Let's break this one down. It's basically a big marshmallow monster waiting to be fried.
Premise: Academic institutions are using citation analysis.
Premise: Counts the number of references to researches work.
Counter Premise: Scientists seeking to maximize citations will avoid multi-year work. (it's a counter premise because the conclusion goes the 'other' direction - it doesn't really matter)
Conclusion: Citation analysis works against encouraging good research.
Justify the Conclusion Question Type:
Remember, it's asking us about the argument. What is an argument? It's a conclusion supported by premises. When we do any LR question that is an argument we want to analyze the relationship between the premises, assumptions and conclusion.
Let's look at the answers.
A)This connects the idea in the conclusion and the concepts in the premise. If this is true, then it would explain why people don't want to wait 5 years for their work to be done! They never get cited!
B)Loser - Just talks about maybe what one premise is saying. But notice how this doesn't talk about the argument per se. It's wrong.
C)Loser - has zero to do with the conclusion of the argument
D)Loser - No connection to argument
E) This is basically an opposite answer. If it was being neglected, then the multi year work would get cited more if anything.