This question was one of the harder ones for me in this section. So, I thought I would share how I spotted the correct answer for anyone who might've come to the right answer the same way. I will be breaking down my (possibly convoluted) thought process in hopes that it helps at least one person lol.

While I immediately liked answer choice C) as soon as I saw it (more intuitively, it seemed to fill a missing part in the argument), I was still hesitant and stuck between D) and E) because I was not sure what missing part of the argument it seemed to fill.

However, the part of the missing argument that I felt C) touched on, that neither D) nor E) did, was the mention of the "given freedom" that shouldn't be denied in the stimulus. The stimulus uses the EXAMPLE of how one uses the POSSIBLE "given freedom" of choosing one's friends to allow for a less difficult means to live an enjoyable life. It doesn't stipulate that that is the ONLY freedom by which one can get to that enjoyable life.

The part that makes distinguishing that harder is that the stimulus continues using that specific example of the "possible freedom" (the freedom of choosing friends) throughout the argument and the conclusion. This makes one think that it is THAT specific freedom (i.e., freedom of choosing friends) that necessitates the means to an enjoyable life. However, staying true to the underlying understanding that the "thing" doing the work in the argument is the fact that it is a "GIVEN freedom" that HAS that ability (of allowing one to get to an enjoyable life), which should not be denied, is what makes answer choice C) the correct answer -- not so much that it is that specific freedom of choosing friends that is what supports the argument.

I don't know if this will make the most sense to everyone else, but I thought it couldn't hurt to share how I was able to spot the correct answer here :)

I think they are very similar, like you mentioned. The way I visualize it is finding the missing block to the chain that would make the pseudo assumption as airtight as possible, given the answer choices you're given.

I think what might help clear the confusion is that the issue isn't whether the codefendants should be questioned simultaneously or not; it's the fact that the rule posed by the defendant has two parts to it. One is that, yes, the codefendants should not be questioned together, but the second part is that a codefendant's legal counsel should not be present during another codefendant's questioning.

One way to avoid breaking the rule, as you stated, is to question the co-defendants at different times. However, the stimulus states that the issue arises because two of the defendants have the same legal counsel. It is this fact ALONE that makes it so they cannot proceed with the questioning.

That makes you wonder, "Why is the fact that the legal counsel is the SAME for two defendants the thing that poses an issue?" With this question in mind, once you look through the answer choices through POE (process of elimination), the reason why B is the correct answer becomes clearer.

Answer choice B shows that even if you separate the two codefendants while they're being questioned, the fact that their legal counsel HAS the right to be present during their client's questioning violates a part of the rule. It breaks the second part of the initial rule posed by the plaintiff -- it would violate the second condition that the co-defendant's legal counsel should not be present for the other co-defendant (i.e., codefendant 1 has the same legal counsel as codefendant 2). It would violate this condition because by applying answer choice B, you make it the case that the same legal counsel for codefendant 1 would HAVE to have the right to sit through both defendant 1 and 2's questioning, or else it would violate the fact that defendants have a choice to have their legal counsel present during questioning.

So, this is my long-winded explanation to state that you weren't wrong to assume that they could be questioned at different times; this would have solved the issue if it were the case that all defendants had different lawyers. This assumption became ineffective once you realized that the stimulus stated that 2 of the defendants had the same representation, so whether or not they were questioned at different times would not matter much if answer choice B was applied. Hope this helps! :)

Omg same! I even joked in my head, saying, "Imagine that IS the assumption."

The key phrase that helped me identify that answer choice E was referring to existing customers was the mention of "current customers."

The way I approached this weakening question was by looking for any answer choice that was: 1) not aiming to expand to other consumers and 2) had to do solely with the Travaillier company.

When you look at Answer choice E overall, it meets those two criteria (which, in my opinion, greatly weakens the hypothesis in the stimulus: Travaillier is trying to attract new customers.)

How I broke down answer choice E (My thought process):

Answer choice (E): "The industry consultants employed by Travaillier typically recommend that companies expand by introducing their current customers to new products and services."

For the first bolded phrase: The industry consultants employed by Travaillier - I was able to meet the criteria of having to do with Travaillier.

For the second bolded phrase: introducing their current customers to new products and services - I was able to meet the criteria of staying within Travaillier's customer base and not other demographics like new customers.

Finally, the terms expand and enlarged can be understood in a way that is different from expanding or enlarging in size or quantity of people. You can understand expansion and enlargement in terms of total sales. For example, instead of solely offering airline sales, by adding truck sales, their current customers would now buy both packages instead of one, in turn expanding the company (through sales).

I believe the use of the words "expand" and "enlarge" was done on purpose so that test takers would assume that an expansion meant "other" or "new customers," so breaking down the question using the above criteria was helpful for me to ignore that trap and choose E as the final answer.

Please let me know if this helps at all; if not, I can try to explain it differently! Keep up the good work, we can do this! :)