In the stimulus, the way I interpreted it, "every" is referring to the alternative-energy initiatives that are getting screwed on funding. This indicates that there is a group of initiatives that are getting screwed and that at the minimum "every" energy-alternative initiative is a member of it. Based on the stimulus, we don’t know if there are other members that also belong to the larger group of initiatives getting screwed on funding.

In contrast, the correct answer choice uses "the only," which clarifies the unknown (whether there are other initiatives getting screwed on funding—the larger group). It states that the only group getting screwed on funding are the one's large corporations discourage, so there are no other members of the what would be a larger group of government initiatives getting screwed on funding other than those large corporations discourage, which includes our set of alternative-energy initiatives.

I think that's correct for some stimuli; however, not all stimuli are presented in the form of two opposing arguments where we're analyzing the author's reasoning. Sometimes, it may be just the author's argument alone.

Using the example of almonds, I think it becomes clearer if numbers are used. If 55% of the almonds grown in California are produced for domestic consumption, and 51% of the almonds grown in California require intense irrigation to produce, there must be an overlap of at least 4%. Therefore, some (at least 4%) of the almonds grown in California are both produced for domestic consumption and require intense irrigation.

To clarify: we don't know, in this case, that it is entirely engulfed like we do when we have a subset-superset relationship.

My understanding is that 'subset' and 'superset' apply when one group (set) is entirely encompassed by another group (set), which isn't the case here. Returning to the earlier example in the curriculum: all cats are mammals. Cats would be the subset, while mammals would be the superset, as it is impossible to be a cat without also being a mammal.

In this section, the size of the groups does not really matter. My understanding is that the larger circle demonstrates it contains members who do not belong to the intersecting group (the smaller circle). For example, while some students in Mrs. Stoops' class can read (represented by the intersecting area), others cannot (represented by the non-intersecting area of the smaller circle). If you look to the larger circle, you can see the opposite. Of all the people who can read (the larger circle), some are in Mrs. Stoop's class (the intersecting area), while others are not (the non-intersecting area of the larger circle). We can't say that the small circle is the subset of the large circle because the smaller one is not entirely engulfed by the larger, they just happen to share some common members.