For me, I was deciding between options B and D. D is incorrect because of the word most. They are two rules to test NA (1) MBT or (2) Using negation and seeing if the argument falls apart. I tend to focus on the latter. For option D, let's negate it and see if the argument falls apart. Given a choice between similar Japense and North American models, al with the right-side steering well, most Japenese DO NOT select North American models. Does the argument fall a part? In this not really... here the problem is trying to reduce the problem of imbalance. Even is few or a small minority of Japenese purchsae the North American model that could reduce the imbalance - therefore, D is not a neccesary assumption.
So let's look at B and apply the negation test. If Japenese individuals are inclined to purchase the left side steering wheel cars, then they will not feel inclined to purchase non-left or right (aka North Ameican models). Here the argument falls a part thus B is a necessary assumption.
I was between A and E. For A, are we assuming that there are no other additional costs besides the animals and the acre of land?
Can we go over why it is not A? I switched from A to E but I am trying to reason out why A is wrong rather than my reasoning right now which is that E is better than A. Is it because A doesn't have a conditional which results in the daughter not protecting the life. A seems to focus on protection of life but the MP of the stimulus is listening to the father's wishes which the stimulus in E highlights.
Can I also include blind review?