I started reading this with no bias, as I do not know the authors nor their past works, but roughly 1/4 into it I noticed that something was off. I think this

I started reading this with no bias, as I do not know the authors nor their past works, but roughly 1/4 into it I noticed that something was off. I think this is the passage that made me stop reading with interest: > Later exploration of several comets, using a variety of space technologies, has strengthened the case for microbial life in comets (and in carbonaceous chondrite residues) but this is not readily admitted in conservative astronomical and meteoritic circles. "strengthening" the case? "admitting"? Someone is trying to convince the reader here not with evidence but rethorics.