Is it not ambiguous in question four, whether "them" refers to the attacks or the editorialists?

Or since the second part continues on about the attacks (ending), we should assume "them" refers to that since nothing further is said about editorialists?

How can you be confident that "its support base" doesn't refer to "society." Seems ambiguous, what tell you it's the regime they they are the support base of and not society? Semantically, both work, of course.

A small clarification: defining support only as ‘increasing the likelihood’ doesn’t rule out simple probabilistic increases. Under that broad definition, the reverse order isn’t a perfect counterexample to "providing support" as defined as "increasing the liklihood of truth"), because it does increase the likelihood that tigers are dangerous. In a world where all mammals are suitable pets, tigers being dangerous has zero probability; in a world where some mammals aren’t suitable pets, that probability is non-zero. So as stated, the definition of support doesn’t fully exclude this case since liklihood does increase in the reverse direction too.

Might be helpful to address this because I think the way i positioned it above would get you in to trouble on the LSAT and it's not unreasonable someone might wonder that, "hey isn't it more likely tigers are dangerous in a world that not all mammals are suitable pets than in a one where all mammals are suitable pets."