This is a double possibility right? But I’m confused between trifling-incomplete and obvious-credible.
No
Can you explain?
But can it be also like the gaps do not exist so the evidence is reliable?
No, because the after the comma we have the word since which means “for that reason”, also before the comma we have : gaps are not something and since, the conventional point of view in regarding gaps is related to something being insignificant but due to the “not” present in the sentence, we are going against it and saying that gaps are important. Now, after the comma (support ) we have to give the reason which clarifies why gaps are important due to the presence of the word since
I think I still have doubts about how did you attack the 1st blank. But I got the answers through process of elimination. Anyways thanks.