You have three nations. We are given information about the current status of K-- and we can infer that there was more growth in (some) other two nations (G and M).

C suggests this. However, it could be that there was relatively greater growth in only G or M. That is, we have no way of knowing that both G and M "each increased by a percentage that exceeded the percentage" that K grew by.

Your intuition is correct, but your math is off.

These false dichotomy questions can be difficult!

#help Generally speaking, is an alternative explanation generally the best AC on a flaw question?

This is very helpful, thank you!

So answer A is mainly changing the description of one of the terms in the premise? #help

I agree, I think that B has just as much "force" as D. In D we have to assume that there is a relationship between cholesterol and having a side effect from the drug, B informs us that many of the participants had not taken it before. Doesn't seem like D has that much force either...

The focus of the question will sunlight. We know this because there are several sentences devoted to the explanation of sunlight, darkness, germination of seeds etc.

We know that brief sunlight exposure is key. -- Keep in mind just because we know what brief exposure does, we have no idea if prolonged exposure does. It could be that brief exposure is sufficient for germination but prolonged exposure is equally sufficient. From this we know that sunlight exposure will need to be in the answer.

Although context isn't brought in, it is reasonable to assume that seeds will turn into plants, germination also describes a process of seeds turning into plants. Remember that D doesn't include any mention of sunlight but draws on an assumption that being redeposited under the soil is an important part of the process.

Stop using instagram, snapchat, etc for the durating of your prep. Seriously, the 30second / short videos / scrolling really takes a toll on your attention