PT40.S3.Q26 - north american ph.d. programs

Doctor Who

Would it be possible to get some advice on this question? I'm lacking a way to do this problem methodically and quickly.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-40-section-3-question-26/

Tyler King

I'd certainly like to someone else's perspective on how to break this problem down. I think the difficulty in the question largely revolves around the answer choices. Anyhow, I'll give it a go.

Stimulus:
You are given a fact (Support for conclusion): # of Apps for Admission reported by NAPHD programs in AH has declined in last four years.

Conclusion : Interest amount recent NA college/university grads in choosing AH as career has declined.

Abstract of Argument:
Number of Apps for Admission reported by NAPHD in AH go down in 4 years--> then, interest in recent NA college/university grads choosing AH career went down

Mindset:
Legitimize answer choices that will weaken the argument. What hurts the support for the argument, or the conclusion? Then, choose the one that doesn't weaken. (I go through all of the choices)
A) Weakens. Calls into question the support. Maybe the support in which the conclusion derives from is faulty, as a result, we derived a conclusion from something that wasn't correct.
Answer...We can hold for now. I think this tries trapping people into assuming, higher ages means less people coming out of college and university. However, I went to a commuter school, with many older students, so this answer being ineffectual to the argument was apparent. (From a logical sense, this doesn't touch upon the support, or the conclusion. We don't really care about people's age getting higher.
C) Weakens. Again, calls into question the support for the argument.
D) Weakens (In my opinion, second best answer choice). How does it weaken? This essentially makes the support irrelevant, and in turn it calls into question the conclusion. The only support we have for our claim is that less people have applied to NAPHD programs. The answer is essentially opening up the possibility that people could have joined Art History careers without entering PHD programs, which would effectively call into question our conclusion. There's a required assumption here, that joining a PHD program has an effect on college and university grads choosing art history for a career. This calls the effect into question.
E) Weakens. This opens up the possibility that maybe it was an outside group (not recent North American graduates who brought application numbers down.)

Doctor Who

i like this, thanks Tyler. I was able to narrow it down to D and E, but I started to confuse myself. I wonder if there is some kind of technique one could use (e.g. a diagram or visualization) to rule out answer choices, which appear to test your knowledge about proportions.