Note: The usage of "almost every Wednesday" here is ambiguous. It's unclear whether it's meant to include or exclude every Wednesday. I can see a reasonable disagreement. But the point is that it doesn't matter. The LSAT does not trade on the kind of ambiguity that gives rise to reasonable disagreements. See, if you want to interpret inclusive, then that's how the video lesson does it too and you get to the right answer choice. By default, you are taught in the Core Curriculum to interpret "most" inclusively.
Now what if you want to interpret exclusive? Okay, let's do it. You'll see that this won't change anything about the right or wrong answers.
Exclusive interpretation of "almost every Wednesday is a free poetry reading day" means that it does NOT include every Wednesday. In other words, on some Wednesdays there are no free poetry readings. Okay, so let's translate this to:
W -(e)m-> free poetry reading -> 1/2$ coffee
"-(e)m->" means "exclusive most" as opposed to
our standard "-m->" which means "inclusive most"
Therefore, what's the relationship between Wednesday and 1/2$ coffee?
W -(e)m-> 1/2$ coffee or
W -m-> 1/2$ coffee
I mean, we know most Wednesdays are 1/2$ coffee days. Really the question is whether we can say for sure that there are Wednesdays on which Zack's does not offer 1/2$ coffee. You might say, well, we do have some Wednesdays where there are no free poetry readings. Okay. And on those days... what's the price of coffee?
We don't know. They could well be 1/2$ coffee for some other reason. Because it could well be that Zack's is just crazy about offering 1/2$ coffee all day every day. Because Zack is just a great guy.
Even under the exclusive most interpretation, what (D) says still Must Be True. Zack's offers 1/2$ coffee all day on most Wednesdays, possibly all Wednesdays. Indeed it must be true that it's possible. Answer (E) is still at best a Could Be True. We just don't know that there are some Wednesdays on which coffee is more than 1/2$.
Really tough question. Reading only the question stem, it's not clear what type of question it is. Some general "principle" type, I suppose. So, you read the stimulus and then glance at the answers again. Notice there's an argument in the stimulus. Notice the answers are all conditionals. We're looking for a PSA answer choice. We can get away with fudging some ideas because the question stem has the word "most" in it.
So let's lay the argument out.
Sentence 1 zooms into the subset of "Most TV shows". What about them? They depend on advertising funding.
show alive --> funding
contrapositive
/funding --> /show alive (think canceled show)
Sentence 2 tells us a necessary condition of advertising funding.
funding --> many people buy product
Now we get to chain up:
show alive --> funding --> many people buy product
Sentence 3 runs the contrapositive on the whole chain.
/many people buy product --> /funding --> /show alive
[I think we really could have done without sentence 3 since it's not adding anything new. We could have chained up sentences 1 and 2 on our own and also ran the contrapositive on our own. Sentence 3 feels redundant to me.]
Now, sentence 4, the conclusion.
feel show worth preserving --> buy product
All together now:
[P] show alive --> funding --> many people buy product
__________________
[C] feel show worth preserving --> buy product
What's our most standard, cookie cutter formulation of a PSA or SA answer choice that we are trained to anticipate and look for?
IF P, THEN C
With some cleverly crafted referential phrasing, that's precisely what (B) is saying:
IF [a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions], THEN [everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving out to take those actions]. IF [P], THEN [C]
Try to figure it out before reading on.
IF [P], THEN [C]
[P] is [a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions]
[C] is [everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving out to take those actions]
[P] first. "unless" is group 3, negate sufficient. "not a TV show would be canceled --> many people took certain actions" =
"show alive --> many people took certain actions"
What could those actions possibly be referring to? Buy product.
"show alive --> many people buy product"
Now [C]. "everyone" is group 1, sufficient. "feel show worth preserving --> take those actions" Again, what could those actions possibly be referring to? Again, buy product.
"feel show worth preserving --> buy product"
The problem with answer choice (A) is that it's not describing the same shows that the stimulus is describing. The shows in the stimulus depended for their survival on MANY people buying a product. This conforms to our common sense expectations of TV shows. I would expect that the real life TV shows that depend on advertising funding would depend for their survival on MANY people buying whatever products they're meant to be buying.
(A) however talks about a set of TV shows whose survival depends on ONE single person buying a product. "would be canceled unless one took certain actions" What show in the world's survival is dependent on a single person taking some action? I have no idea. But whatever the TV shows (A)'s talking about, they're not the same TV shows that the stimulus talked about.