Most is too strong to be supported by the text. It is true that at least one criticism, that the aria is repetitive, is unwarranted. Why? Because the musicologist refutes that the repetition serves a vital function.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding!

To my understanding of question #5, it is easiest to answer this question using the domain-rule method because of that first clause: "When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense..."

You can kick this clause up to the domain because this question is not trying to get you to figure out whether knowledge of a particular fact is an element of an offense but how knowledge of a particular fact is an element of an offense. Whether knowledge of a fact is an element of an offense is not contested - what is contested here is if such knowledge is established by awareness of its probability, unless he believe that particular fact does not exist. In other words, we are not trying to figure out whether knowledge of a particular fact is an element of an offense but how: that not believing that particular fact exists and awareness of the probability of that fact's existence results in how this knowledge is established.