We need an answer that explains IF TRUE why retired, unemployed people are more likely to have a heart attack on a Monday.

A. If true, then working on a Monday, even if as a leisure project rather than for income, could introduce stress and cause a heart attack. This touches all the parts of the "weirdness" we need to explain.

B. This is out of scope because we're considering unemployed retired people.

C. Even if true, this doesn't explain why it's more likely on a Monday.

D. Even if true, this doesn't explain why it's more likely on a Monday.

E. Again, this doesn't explain why it's more likely on a Monday.

I hope this helps anyone who's confused!

@ThomasPhillips On sufficient assumptions questions, for me it helps to bridge the gap between the conclusion and the "odd" detail, in this case that the witness recognized one party and not the other. I liked E too, but because E does not touch the conclusion (that the testimony should be excluded), it's really only sitting on one side of the metaphorical gap as opposed to fixing it. How does the likelihood of recognizing the famous client have any bearing on the exclusion of testimony? Because the witness could be lying about not recognizing the famous person? Or lying about recognizing the attacker? Does not knowing every famous person affect one's credibility?

I'd have to make too many assumptions to get there logically; meanwhile, D is very to the point without me having to add/make up details. That's how I picked D.

@GregErickson97 Unless, until, and without logically mean the same thing, yes.