I love seeing ur comments

ya it just means bad basically

.

if its true that doing a campaign would endanger the company, then it weakens the argument that they should launch the campaign. You can be successful with one drug, but you can also not be successful with just one drug. we don't know the situation of the company or potential success of the drug, so its best not to hinge an argument off of that.

the conclusion does matter. The author concludes the data is misleading. since the soil is said to vary by which molecule it favors, and that most land over-expresses one of the other. Then lab results from a land with balanced concentration would be misleading as the test doesn't represent the real world situation.

the stimulus doesn't have to say anything about the answer if you're told to take it as true. If C were true it would be damaging to the argument but if B were true it wouldn't.

In my opinion, I think It's good to use drills as timed practice even if you haven't done the lessons so you get an understanding of how far you need to come. Blind review is untimed anyway so you might as well just take your time there instead.