First impression wise, not a bad argument, but we're looking for an AC that shows that despite the fact that broadsides had statements about morals, it doesn't mean that most 17th century people were serious about moral values.
Maybe people back then bought broadsides for other reasons unrelated to those moralizing statements. This is the loophole in our argument.
B - gives us another reason why people bought broadsides: they were drawn to the sensationalized account of crime and adultery rather than to the morals.
B shows that broadsides were also entertaining in nature, not just moralizing.
A - regardless of whether broadsides are of low or high literary quality, they were still moralizing in nature, and people still bought them, but we're still left wondering whether people bought broadsides because they cared about morals or something else.
C - gives us an irrelevant mini history lesson.
D - premise booster. Tells us what we know already, namely that broadsides were moralizing in nature, so it makes sense for the clergy to use the broadsides for moralistic purposes. But we're still left wondering whether the people actually cared about moral values or not.
E - it doesn't matter what well-educated people think or feel about broadsides but how they think about moral values. Also tells us nothing about what the remaining non-well-educated people think about morals, which means we most likely can't justify the "most" statement in the conclusion.
