According to the authors, behavioral therapists have been diligent in making only those claims that fit with the data about the effectiveness of their therapeutic techniques. a critical thinker would recognize this as what is required by the critical thinking principle of

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

Explanation:  This is a coin that was made by Carl Sagan, who in fact reworked the Laplace principle. This statement is at the core of scientific method and critical thinking, although no standards have been given, i.e standards that have been formally adopted to determine whether the evidence is extraordinary or not. This means that determining and defining extraordinary evidence is a subjective matter, which would be rather some scientific agreement than perhaps a truly objective assessment of the extraordinary nature of the evidence.

Anyway, this term, i.e the method of critical thinking, is applied in areas where such extraordinary evidence is needed, although it is a matter of agreement between scientists and perhaps subjective judgement, which is the field of psychology and clinical medicine. It provides a good example of how scientific agreement on the subject of extraordinary evidence can be properly done. Here, as pointed out, scientific agreement was made that valid data are only those concerning proven therapeutic techniques that have yielded good results, that is, behavioural therapists make only those claims where they fit the mentioned valid results.

There are various ways in which specific recommendations have been made, that is, on this issue of extraordinary evidence, that certain techniques have been effective for treatment, from small laboratory studies to large well-conducted and well-designed clinical studies. This again means that all available research on the subject of extraordinary evidence is systematised in the sense of gathering extremely relevant information that these treatment techniques are good or not. The greater the number of researches undertaken, the less the bias in the selection of relevant, therefore, extraordinary evidence. This is a particularly sensitive issue here because it is a mental health field, where choosing poorly a technique or recommendation can cause great harm to patients.

The conclusion is that the selection and presentation, recommendations of extraordinary evidence based on highly relevant research, plays an extremely important role in sensitive areas such as mental health, and the requirement for exceptional evidence is exceptional. Also according to scientists, there are areas where there are not so high risks of harming people and the requirement for exceptional evidence is not as rigorous, although there are still high standards.

answer; by working independently, the states have a high likelihood of developing innovative solutions that can be employed in other states;

what is the answer