Ughhh misread employees as employers. I need to slow down and actually read!

How I got this question to make sense to me on blind review was that, since this is a weakening question, there's a good chance there's a flaw in the argument. Since this argument is by analogy, the cookie-cutter flaw is that the two things are not analogous enough. When thinking about the primary difference between playing the lottery and buying insurance, the core of it is that buying insurance is not gambling -- it is essentially paying for a service. D would be wrong here because the odds of either thing 'paying off' are not the core issue with the analogy, especially not needing to win the 'grand prize.' You could never have to file a claim, and paying for insurance would still be a worthwhile investment, since it protects your well-being.

For 5, could you also eliminate B for the strength of the conclusion? On my first go through, I latched on to the fact that there's an extra 'probably' where I assumed the stimulus implies that something can for sure happen. If not, would the conclusion of the stimulus imply 'we can (probably) make a car that does both'?

@ArianaAkizian In the explanation video for this drill when he explains question 5 he does mention that fewer than half includes zero. In this case, fewer than half means “most-not.” Since most can go up to all, it follows that most-not is able to go down to zero.

@joszam006 I think the first one you wrote would be incorrect since some implies more than one. It's possible that none of the kittens adopted went home with children since 0 is fewer than half