The conclusion is that the skills needed for creative research are teachable and learnable, but not a single word in the evidence directly mentions skills or creative research. All we’re told is that Thomson taught tons of physicists of great distinction, so two key assumptions are at work here. First, the author must assume that Thomson’s distinguished students do, in fact, have creative research skills—but this isn’t listed as an answer choice. Second, she must assume that at least some of those distinguished students lacked creative research skills before they met up with Thomson. After all, if they were all fully creative researchers beforehand, then Thomson’s influence wouldn’t support the conclusion, would it? That second assumption is what we get in (C).

(A) The argument could work even if (A) were false, even if Thomson were relatively unknown and all his students came out of his own home town. Thus the Kaplan Denial Test proves that (A) isn’t a necessary assumption.

(B) needn’t be assumed, because even if Thomson taught some people who were never recognized for any accomplishment, the author still has the eminent students to support her argument.

(D) “Other fields” have no role in this argument. (D) raises an unwarranted comparison between other fields and physics, and the validity of the argument does not depend on any such comparison.

(E) isn’t a necessary assumption either, because Thomson’s successful students may be rare exceptions. The author’s point is that creative research skills can be taught, and the possibility that few successful researchers are taught by renowned scholars (the denial of (E)) doesn’t hinder that argument)