Had a similar thought process, but then saw the direction the choices were pointing towards and what is our task for this question type. Our task is to make it more LIKELY that Morris could become a majority shareholder, not guarantee it. E indicated that Azedcorp will sell newspaper holdings. Any indication of selling makes it more likely that The Daily shares fall into this group. In contrast I felt that B gave no indication at all as to what is likely/ the direction this transaction will go. Azedcorp could or could not sell the shares for more money. And even if they were tempted to sell, the stimulus indicates that Morris would acquire the shares soon, we do not know how fast this transaction can take and that is another assumption we have to make. Furthermore, maybe they were steadfast not to share because of some other reason besides money, maybe they don't like Morris. If they are forced to sell like E says, it is more reasonable to believe any other reservations would have to be put aside. Thus, it is more reasonable to think that the Daily is included in the shares and that because of this Morris will LIKELY become majority shareholder. E just removes one of the obstacles to her obtaining a majority.

All of this to say, some choices can and will require assumption but you should pick the one with the least amount. Let me know if that helps/need further clarification.

Here, the assumptions for B vs. E can be explained by which are more reasonable or likely to occur. As for these questions the choices should be considered true, we can assume that (E) the selling of their shares is a likely possibility. In fact, E tells us that selling is more likely, thus offering a sense of direction. Regardless, of whether they sell, the possibility that they will sell makes it more likely that Morris will soon be the majority shareholder (although it is important to note that even if they sell it does not mean Morris will obtain these shares. But our job is not to prove Morris will be majority shareholder but rather prove it's LIKELY she could become. Bankruptcy and selling is the removal of one obstacle). In contrast, B gives us no indication at all what is possible - it leaves it open whether a larger amount of money can or cannot convince Azedcorp to sell. Moreover, we do not know how soon they will accept any offer and the consultant predicted that "soon."

I kind of thought of this question as the chemist critiquing the marketing/commercial of this weed killer.

The chemist concludes (simplified) that the data regarding this weed killer is misleading because its effectiveness is dependent on individual soil conditions. Could effectiveness differences be the intention of the weed killer developers? The chemist seems to say no (or else he would not be critiquing the case-by-case soil difference). Hence, the gap in the reasoning is what data is the chemist comparing the weed killer's effectiveness to? I predicted that there must be something wrong about the way the weedkiller was advertised/what promises does it make?

B) Fills in this blank as it says that the weed killer's developers tested it in perfect, unrealistic conditions. Thus, it fills in the chemist's assumption that the actual effectiveness of the weed killer does not match the intended effectiveness because of a data flaw. Therefore, the developer's data cannot be correct.

Another way I saw it is that weakening can include conceding parts of the stimulus' conclusion but then explaining why its missing a key piece that makes the alternative answer better (hence weakening the original conclusion by adding to it). In this case I read A as not excluding the possibility that people do not change (social inertia); but that two things can be true. People can still not want change, but there is a greater reason that overrides social inertia. For A is that keeping a job is more important. In order of more to less importance A could imply: maintaining jobs, social inertia, comfort, ect.

In case this is helpful to anyone (I sat down for 20 min not understanding why B is wrong):

B is wrong based on the rules the stimulus presents (and is not reliant on the "independently owned" condition - this is the part that distracted and confused me). All we know is that if a store sells tropical fish but does not sell exotic birds, it must sell gerbils - TF + /EB → G (→ /I).

What answer choice B does is introduce a new rule for which we have no information. It affirms TF but introduces the co-sufficient condition as pet stores that also sell EB. B's chain reads :

TF + EB → /G. As this is different from the stimulus' rule, we DO NOT know what such set of sufficient conditions yield.

However, on a deeper level, B mistakes sufficient and necessary conditions regarding Exotic Birds. For sake of explanation, I will isolate the Exotic Bird (EB) co-sufficient in the stimulus' rule (the relationship between both conditions is important but this is just for explanation).

Original Chain: /EB → G

Correct Contrapositive: /G → EB

B: EB → /G (B Contrapositive: G → /EB)

In a correct contrapositive chain "EB" would belong in the necessary condition spot. Under B's new rule, Exotic Birds is in the sufficient condition again. Moreover, when compared to the original rule's contrapositive, "/G" belongs in the sufficient condition and not the necessary as answer choice B presents.