@rydlerjune I think the general heuristic here is that if you can't find support for every detail of the answer choice in the passage, the answer is incorrect. Because the passage explicitly contradicts the subject matter of answer choice A ("[stealing thunder's] effectiveness in actual trials"), it is incorrect. Our ability to justify an answer choice (from beyond what is explicitly stated) does not always translate to the actual fittingness of the answer choice.

@Isabella! lowkey c applies even if you take it as a conditional. we could (perhaps sloppily) distill the first premise to the conditional "(lifestyle choices) + (acceptance) --> enjoyable life". while the remainder of the stimulus only applies to the second half of the sufficient condition, notice that in making the premise a conjunctive conditional (where you need BOTH conditions to be satisfied where the "and" appears), we need a rule that can accommodate for both aspects of the sufficient condition. A, B, and E all only pertain to one aspect of the conjunction in the sufficient condition. D could work, but as the explanation says, "deliberately" makes the rule too strong to apply, so the only correct answer is C precisely because in being over-inclusive, it captures both aspects of the sufficient condition