I think this approach can work because you are looking for a part of the logical mechanism that is implied. For this question, we needed to find a link between money and happiness. I think a better rule would be to (like JY has said in the past for PSA) look for assumptions that are needed in order for the conclusion to be valid. Why is it sufficient to assume that we one should choose health over money? It must be because money should not be taken over happiness. I think this approach is even more necessary for SA questions because SA questions require those assumptions to reach the level of MUST BE TRUE.

Though he didn't commit scientific fraud in his doctoral analysis, he was found to commit fraud in his work outside the university; under D, this would also necessitate revoking his licence.

Did you do the other questions in the same section as this question? I think that's what they are referring to as "PSG Difficulty"

Doesn't C almost weaken the argument? If "Antibiotic resistance of bacteria that survive in sewage sludge in which heavy metals are concentrated contributes to their resistance to heavy-metal poisoning." then what we observe with our factor is actually an alternative hypothesis? As instead of something regarding heavy-metal resistance affecting antibiotic resistance, it is actually this antibiotic resistance that contributes to heavy-metal resistance?