For question 26, can choice C be derived from the sentence in the first para that "among common law doctrines regarding evidence, there were principles that are regarded bizzare today"?

I'm confused - C has a conditional argument but the stimulus doesn't. Does that not count as a reason against C?

When I first read the stimulus, I took that there is an implicit assumption that the PAH comes from the auto exhaust, due to how the sentence is framed. how to avoid such mistakes..

I feel several questions discussed here are better analyzed as "comparison" of two situations rather than "analogy" between two concepts. Both are relational terms but the second is more a heuristic device to guide one's understanding from one concept to another. But the situation described here are more substantial - you need to evaluate the similarity and difference to see if the principle applied in the first can be applied in the later situation. Just a thought

I was stuck at the difference between “all drugs” and “all new drugs”. ...

But in B, the statement that "the company has to pay out money" does not equal to that the company will spread the cost of the risks to all insurance holders. Without background assumptions on how an insurance company operates, is it reasonable to argue that the cost could have just been taken up by the company, like if there is a law to forbid price hike or if there is a competitive market for insurance company that limits its capacity to raise the price for other policies? I'm just saying, there seems to be a big loophole here in B as well...