environmental effect could be smaller than advocates predict.
A careful policy analysis, then, compares multiple channels: fewer premature replacements, potential increases in device weight from modular design, and shifts in secondary markets. The most defensible claim is conditional: right-to-repair is likely to reduce waste when paired with standards that prevent anti-repair design changes and when repair services are accessible outside major cities.
Passage B
Debates about right-to-repair often treat waste reduction as the decisive metric, but that focus can be too narrow. Repair restrictions also shape who controls technological knowledge and who can participate in innovation. When only authorized technicians can access diagnostic software, independent repair shops and hobbyists are excluded, and the costs of maintenance become a form of ongoing rent extraction. From this perspective, the core question is not how many tons of waste are avoided, but whether consumers retain meaningful ownership.
Accordingly, a persuasive case for right-to-repair emphasizes legal and institutional arrangements: limits on software locks, protections against abusive warranty practices, and rules governing access to encryption keys. Environmental benefits may follow, but they are not the primary justification.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A concludes that right-to-repair will certainly reduce waste, while Passage B concludes that right-to-repair will certainly increase waste by encouraging more device modifications.
Passage A evaluates right-to-repair mainly through conditional environmental cost-benefit channels and possible manufacturer responses, whereas Passage B treats the issue chiefly as one of ownership and power over technology, with environmental gains as secondary.
Passage A relies primarily on constitutional arguments about property rights, whereas Passage B relies primarily on lifecycle emissions calculations for electronics manufacturing.
Passage A discusses how consumer behavior and repair access could affect the impact of right-to-repair laws.
Passage A and Passage B disagree about nearly everything, including whether manufacturers can change designs in response to regulation and whether any legal reforms are feasible.
Explanation
This comparative question examines different approaches to right-to-repair legislation. Passage A evaluates right-to-repair primarily through an environmental cost-benefit lens, considering conditional factors like consumer behavior, manufacturer responses, and potential unintended consequences. It offers a qualified environmental argument dependent on preventing anti-repair design changes and ensuring accessibility. Passage B reframes the issue away from environmental impact toward ownership and technological control, emphasizing who can access knowledge and participate in innovation rather than waste reduction metrics. Passage B treats environmental benefits as secondary to legal and institutional arrangements around technological autonomy. Choice B correctly identifies this distinction: A uses conditional environmental analysis while B emphasizes ownership and power dynamics. Choice C incorrectly characterizes the types of evidence each passage uses—neither relies primarily on constitutional arguments or emissions calculations. The passages differ in their fundamental framing of what the right-to-repair debate is really about. Look for how each passage defines the core problem.
Passage A
Some legal scholars argue that expanding the use of restorative justice (RJ) in schools can reduce suspensions and improve school climate. RJ practices, such as facilitated circles and mediated conferences, aim to address harm by involving affected parties and developing agreements for repair. Evaluations in certain districts report fewer exclusionary дисципline actions after RJ adoption. Yet implementation fidelity varies widely; programs labeled “restorative” may consist of brief trainings without sustained support. Additionally, declines in suspensions could reflect changes in reporting practices rather than genuine behavioral improvement.
Accordingly, supporters recommend investing in staff capacity, measuring outcomes beyond suspension counts, and conducting audits of program fidelity. They also mention noncentral considerations such as scheduling constraints and space for meetings.
Passage B
Critics caution that RJ is sometimes promoted as a universal remedy without adequate attention to power dynamics. Students may feel pressured to participate in “voluntary” conferences, and harms involving bullying or discrimination can be minimized if facilitators lack training in equity and trauma. Moreover, focusing on aggregate suspension reductions can mask whether certain groups continue to experience disproportionate discipline or whether victims feel safer.
These critics propose evaluation methods that center participant experiences and subgroup outcomes: confidential surveys of perceived fairness and safety, disaggregated discipline data, and qualitative review of agreements’ enforcement. They also urge comparing RJ to complementary measures such as clearer codes of conduct and anti-bias interventions. RJ may be valuable, but its success should be judged by equitable safety and accountability, not simply by fewer suspensions.
Which one of the following best compares the approaches taken in Passage A and Passage B?
Passage A relies mainly on confidential surveys and qualitative agreement reviews to oppose RJ, whereas Passage B relies mainly on suspension-count declines to argue that fidelity audits are unnecessary.
Passage A concludes RJ increases suspensions, while Passage B concludes RJ eliminates bullying, and both rely chiefly on meeting-space constraints as evidence.
Passage A supports RJ with an emphasis on implementation fidelity and multi-metric evaluation, whereas Passage B highlights coercion and equity concerns and urges participant-centered and disaggregated assessments alongside comparisons to other safety measures.
Passage A treats RJ as a minor procedural tweak with no need for training, while Passage B treats RJ as sufficient to resolve all discrimination without any codes of conduct or anti-bias work.
Passage A argues that power dynamics are the decisive issue and therefore recommends abandoning RJ in favor of traditional punitive discipline.
Explanation
The restorative justice passages reveal different approaches to evaluating alternative discipline practices in schools. Passage A supports RJ based on evidence of reduced suspensions and improved school climate while emphasizing implementation fidelity concerns and the need for multi-metric evaluation beyond suspension counts. It recommends staff capacity investment and program auditing. Passage B highlights coercion and equity concerns, noting that students may feel pressured to participate and that facilitators without equity training may minimize discrimination-related harms. The evaluation difference is fundamental: Passage A focuses on implementation fidelity and outcome measurement with program integrity emphasis, while Passage B emphasizes participant experience and subgroup equity requiring confidential surveys and disaggregated analysis. Passage B urges comparison to complementary measures like clearer conduct codes rather than treating RJ as sufficient. Choice (E) mischaracterizes Passage A's position on power dynamics. The core contrast is implementation-focused evaluation with multi-metric assessment versus participant-centered equity analysis with disaggregated safety measurement and complementary intervention comparison.
Which passage provides stronger support for the claim that independent external audits can materially improve automated content moderation?
Passage B, because it provides a concrete post-audit reduction in erroneous removals attributable to audit findings.
Passage A, because it shows that human review is always superior to automated systems.
Both passages equally, because each presents the same quantitative evidence.
Passage A, because it documents platforms' secrecy and argues that any transparency improves outcomes.
Passage B, because it asserts that internal A/B tests consistently outperform audit recommendations.
Explanation
Passage B cites a specific audit that led to measurable reductions in false positives, directly supporting the claim. Passage A advocates for audits but does not present evidence that they improve outcomes, and C and D mischaracterize the passages. E is wrong because only Passage B includes concrete quantitative results.