@AsemanShahsavand can you comment on if we should make any distinction between the following:

the stimulus appears to be operating on a conditional something like:

a true conclusion > satisfying evidence

and they can take the contrapositive and say that:

satisfying evidence > true conclusion

but their actual argument involves asserting the positive presence of unsatisfying evidence, not the absence of satisfying evidence.

i suppose this would be more relevant in a scenario where an array of 3 premises are cited in support of a conclusion, and the falsity of one of them is taken to invalidate the entire argument/conclusion.

anyways the answer choice appears to assume that claims for the positive presence of unsatisfactory evidence and the absence of satisfactory evidence are equivalent. is this the case and should we bother parsing these apart...

@RobertCarlson the answer choice says "none of the shows" not "none of the new shows"...would the domain therefore properly be 'all the shows W&W produced last year'...? presumably they produce recurring/old shows besides their new ones...

@conmcbrider889 the answer choice characterizes the self-confidence level specifically as "above-average". the stimulus has it as "more than others". this means that by the definition of "above-average" the risk takers of the answer choice already had a confidence level of "more than others" ie they were already at the level the stimulus posits as the supposed reward of confronting one's fears