This question tripped me up because I kept getting caught up in the fact that Whalley could still win the election without there being more over 50 voters than under 50 voters in the election.

The answer I really wanted was: "there will not be a large enough number of under 50 voters to offset Whalley's advantage with over 50 voters." This answer encompasses the full range of voter turnout conditions that would allow Whalley to win the election other factors holding constant. If the question was "what must be true for the consultant's conclusion to logically follow?", I would be right to hold out for this answer. However, this was not the question, which only asked for an assumption that would allow the consultant's conclusion to follow logically. Distracted by the absence of my ideal answer, I failed to see that the correct answer was itself in fact an assumption that would allow the conclusion to follow logically. What I needed to realize was—that the answer is not necessary for the conclusion to follow logically does not preclude the answer from being an assumption that would allow the conclusion to follow logically.

So is E wrong because it incorrectly interprets something that "would never be willingly accepted by a society" to mean something that the government is never able to do?

#help

I also felt I was getting worse at logic games before I got better! I'm better than when I started now, but definitely still not perfect. It's rough because when you're doing your diagnostic, you're acting in whatever way is most natural for your brain, which probably isn't the most accurate or efficient method in the big picture. As you learn better strategies, doing the games can actually take longer because you're acting in a way that isn't natural for you; you just have to push through that stage until your new skill set feels like second nature, which can take a ton of time!