Dropping my thought-process, in case it helps anyone:

For victims of a disease, the passage suggests the following conditional: hiccups → Ebola (hiccups is a symptom of Ebola only, not any other disease). Importantly, this does not mean Ebola → hiccups — that would flip sufficiency and necessity, which is a classic LSAT trap.

The passage also reinforces this by saying many — not all — epidemic victims experienced hiccups. So hiccups aren't a necessary symptom; like with any disease, it's simply one symptom that some victims may experience.

That's exactly why (B) is consistent with the passage: if hiccups aren't a necessary condition for Ebola, it makes perfect sense that some people during the epidemic didn't experience them. No contradiction there.

As for the other answer choices — if you take each one as true and work with only what the passage gives you, they each deepen the gap in the argument rather than help close it. A good way to check: does this answer choice make the conclusion easier or harder to reach? For (B), it doesn't strengthen — but it doesn't need to. All that matters here is that it doesn't weaken, and it doesn't (merely consistent with). For the others, the gap between the premises and conclusion becomes harder to close.

Hope this helps!

@mmartinez130 Hi! I think this was actually explicitly stated in the stimulus. The first sentence uses "hence" to indicate that the doubling in computing speed is resulting from/caused by the doubling number of transistors. The stimulus continues with "...from the mid-1990s into the next decade, each such doubling in a microchip's computing speed was accompanied by a doubling in the cost of producing that microchip." Here, "such" is referring to the doubling of microchip's computing speed through the doubling of number of transistors, and thus indicates the doubling cost of producing the microchips also accompanied the doubling number of transistors.

I kicked "proposal for a new department (PND)" up to the domain, as it was pretty clear that that likely wouldn't be contested. Helped simplify and anticipate the right answer a little faster, so all I had to do was hunt.

@khamdan Hi! The logic I used was that Gaby didn't really mention "fundamental knowledge," which A specifically discusses -- who knows, Gaby may think that the simple practice/skill of working through your interests and nurturing them is what specifically enables success in adult life instead of fundamental knowledge (I am thinking of information like personal finance).