As demonstrated by the comments and percent of test takers who got this question right (and wrong), this question is no doubt confusing. But I think the stimulus is made much more understandable, and the right answer choice made much more obvious, when we use an analogy. Consider the following:

In a study of individuals being treated for chronic migraine headaches, after 6 weeks of taking medicine prescribed by a doctor, 47% of patients showed major improvement regardless of whether they took over-the-counter Tylenol or prescription-only pain medicine. This shows that choosing to take Tylenol or prescription pain medication for chronic migraine headaches has no effect on the odds of major improvement.

Ok, think about what this argument is saying.

All we know is that if you look at the patients who took Tylenol for migraines, about 47% showed major improvement after 6 weeks. And if you look at the patients who took prescription pain medicines, also about 47% showed major improvement after 6 weeks. Therefore if you have a chronic migraine headache condition, the argument says ‘yeah, it makes no difference whether you take Tylenol or a prescription medicine.’

But what if in that group of 47% who showed major improvement and took prescription pain medicine, everyone switched to Tylenol (based on the recommendation of the study)? It would seem pretty reasonable that were this to occur, the percentage who show major improvement in the prescription group (now Tylenol group) would decline from 47% - they are taking a less powerful pain medication. After all: The groups are self-selected - perhaps it was for a reason that the patients in the prescription group took a prescription, and the patients in the Tylenol group took Tylenol. Just like it was for a reason that some physical therapy patients in the stimulus had a GP, and others had a specialist. Were that to be different, the chances of major improvement may also have been different.

For all the NFL fans out there, here is a stimulus example that I think illustrates the flaw in this lesson’s question:

‘It is well known that having a Super Bowl winning quarterback on a team’s roster helps make that team poised to go to the playoffs. Going to the playoffs enables an NFL team to have a real shot at winning a Super Bowl. Thus, NFL fans who know the Colts to have newly-signed player Joe Flacco, a Super Bowl Champion, as the Colts starting quarterback, must evidently believe the Colts have a legitimate chance at winning a Super Bowl next season.’

The flaw here is that just because an NFL fan believes/knows a team to have a ‘Super Bowl winning quarterback’ does not mean they will infer said team to have a legit shot at the Super Bowl. Firstly, because said NFL fan may not even have the knowledge of the stimulus’ chain - I’d wager many NFL fans would not subscribe to the chain I laid out above. And secondly, even if an NFL fan knew and subscribed to the chain I laid out, who says they would hold the implied belief for any ‘Super Bowl winning quarterback’ on a given team? It’s likely NFL fans would infer that, say, Patrick Mahomes (a Super Bowl winning quarterback) does in fact give the Chiefs a legit shot at winning the Super Bowl (the implied belief of the causal chain). But Joe Flacco? Or, even Nick Foles (another old, washed up Super Bowl winning quarterback)? I don’t think they’d infer these QBs give their respective teams a good shot at a Super Bowl (the implied belief of the causal chain).

I think in critiquing the government’s study, you are bringing in outside knowledge. I too thought this government study may be suspect for an array of reasons, but in viewing the stimulus in a vacuum, I realized that the proposed measure would in fact reduce accidents BECAUSE the government study showed us so - and only because the government study showed us so.

During timed, I remember crossing out B because "many" is so vague and left open the opportunity some new products do succeed with marketing campaigns, which the stimulus also seemed to echo (stimulus said marketing campaign is "one chance to save the product").

The argument though is that "low watt bulbs should be used" not 'low watt bulbs will always be available to people' - so take what you said to be true, that no expectation of profit -> stop making bulbs. The argument in the stimulus can (and would) still stand even if low watt bulbs were not made as much anymore because they were not profitable. People could still get their hands on low watt bulbs, maybe by some cheap manufacturer? Maybe from some other industry? Some other country? See how that would not weaken the underlying argument? Whereas, if we got more information on current users' opinion of low watt bulbs, that could dramatically strengthen/weaken the argument. Imagine this was a weakening question and an AC said "A recent survey of 1,000 current users' of low watt bulbs revealed 90% were unhappy with their low watt bulbs" - that would be a pretty big dagger to the argument that "people should use low watt bulbs"

#feedback I believe the last sentence in the "Let's Review" has a typo. "(E) does weaken" should be "doesn't weaken."

Another possible strengthen answer choice, which would block an alternative hypothesis, could be: "Disease control efforts by the British government during the Industrial Revolution were largely unsuccessful at eliminating black spot and tar spot."

This would strengthen the argument by further isolating the causal factor of the elimination of black spot and tar spot as being attributable to air pollution, not some other factor like human disease control.

You make a good point; but I look at AC-A's pressure hypothesis as a gradient. AC-A says pressure->slower to leave parking space. Ok, fine. Let's apply the stimulus' two types of pressure. Waiting quietly is some pressure, so there is somewhat slower of a pace to leave a parking space when a car is waiting quietly. However, honking is a lot more pressure. Reasonable to assume that when you hear the horn blaring, your heart rate goes up, there is just more pressure. A lot more pressure from honking leads to a lot slower of a pace to leave parking space. When thought about this way, AC-A provides a framework for an alternative hypothesis that can be applied to both cars waiting quietly and cars honking.

All->most is a must be true. If all cats are cute, most cats must be cute, and some cats must be cute too.

But most->all is a could be true. If most cats are cute, definitely some cats are cute, but only possibly are all cats cute.

Must be true vs could be true

For #6, curious what people's thoughts are on doing this:

#6 Claim: Most cooperative farms in the Reach that are not under the direct control of the Tyrells but are under their influence must pay an annual tax in the form of gold or grain.

DOMAIN: coop farms in Reach

/direct control Ty AND under influence Ty -m-> pay tax

Maybe this is unpacking the details too soon and perhaps the question would not require all of this Lawgic. Nonetheless open to feedback.

I thought about the answer to your comment this way, using Chipotle as an example.

CONTEXT: [context] Some people say Chipotle is not healthy, [conclusion] however, Chipotle is good for you [premise] so long as you order vegetables.

CONCESSION: [not context - but a concession] While Chipotle is not always the most healthy choice, [conclusion] it is good for you [premise] so long as you order vegetables.

I think about it like context sets up the argument by literally putting it into context/introducing a topic, whereas in my concession example, it is not so much to set up the topic as beef up my argument about that topic. Hope that helps!