I don't see why I would have to amend C to say that painters also sometimes act as live models. I feel that that is including an assumption that if someone is a live model then that person is not a painter. When I read C I thought that sure, he could have painted a self-portrait, but that doesn't stop him from also being a model that a different painter used (can directors also be actors in other movies?). I don't see why we could say "don't worry about that objection" to D but for C we have to say "but here's an objection".

@JonJRe11 I do get that, but I just see a simple rebuttal from the original argument: "sure, 'later music' (LM) has more in common with jazz than it does with anything else, but it lacks this necessary component of jazz" and they likewise could say something along the same lines for B. I imagine that this is taking the question too far, but it feels as though B and E are both placed into a very similar position of just how much they weaken.

@aldertree00644 I feel just taking ∩ from set theory could suffice alongside the existential quantifier.