This tripped me up because all of the options look like wrong answers. E seems like such a leap. We go from some subset of doctors sometimes treat patients rudely to say it is strongly supported that Doctors (therefore all doctors) foster the perception that they don't care about their patients. It seems so weak. And the question is asking for strongly supported. Add the word "Some" at the beginning of E and I'm all in. But to just say "Doctors" seems like such a stretch that I don't know how we could say this is strongly supported.

For the problem in the game: "Louv claims we carry at least thirty animal senses, some we do not know we have. These senses, he says, can reconnect us to nature." It asked what "These senses" is referring to. The answer it gave is "at least thirty animal senses." I interpreted the sentence as referring to the other prior referential statement "some we do not know we have" I know that "these senses" is referring to the senses mentioned. But I thought it was specifically referring to the subset of senses that the passage says we do not know about as opposed to all of the thirty senses mentioned first.

"Fat cats trained by Parisian divas sing lullabies." Is this equivalent to the conditional statement, "If you are a fat cat that is trained by Parisian divas, then you sing lullabies."? Giving that "being a fat cat trained by Parisian divas" is the sufficient condition, and "sings lullabies" is the necessary condition?

"Over the past several years, increases in worldwide grain production have virtually ceased." I'm curious why this is not considered context and rather is considered a premise. I understand that the next statement after this one is a subsidiary conclusion that is used as premise for the main conclusion, and that this subsidiary conclusion, "further increases will be extremely difficult;" is supported by the premise immediately following it. Are we saying this first sentence in the prompt is also supporting that? Or are we saying it is supporting the main conclusion? What distinguishes it from merely context?