I picked B because the study suggested that 75 is the average speed, and the conclusion extrapolated that to say we should apply it uniformly to all highways, where I figured the assumption is that the "average" speed should be evenly applied to "all" highways. But I definitely overlooked E entirely because I thought it was too broad, but now I see completely allows the reasoning to logically work.

E pissed me off so much because couldn't I use the same reasoning to rule it out as D? Just because there would be less competition than the telecommunication industry doesn't mean there's NO competition in national park industry. D is similarly saying less consumers would benefit as much but is wrong because it's still saying that consumers will benefit.

I feel like sometimes he's over complicating the reason for answer choices being wrong. I get why, but specifically for answer choice B (and wrong answers like it) you can quickly rule it out because we're hypothesizing about what someone believes about the implications/motivations of the thing we're being told about. Legislators could have passed the law banning smoking to protect employers from having to deal with cleaning tar off the walls, they could have done it because they fkn hate the smell. It doesn't have to be because of protecting health. I think with these types of answer choices it's more effective to just say "hey, the stimulus literally doesn't mention this at all, get rid of it and move on".

I got stuck between A and D. I think a helpful distinction in this case is it's easier to weaken a correlation/causation argument by saying "Well they're saying A caused B, when really its B that causes A". This is the case with answer choice A. However answer choice D, while I guess could be an argument you could use, takes on more assumptions in order to appropriately weaken the argument in the stimulus. You have to assume that less time to work means less productive work, which means less profits. The explanation video also addresses the idea that more socializing leads to better working relationships which means less working hours are needed to achieve the same performance and therefore keep profits the same or even better. Too many assumptions are required compared to A, which is simply a reversal of the correlation/causation inference that the stimulus suggests.

Is it safe to assume that the answer to a flaw question where the stimulus makes a correlation/causation argument is the AC that points out that the causal mechanism is backwards, there's an unconsidered outside factor causing the phenomenon, or there actually isn't a causal relationship at all is the correct answer?