Question

For decades, the prevailing orthodoxy in neurobiology held that the adult mammalian brain was structurally immutable. Once the critical periods of early development concluded, the neural architecture was thought to be fixed, rendering significant reorganization impossible. Recently, however, researchers have proposed models of continuous adult neuroplasticity. Among the most provocative is Elena Rostova’s "Dynamic Network Theory," which posits that adult synaptic maps are in a state of perpetual, experience-dependent flux.

Rostova effectively demonstrates that sensory deprivation in adult subjects triggers a rapid reallocation of cortical territory. Her elegant experiments showing the repurposing of the visual cortex in newly blind adults provide compelling evidence that the brain retains a remarkable degree of malleability well into senescence. These findings successfully dismantle the restrictive "static brain" paradigm that has long constrained neurological rehabilitation strategies.

Yet, while Rostova’s central mechanism is undeniably robust, her broader philosophical extrapolation is less convincing. She argues that this plasticity entirely liberates human cognition from genetic structural determinants, suggesting an almost infinite capacity for neurological reinvention. This sweeping assertion ignores the persistent reality of deep-brain structural rigidities, such as those governing autonomic functions, and glosses over the significant metabolic costs associated with large-scale cortical reorganization. Thus, while her empirical observations represent a monumental leap forward for clinical neurology, her ultimate conclusions venture into a theoretical realm that the data do not quite support.

Which of the following best describes the author's attitude toward Rostova's Dynamic Network Theory?