problem is that it has nothing to do with the hypothesis, about nutrients

It's just an example of a way in which power is distributed equally. Plus, even if it the sole way in which that can happen, the argument doesn't benefit because the second sentence states the MORE equal blah blah blah; Implying it's a spectrum. In the last sentence, they just give two examples of one (referendum) that's more equal (elected representatives) than the other to posit the argument. In the world of this question, there could be another government system that's just as equal as a referendum that would still suffer the same effect of diminishing the welfare of the society.

It's just an example of a way in which power is distributed equally. Plus, even if it the sole way in which that can happen, the argument doesn't benefit because the second sentence states the MORE equal blah blah blah; Implying it's a spectrum. In the last sentence, they just give two examples of one (referendum) that's more equal (elected representatives) than the other to posit the argument. In the world of this question, there could be another government system that's just as equal as a referendum that would still suffer the same effect of diminishing the welfare of the society.

Tbh I have the same problem and although i usually end up getting them right i take wayyy too long on them. This isn't the case with PT105, but if I spend more than 90 seconds on one of these questions, I leave it for the end since the other questions usually point to how the test writers "want" me to think about this passage.

For PT 105 specifically, "opposing" in answer choice A makes it clearly wrong. They aren't opposing views, both are taken to exist, they just are two sides of the same coin, or in other words, advantages and disadvantages, which is answer choice E. Writing this out now makes me think that maybe descriptor words are especially important to vet when initially reading the answer choices. I'm going to try this out now too! Best of luck to you.