A few lenses on this. First, there’s no indication that the instructions we’re talking about in (A) abide by the consumer advocate’s principle. That is, maybe the typical consumer’s difficulty comes from how poorly written instructions usually are, hence our author’s demand that instructions be better written.

There’s also a classic “relative vs. absolute” dynamic going on here: we’re given the absolute claim that using instructions involves great difficulty, but that still leaves room for the relative claim that attempting assembly without instructions involves even greater difficulty.

Let’s say Dingbert is much taller than Pungus. But what if Pungus is very tall? That doesn’t mean Dingbert can’t be much taller than Pungus, it just means Dingbert is very VERY tall.

At this point perhaps you’re salty because (C) uses absolute language as well. And it does! It’s just that (C) also tells us people don’t even use the instructions. That last bit is the key.

Consumers assembling these products themselves is baked in to the author’s rule. The rule says it needs to be “much easier to put the product together”. Paying professionals to assemble the product for you doesn’t make it easier to assemble.

If the rule said it must be much easier to end up with an assembled product in your house, then maybe we’d be cooking.

Here we’ve pushed our “with instructions” scenario and our “without instructions” scenario together by putting them both at one extreme: assembling products is typically so easy that people don’t even look at the instructions. Pretty hard for well-written instructions to make things easier when the task itself is so easy no one will even read them.

This is best understood as a subtly different version of our correct answer. If (D) said “... no difficulty assembling the product” we’d be pointing in much the same direction as (C), where easy tasks don’t benefit much from good instructions.

Easy to read instructions, though, are fantastic for the advocate’s rule. If instructions are usually clear and concise, holding all instructions to that standard feels quite doable.

(E)’s logic works a lot like (C): if no one is reading the instructions because assembly is so easy, it’s hard to write instructions that make the process easier.

A few lenses on this. First, (E) only works if we assume people very rarely have difficulty assembling the product (because assembling products is usually very easy). So (E) operates much like (C), except without (C)'s explicit claim that assembly is easy.

Second, (E)’s “some” claim is too weak to counter our rule, which applies to most consumers. Maybe some consumers (i.e. carpentry nerds) read instructions very rarely because they’re great at assembling products and seldom encounter any difficulty. Our author’s rule, though, is that instructions should make it easier for most people, and most people aren’t carpentry nerds.