I felt super confident that D was the answer, but I had to pause and think for like 2 minutes because I had no idea how B helped reconcile the stimulus lol

Do we really have to treat 'any proposal... will not be funded" as a conditional statement?

I get that we can treat it as "if it's a proposal, it will not be funded" but intuitively, I just threw proposals existing into the domain and went straight to /funded, contraposed that and got to the right answer. Is viewing every statement as part of the chain, or as a nested conditional good practice for more complex questions and I just got lucky here, or am I right that I can throw that part up to the domain and keep going?

I'm struggling here to differentiate between 'reading closely' to understand B could cause C vs. making unwarranted assumptions. I know from my experience of the world that when there is high demand and low supply, there's market opportunity. But how does that logically follow from the stimulus, rather than being an assumption I make about the world? What if this stimulus is occurring in a world where economics don't function that way at all?

In this type of question, is it just that it's about making fewer, more reasonable assumptions rather than no assumptions at all, and the only correct answer follows from that? I get that E is too strong and I get why the other answers don't follow, but it feels like this question is asking us to make an assumption about what happens when there's low supply and high demand.