Update README.md

README.md

@@ -168,14 +168,13 @@ print(response[0].split("### Response:")[1])
 **Output:**
 ```
 <analysis>
+This is a question about evaluating the validity of a prospective cohort study design. The study looked at childhood diet and cardiovascular disease in adulthood. The peer reviewer was concerned about the study's validity. 
 
-This is a question about evaluating the validity of a prospective cohort study design. The study looked at childhood diet and cardiovascular disease in adulthood. The peer reviewer was concerned about the study's validity, likely because it was a prospective cohort study without randomization or blinding. 
+To address concerns about validity in a prospective cohort study, we need to consider potential confounding factors. The choices given are different statistical methods that can help control for confounding. 
 
-The key is to identify which additional analysis would help address concerns about validity in a prospective cohort study. Blinding and randomization are not applicable to a cohort study design. Matching and stratification can help control for confounding variables. Crossover is not applicable to a cohort study design. 
-
-Therefore, the analysis that would most likely address the peer reviewer's concerns about validity is matching.
+Blinding and crossover designs are not applicable to a prospective cohort study. Matching and stratification can help control for confounding by balancing the distribution of confounders between groups. Randomization is the best way to minimize confounding by randomly assigning participants to different exposure groups.
 </analysis>
 <answer>
-C: Matching
-</answer>  
+E: Randomization
+</answer>
 ```