I'm interested but mine are pretty bad

Why not have an additional Logical Symbolism statement Faulty→ suspension bridge

Seems like the sentence "Since no suspension bridges... faulty engineering design" implies that as well.

C makes sense because it doesn't do anything to affect the stimulus.

The conclusion is 'the prevailing theory is wrong' because the painters must've eaten sea animals and because the cave paintings don't have paintings of sea animals.

If the cave painting has depictions of land animals, then the support between the premises and the conclusion aren't weakened. The prevailing theory can still be wrong. The painters must've eaten sea animals.

I feel that one of the problems that I have with Weakener questions is that I am not accepting the premises and the conclusion as true.

I picked D because I thought "If this were true then the argument presented above obviously wouldn't work." When in reality, I'm just changing the argument.

How do I fix this habit?

I was tricked by answer choice B. I conflated basic driving skills with using car safety.

Anyway The argument is as follows

Conclusion: Teenage drivers should have additional restrictions on their licenses.

Premise 1: They lack basic driving skills

Premise 2: Though they are 7% of driving population, they account for 14% of traffic fatalities.

A: Not driving skills but instead they use older (possibly more dangerous equipment)

B: Not driving skills. Teenagers don't use the safety feature of a seat belt.

C: Not driving skills. Teens are driving much further, which could mean that they are more likely of getting into accidents.

D: This is the correct answer because we're restating information we already know. Doesn't hurt or hinder the premise's connection to the conclusion.

E: Not driving skills. If a teen gets into a deadly crash, the accident will kill more people than if a non-teen were driving the car.

Did I miss anything?