I would just represent this rule through two quicker diagrams:

T - W or Z - V: (left to right:: slowest to fastest)

and

T - W or V - Z: (left to right:: slowest to fastest)

In either world, W can switch spots with only one other letter.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but when you say that the "hot surfaces are red," in lawgic form is it like this: Hot Surface --> Red ?

If you satisfy the necessary, then the rule is irrelevant, right? Genuinely asking, how does "x are y" translate?

At first, I'd agree with you that (D) does attack the premise, but after really sifting out an explanation I noticed a subtle detail that would justify (D) as a weakening statement.

The "predominant theory" claims that the cave paintings "largely" (read: roughly/generally) depicted their current diets. The critic makes the assumption that these people literally drew all the types of food they ate. Choice (D) wrestles with this assumption, calling into question the diet these people "largely" consumed. Technically, they still could have eaten sea animals, so it's not really attacking the premise, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sea animals comprised a "large" part of their diet and henceforth been something they drew on their cave walls.

(D) would allude to this--essentially saying that the "predominant theory" remains true--these people DID indeed paint pictures of animals they "largely" ate on the walls. Yeah, they may have needed to eat some fish on the trips between the islands, but most of the time they subsisted on beef jerky.

This was the best explanation I could've come up with, and it's really subtle. I don't think most of the people who got this right, got it right because they were absolutely sure of every answer choice. (C) just seemed to be ridiculously irrelevant when compared to all the other answers. I really hope this helped--if anyone has a better explanation than the one I provided, please chime in.

(A) doesn't contradict the premise because it makes a claim for their activity upon their arrival. The premise only describes/concerns itself with the trip--not the destination.

I understood the reasoning behind why (B) would be the correct answer, but I didn't quite understand why (E) would have NOT been correct given your explanation. You asked where the conditions would demand for the Executive Administrator to not have a felony charge. Well, the way I read it, it says that to be appointed to the executive board, you can't have a felony record (If felony, then no executive board. The Executive Administrator is part of the executive board. Therefore, if felony, then no Executive Administrator).

For me, (E) was wrong because there is no assumption necessary--the argument clearly states that a felony charge disqualifies you from appointment to the executive board. The need for a "relevance" of the felony to the position is nonexistent--any felony charge would bar you from being appointed.. ? It seemed to me that your explanation was implying that there was nothing stating that a felony charge would disqualify you from being an Executive Administrator. Not directly, but reasonably so through "transitive" property? I'd just like some clarification--thanks, J.Y.