This is not supported. The stimulus doesn’t mention or allude to government action at all, so we have no basis to conclude when the government will or won’t act to lessen a risk.

This is not supported. The facts given don’t suggest anything about threats seeming dreadful or how much control the people affected have. So, the facts don’t support any conclusion on those points.

This is strongly supported. People estimate risk based on how often they hear about threats. The news rarely reports on common threats but often reports on rare threats, so someone who gets information from the news would hear more about rare threats, and thus overestimate them.

This is not supported. We never learn about what information people tend to seek out, or any other distinction about long-range versus immediate threats. So, we can’t draw any conclusion about this.

This is not supported. All we know is that the news media will report rare threats like product tampering. We don’t know anything about how that might translate to resources being spent on protection.