This is descriptively inaccurate because the argument never establishes that a period of insufficient rain happened at all, let alone happened before the crisis.

This is irrelevant. The argument is only concerned with what caused the crisis, so it doesn’t matter whether or not the government’s intervention was justified.

An argument equivocates when it allows the meaning of a word to shift. The term “crisis” always refers to the same event when it’s used in the argument, so it isn’t used equivocally.

This describes how the argument presumes that just because insufficient rain can cause crops to falter and prices to rise, it must have been the cause of this particular crisis. The argument fails to consider possible alternative explanations.

The argument only says that insufficient rain can cause agricultural prices to rise, but this is a potential sufficient condition rather than a necessary condition. The argument never says that insufficient rain is necessary to cause a price increase.