I feel most of their older videos don't explain the answer choices as adequately as those featured questions in the core curriculum. But here's how I chose E (very reluctantly, I was going between E and D for like 3 minutes) when I did it, hope it helps!

The original phenomenon was that fatalities decreased over the past 5 years.

The stimulus' explanation is that drivers are more skillful now.

None of choices A-D connects the phenomenon with the explanation. Seatbelts, Roads, fewer hours driving--they all point at an explanation outside driver skills, thus weakening the stimulus' explanation, which attributed the reduced fatality to improved driver skills.

E however, pointed out the implementation of the driver education program, which tends to have a direct impact on driver skill. It thus strengthens, if not at least not weakens, the original claim.

To make a concession: Even if the driver's Ed program is crap, we can quite reasonably assume that it won't make people worse drivers. we're merely back at where we started, and thus the argument is neither weakened nor strengthened (which still fits the weakens EXCEPT requirement).

Consider this analogy.

Stim: Last semester you were failing your econometric tests, but this year you're getting straight A's. Therefore, we can conclude that your mastery of the course material improved.

And if we also do a weaken EXCEPT question, the answer choices might look something like this:

A) Your professor kicked the bucket, the new one is a grad student who appeases students by having generous curves.

B) The Econ department revised the curriculum halfway through to make the course more accessible.

C) That kid with distracting habits like clicking his pen/sucking his Cheetos-ridden fingers no longer sits right next to you (A few years ago my friend had a guy laughing maniacally sitting next to him when he was taking his TOEFL exam, go figure how my friend did at that sitting).

D) You hired a tutor to help you out with econometrics.

You see where I'm going with this? A, B, and C are taking the merit away from you, saying that you ain't getting any better. They all weaken the explanation that you improved.

D, however, isn't a solid strengthen, it's more of a NOT WEAKEN. Your tutor might not have helped you improve your skills--but it'd be a reasonable assumption that they'd not be so stupid that they'd actually make you worse at metrics. This, I think, shares the vibe of choice E in the original question.

I think if we change the “most” into “some,” it works as well. Please let me know if I got it wrong!

A→B

A‑s→C

—————

B←s→C

My line of thinking is this: the first line indicates that A is a subset of B, and thus, since something in that subset is C, something in the superset(B) must be C as well.

It’s like:

All Italians find carbonara gross.

Some Italians are humans (the original meme: https://x.com/radio_netas/status/1405322285771280390)

————————

Some humans find carbonara gross.

Methinks the form in this lesson (using most instead of some) is just an iteration with an even stronger premise . Perhaps it’s one of the forms that they want us to figure out ourselves?