Read the following passage:
When I organized the private papers of the early twentieth-century botanical illustrator Dr. Evelyn Vance, I sought only to restore her rightful place in scientific history. Her contemporary, Dr. Arthur Sterling, had long been credited with identifying the rare *Sarracenia aurea* during the 1912 Rio Negro expedition. However, Dr. Vance's personal field journal contains detailed sketches dated three weeks prior to Sterling's published findings. Critics have noted that Dr. Vance's journal entries from that month were recorded on loose-leaf sheets rather than her bound ledger, suggesting they may have been inserted retroactively. Moreover, as Dr. Vance’s grand-nephew, I have studied her meticulous hand for decades and can attest to the authenticity of the ink and paper. Sterling’s supporters rely entirely on his published expedition log, convenient in its official stamp yet suspiciously silent regarding Dr. Vance’s presence on the trail. My archive presents the indisputable truth of her priority.
Which of the following details from the passage most directly indicates potential narrator bias regarding Dr. Vance's claim of priority?
- The narrator's familial relationship to Dr. Vance and stated goal to restore her historical reputationCevap
- BThe narrator's admission that Dr. Vance recorded all of her 1912 field entries in a bound ledger
- CThe narrator's reliance on Dr. Sterling's official log to confirm the date of Vance's sketches
- DThe narrator's refusal to inspect the physical ink and paper of the loose-leaf journal entries