Remember that on the LSAT, "many" is an indefinite quantity largely equivalent to "some." So this answer choice doesn't tell us very much. Even if "many" here means most or even all people, it could still be true that watching too much TV does cause people to overestimate risks. For the subset of "all people" who watch too much TV, watching too much TV is what causes those people to overestimate risks. There would just be other causes leading other people, who don't watch too much TV, to also overestimate risks. This answer choice doesn't weaken the argument.

If anything, this strengthens the author’s argument. This tells us that the people who watch more TV than average likely are overestimating their risk of being natural disaster victims, since they are likely to live in areas less prone to natural disasters and yet are more likely than others to believe they are at risk of natural disasters. So this doesn't weaken the author's reasoning.

This doesn't weaken the argument. This answer choice could be completely consistent with the author's hypothesis that watching too much TV causes people to overestimate the risk of natural disasters. If people who watch below-average amounts of TV have an accurate risk assessment, then the fact that people who watch above-average TV have a higher risk assessment than what is accurate might support the idea of a causal connection between watching more TV and overestimating risk.

Knowing that people who are "well informed" about natural disaster risk tend to get their information from other sources than TV doesn't weaken the idea that watching too much TV can cause people to overestimate risk — i.e., to be misinformed about risk. This answer choice is perfectly consistent with the author's hypothesis.

This weakens the argument. This tells us that people who watch more TV than average also tend to live in areas more prone to natural disasters. This creates the possibility that living in an area more prone to natural disasters is what causes those people both to watch more TV and to think they are likely to be natural disaster victims, which would weaken the author's causal claim. This also undermines the claim that these people "overestimate" the risk of being natural disaster victims, since their perception of the risk might be accurate for the regions where they live.