The husband wants all the smoke. Not doing the daily chores frustrates the wife. When then wife is frustrated, it invokes the smoke. The husband chooses not to take out the trash.

I feel this works because we don't know that taking the trash is a daily chore but it's plausible. Also, the conclusion is "all the smoke", however we do not know how much of the smoke was invoked by the egregious act. Lol, please anyone correct!

Question 5 demonstrates a weak argument because the conclusion could have stated the shirts could not be sold at less than the stores price, but it also could have stated that shirts could not be sold at more than the stores price in order for the premise to maintain strong assumption, correct?

Man, I could be a future a LSAT test writer! Hopefully someone understood that question haha.