The argument concludes that we should assume something to be true (bridge is safe), unless we get strong evidence to the contrary. The author supports this by claiming that this conclusion has been independently reached by different parties.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) concludes that something should mostly happen (encouraged to weight-train), and supports this through studies agreeing (not necessarily independently) that a benefit of weight-training will occur in most cases, and claiming that weight-training is the best in its category (exercise) in terms of this benefit. The stimulus concludes that we should assume something to be true unless we get strong evidence to the contrary, and supports this by claiming that this conclusion has been independently reached.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus concludes that we should assume something to be true unless we get strong evidence to the contrary, and supports this by claiming that this conclusion has been independently reached. In (C), the conclusion was reached by an independent group but that does not mean it was reached independently by different parties. Also, the “unless” in (C) does not refer to finding contrary evidence, but it does in the stimulus.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) does establish a conclusion (not worth price of admission) reached independently, like the stimulus, but the stimulus concludes that we should assume this same conclusion to be true unless we get strong evidence to the contrary. (D) does not keep the conclusions consistent, and does not address getting evidence to the contrary.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus concludes that we should assume something to be true unless we get strong evidence to the contrary, and supports this by claiming that this same conclusion has been independently reached by different parties. (E) does not have any conclusion independently reached.