@JO_Odera I did not go with B for the same reason - the stimulus states "each... member... only... selfish reasons." That did not match in my view with "not ALL... members possess," which implies that some do. The stimulus clearly stated that ALL members possessed a different property.

Thank you for sharing your explanatory afterthought. I don't know if that is sufficient though. Management is still "staff" - just with a different function. (At least that's what Google says - of course, Google knows it all and best :) If that is for debate - what "staff" is - then the stimulus should have differentiated various lines of staff, but it clearly said - "EACH staff member." I would like to propose addressing this nuance in the explanatory video because there are at least some students who tripped on this one.

@rjon27 Thank you much! I'll keep this great example in mind next time I try my assumptions :)

@MnM that brings me back to my original note :) Overall, I agree that A is a stronger assumption, but they could have written it better.

@MnM Alright, thank you. Though "not abandoning" might as well mean "getting away with crime" - where does it say that by the time the owners noticed... the thieves were gone with the cars. I am not convinced.

A was based on assumptions, but B offered the same weight of assumptions. The way I understood B was: car alarms deterred a number of thefts altogether (hence, the number of thefts declined), yet people ignoring those alarms enabled the completion of actual thefts. Kinda like stealing Louvre jewels in the middle of a day... Aren't those valid assumptions?

It feels that there is a thin line between "reading between the lines" and making assumptions. I wish to have a clearer understanding of how to separate the two.