Is the reason B is wrong because it says "most viewers PREFER that news be entertaining" instead of that most viewers consume news that is entertaining? Or is is because it says "entertaining" and not "primarily entertaining"? I just felt like we do need to guarantee that viewers will consume more entertaining news in order for us to say the first part of the concluding sentence that "under such circumstances, news is primarily entertaining" bc that is the first mention of the word entertaining, and before that it just says that there is a big market for consumption and news has evolved to fit this market. I just am struggling to understand exactly why it isn't necessary to assume that people consume primarily entertaining news, because if they don't, then these circumstances do not lead to news being primarily entertaining and the conclusion would fall. I'd really really appreciate any help. Sometimes I have overanalyzed the necessary assumption questions because I feel like I really pick the argument apart almost too much but I don't know where to draw the line so that one answer is still right and the others are wrong.

@ArthurWhite I'm not completely sure if this is the flaw, but I notice you say flawed is sufficient to a book being published by GPP. This is not true, since only some books by GPP recommend adding compost and don't explain h&c difference, and any gardening book that does not explain the basics of composting is flawed, so therefore some books by GPP are flawed. Yes these books by GPP are flawed, but that does not mean all flawed books are published by GPP. The stimulus doesn't say that these books are the only gardening books in the world that recommend adding compost but don't explain h vs c. So it is not sufficient to assume that because a book is flawed it must have been published by GPP. But your statement right after this, statement 6, is only correct in the reverse, and I think you could have simplified this for yourself by making that assumption right off that bat because you can see that if a book is flawed, it doesn't explain the basics of composting, so these books are flawed. The conclusion is saying they are flawed because any book that doesn't explain the basics of composting is flawed. Therefore it is saying these books recommend composting but do not explain the basics of composting. All we know about what these books contain about composting is that they recommend composting but do not explain the difference between h&c. So it must be true that if a book does not explain the difference between h&c, it does not explain composting. Therefore not explaining the difference between hot and cold composting is sufficient to not explaining the basics of composting. So basically hot and cold composting is a basic of composting. However, there could theoretically be other basics of composting. We don't know if these are explained in the book or not but we don't honestly care. We just know that because it doesn't explain h&c composting, it doesn't explain the basics. If we look at answer choice D, it says "everyone" who understands the difference between h&c composting understands the basics of composting. But we don't know if there are other basics of composting. We just know that h&c composting is a basic of composting, because a book that didn't explain h&c did not explain the basics. But even if the book explained h&c, we don't know if it would still be considered flawed because we don't know if that is actually a sufficient assumption to explaining the basics of composting, we just know that it is necessary to explaining the basics of composting, because without it, we did not explain the basics. So looking at answer choice C, an explaination of the basics of composting must include an explaination of the difference between hot and cold composting, this is in fact a necessary assumption because without explaining h&c composting, a book fails to explain the basics of composting. Sorry this is so long but to sum up, the issue I'm seeing is you assumed that explaining hot and cold composting is sufficient to explaining the basics of composting, but the argument doesn't say this. It just says that without explaining hot vs. cold composting, we haven't explained the basics. there could be other basics, but we know h vs c is one of them. So D is wrong because someone totally could understand h vs c composting but still not understand the basics of composting because there may be other basics of composting we have no idea about. Hope this helped but reply if not bc I don't think I'm great at explaining things.

could you add me as well? thanks!