I liked B initially, but chose E instead. My logic for E was the same for the jogger/stretching situation. If people who are prone to injuries tend to stretch more, then we can't blame stretching as the cause for injuries. Similarly, if people who (this is the key difference)... BELIEVE they are more prone to skin cancer choose to use more sunscreen, we can't blame the sunscreen. I get the word "believe" is the key word that should get me to move to a different answer, but I disagree with the rest of the explanation for why E is wrong. Meaning, I don't agree you can say the correlation remains intake. I'll leave it at that and continue to eat my sour grapes over here. :)

My takeaway from this lesson is that the original stimulus does not present itself in the form of rule based argument. I think the point is you can repackage the the stimulus in a way that translates to an argument with all the necessary rules/conditions to answer an LSAT question. In the real world, you would be changing the meaning of the paragraph, but you can get away with this on the LSAT.