Got sort of tripped up here, but I think it's worth noting that the stimulus gives it to you:

Jenkins: Dude, we gotta go in Jan/Feb so we know that the snow isn't melted, because if we go later, then we're gonna fuck up the research and compromise the funding.

Lurano: Nah, it'll be plenty cold even a month or two later, and by going later, we're not exposing researchers to horrid conditions.

I mean, the fundamental disagreement is about value propositions:

Save the funding

OR

Spare the researchers.

Lurano downplays Jenkins' concerns about the snow, but doesn't downplay anything about the funding, so you can't assume he's not worried about it, either. E is right.

I chose C because it seemed to me that it was the broader disagreement, because Lurano is saying, dude, it won't matter if we go later for the snow, but it will for the researchers, so chill out. But, Lurano doesn't even disagree with Jenkins outright about the funding, but, he does RAISE a larger issue. Tricky nuance there, and it is most supported. Nice.

I chose D. If most people who have pets feel happier because they have pets, then that helps me get to being as happy as possible, right? The argument doesn't define what "as possible" is, it is different for everybody, including the ratio of happiness and unhappiness when having or lacking a pet. I digress:

If people who have pets = less happy than people who -pets, that tells me what formula exists in general, but to weaken this argument, we need something that takes that validity down a peg, that the pet is the causal mechanism to happiness for most people. If most people who have pets feel happier because they have them, and if this is 100% true, then it weaken the argument that we would do well to not have a pet.

@fl7dqf252 I think that is a misread of what A is trying to say-- that "there are a lot of types blocked by the sun, and UV-B just so happens to be the only kind that can damage genes." Well, that's cool, but it doesn't help me with the conclusion that "the primary cause of the declining amphibian population is the depletion of the ozone layer."

Does A give me a causal mechanism that would help the argument? Not like the other AC's do. It tells us a fun fact, but it does not give us anything more to connect to the argument-- even so, the argument uses language that is as non-committal to an inevitable outcome, "can, vulnerable".

Smoking can cause cancer, so it must be that the main cause of death in the population is from smoking.

If we said, "of the many types of carcinogens in the environment blocked by a force field, those in cigarettes are the only kind that can cause cancer." This doesn't give me much to put the piece together that smoking is the main cause of death is from smoking-- it just tells me that it's a substance that could do it.

I think the context of the other answers are important, also. They all very well strengthen the argument.

@TylerEdwardHaugle I felt the same way, honestly. I crossed out B, because I thought, "well, that would help the argument because it reinforces the idea that they can put the blood other places." Sure, you don't have to make the leap that bc they can store it in muscles they can or can't store it in the spleen. Who cares?

A, as incorrect, is so f*cking crazy. That just tells me another unrelated species can do it, but... I don't and won't ever see how that even offers even weak support.