For B, I understand how it strengthens the prediction, but does it not technically undermine the hypothesis because the hypothesis is that spending less does not reduce a/d. And in B it is showing that it CAN reduce a/d.

Or is it that because the hypothesis is something we infer/take as implied, it doesn’t matter that B doesn’t line up with the inferred hypothesis? Especially since it liens up with the prediction?

Question: why is it that Pat not being a member must be true? Couldn’t it be possible that there is some unknown exception to the rule and that Pat indeed IS a member but just falls within this exception? And then in that case doesn’t it follow that it does not HAVE TO be true that Pat is not a member. Or are we to assume that if the stimulus doesn’t outline an exception to the rule there is no exception to the rule? This is how I came to choose C as opposed to D