In the stimulus the last sentence essentially states that the result of the approval poll is the same now as it was before the ethics accusations. A then goes on to state that everyone who voted Walker as guilty of ethics violations are almost all the SAME PEOPLE as those who did not judge his performance to be good or excellent (ie judged it to be poor), in the poll BEFORE. And thus everyone who judged his performance to be good or excellent BEFORE are the same people judging it to be so NOW, which we know because we know that group of people not to make up the group of people saying that he's guilty of ethics violations.

I realize this explanation may read as confusing so my bad in advance.

These all almost exclusively assumptions. The jumps you're making are too far.

I think E is better unsupported by the fact that it is never stipulated that any antibiotics have been used on bacteria X at all.

Sure, but if you substantiated that by saying you additionally thought that not only does math have no societal value, but it also diverts attention away from something with societal value, than it could be reasonably inferred that you think math shouldn't be taught.

Futhermore, the passage says 'object to teaching chess', do you object to teaching math? Objection to the idea of something is different than an objection to teaching that thing.

How is this logic wrong?

SAS -> /V

/SAS -> AA (if she does not deliver her speech then the assassination attempt did not fail (it succeeded). Which we get from group 3 negate sufficient. Contrapositive follows that:

/AA -> SAS

And thus: /AA -> /V

If the assassination attempt failed, then the vote did not pass.