Blind review definitely helped here. 20% to 100% lmao

I'm noticing a common thread in these: the conclusion tends to introduce a factor that the premises don't mention, so the answer typically connects this new factor with one from the premises.

Is that something we can rely on, or is it possible for all answers in a question to address them both?

I'm confused. If the stimulus mentioned some kind of continuous obligation that strayed from what initially seemed to be the main conclusion - /(ought to -> possible) then I think I could have gotten it, but there is no such mention. So the explicit conclusion here is that /(ought to -> possible) because there's no other mention. The entire argument is a negation, it doesn't seem to affirm anything. So why is D the right answer when it negates the necessary condition? Is it because it only negates the necessary and not the sufficient that it inadvertently affirms the sufficient condition?

For everybody that is pissed because C doesn't seem to weaken it (who I was a part of until 30 seconds ago), consider the embezzler as one of the ten people working here. Of 8 accountants and 2 actuaries, the embezzler has an 80% chance of being an accountant, and a 20% chance of being an actuary. So, by law of proportion, the embezzler is more likely to be an accountant than an actuary, which the author claims the opposite of. Ergo, C weakens the argument.