Not necessarily for small businesses, especially in agriculture.

Even if that were the case, the "distribution cost" in E refers to that paid by customers (which is a real cost), not the zero the small farm would have to record if they accounted for it.

Unless I'm mistaken, there appears to be some confusion in your comment with respect to the word "imply." I think you mean to say that Correlation → Causation is wrong because the "some" relationship contradicts it.

Correlation "definitively doesn't" (i.e., never does) imply causation. That means under no circumstances does it necessarily suggest causation with either certainty or even probability without additional information/premises.

It is a necessary condition of causation (i.e., causation implies correlation), and therefore allows for the "possibility" of causation. This implies a "some" relationship (as you noted), which is by no means a contradiction to the above assertion.

Moreover, a "some" relationship does not technically involve any "implication," though we may diagram it with a bi-conditional arrow (↔). That is, if A and B have a "some" relationship, knowing A leads to no conclusion about B or vice versa.

One of the better RC answer explanations I’ve seen. Good job, JY!

Does a necessary assumption not “strengthen” an argument by eliminating one possible way the argument could be made invalid?

Could a NA be the answer to a strengthen question? #help

Each wrong answer choice contains a specific logical trap to tempt the test taker while inaccurately applying the artistic definitions in the stimulus. Some come close but miss a key detail in the stimulus. C is correct.