  We address a conflicting report on the value and uncertainty of the
astrophysical cross section factor of the 12C(a,g) reaction extracted from
existing data. In sharp contrast to previously reported ambiguities (by up to a
factor 8), Schuermann et al. suggest an accuracy of 12%. We demonstrate that
the so claimed "rigorous data selection criteria" used by Schuermann et al.
relies on the s-factors extracted by Assuncao et al. But these results were
shown in a later analysis (by this author) to have large error bars
(considerably larger than claimed by Assuncao em et al.) which render these
data not appropriate for a rigorous analysis. When their "rigorous data
selection" is adjusted to remove the results of Assuncao et al. the
astrophysical cross section factor cannot be extracted with 12% accuracy, or
even close to it. Such data on the S_E2 values at low energies deviate by up to
a factor two from their fit and exhibit a sharper slope rising toward low
energies, leading to strong doubt on their extrapolated S_E2(300) value and the
quoted small error bar. Contrary to their claim the small value of S_E1(300)
~10 keVb cannot be ruled out by current data including the most modern
gamma-ray data. As previously observed by several authors current data reveal
ambiguities in the value of S_E1(300) ~10 keVb or ~80 keVb, and the new
ambiguity that was recently revealed (by this author) of S_E2(300) ~60 keVb or
~154 keVb, appear to be a more reasonable evaluation the status of current
data.
