I think an important aspect is that we do not know how long ago the actor played a role. It is entirely possible that, if the actor did actually have a copy, it is long gone by the time the abridgment was created.

I chose "E" because, after reading the stimulus, I had the initial idea that the argument was relying too much on a physiological explanation of symptoms, and I thought "E" spoke to that.

I correctly chose "C' on the blind review.

Now, I understand that "C" similarly points to the idea that it's not just physical WITHOUT the incorrect claim of "E" that the author has distinctly ruled out everything else (i.e. only one cause). An author "failing to consider an alternate explanation" is more strongly supported than the more extreme statement that an author "only" thinks it has one cause.

@Arsalan06 Same, I thought it was too moralizing of a word choice. I guess they mean innocent = unaware / ignorant of the harm?

I have one example that I created that I'd like confirmation that I'm understanding it correctly.

Example: There will be a hot dog cart in the park unless it is raining.

Lawgic:

/ HDC --> raining

/ raining --> HDC

If there is not a hot dog cart, it is raining.

If it is not raining, there is a hot dog cart.

Is this saying the absence of hot dog cart guarantees the presence of rain? But, the presence of rain does NOT guanteee the absence of the hot dog cart?

In the contrapositive, is this also saying the no rain means the hot dog cart will be there? But the hot dog cart being at the park does NOT mean there is not rain?