An experiment conducted aboard Space Lab in 1983 was the first attempt to grow protein crystals in the low-gravity environment of space. That experiment is still cited as evidence that growing crystals in microgravity can increase crystal size: the authors reported that they grew lysozyme (lysozyme: n.溶解酵素) protein crystals 1,000 times larger than crystals grown in the same device on Earth. Unfortunately, the authors did not point out that their crystals were no larger than the average crystal grown using other, more standard techniques in an Earth laboratory.
　　No research has yet produced results that could justify the enormous costs of producing crystals on a large scale (on a large scale: 大规模地) in space. To get an unbiased view of the usefulness of microgravity crystal growth, crystals grown in space must be compared with the best crystals that have been grown with standard techniques on Earth. Given the great expense of conducting such experiments with proper controls, and the limited promise of experiments performed thus far, it is questionable whether further experiments in this area should even be conducted.
　　The passage suggests that the author would most probably agree with which of the following assessments of the results of the Space Lab experiment?
　　(A) Although the results of the experiment are impressive, the experiment was too limited in scope to allow for definitive conclusions.
　　(B) The results of the experiment are impressive on the surface (on the surface: adv.表面上), but the report is misleading.
　　(C) The results of the experiment convincingly confirm what researchers have long suspected.
　　(D) Because of design flaws, the experiment did not yield any results relevant to the issue under investigation.
　　(E) The results of the experiment are too contradictory to allow for easy interpretation.

　　答案：（A）