I've been finding this question type much less torturous than a lot of the previous ones because you can mostly rely on wording and semantics. For this problem, you can see that the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive ("unlikely/likely" rather than "will/must") which allows you to get rid of all answer choices except D. I've noticed a lot of wrong answer choices either conflate quantifiers (such as most vs. all) in one or more places, introduce one too many subjects to be relevantly similar to the stimulus, or they mess up the conclusion. So at least for me it's basically a big game of pin the tail on the donkey. Although in the real world you probably would not want to rely on heuristics to this extent.

The next question which is about taxation (PT133 S3 Q25) is a very good example of how POE can help with this question type so I'll quickly run through my thought process for it in few words:

A) "to correspond directly to" vs. "in proportion to" in first sentence. Good. "Reliable" vs. "objective" in second sentence with the same flow. Great. And in both cases, the third sentence makes a proportional conclusion based on context in the first sentence and reasoning in the second. Lovely.

B) Why "complete autonomy"? The conclusion is about a proportion, it's not absolute. [LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER]

C) "Many government programs" ... uhh, how many? And for how many "large corporations"? And why do we care?

D) Something about the second sentence feels off. The answer choice is just trying to go A -> B -> C in a very textbook way, but the stim is using the second sentence to better qualify the first.

E) There's no mediating clause. It's just one premise. Very different

Take statements at face value; read them like they are rules. In this way, I like to modify them slightly in my head to make it more intuitive without changing the meaning of the stimulus: All students who mastered logic saw improvements in PrepTest scores. So we can say that PrepTest score improvement is a necessary condition for which the students mastered logic -- i.e., if they did not improve, they could not have mastered logic. But we cannot definitively say that mastering logic was necessary for improvement -- they may have mastered logic but not had improvement.

Mastery -> improve

/Improve -> /mastery

The sentence is structured unnaturally so I initially thought the same. The word "its" is referencing how privileged people in society were in support of the authoritarian regime, not democracy. The authoritarian regime being dispensable acts as the catalyst for the transition to democracy, hence "its support base" (who privileged people "had been part of") is contextually about the authoritarian regime.

To put it more intuitively, it would not be rational for privileged people to initially support democracy, which would strip them of their authority. The first 8 words of the sentence (specifically "to democracy") signifies they are going from authoritarianism to democracy and not the other way around, and so "had been" must reference to the status quo, which is authoritarianism.