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.
The passage starts by telling us that maybe it's a good idea to teach high school kids calculus. Okay, let's explore. Is it a good idea?
Well, it might "benefit them" but it didn't specify in what way. So some unspecified benefit on the one hand.
Then, the passage turns around and tells us that there's some "level of abstraction" involved in calculus. Okay, like a high level or a low level? Don't know. But, if these high school kids aren't ready for whatever that "level of abstraction" is, then they may "abandon the study of mathematics".
So, if we're going to teach them calculus, we better make sure they're ready to handle that "level of abstraction".
Why? Because if they aren't ready, they might abandon the study of math. I mean, god forbid they decide to take up acting or some such non-sense.
Okay, I'm kidding, but you see the assumption right?
The assumption is that we don't want them to abandon the study of math. In other words, teach math to students only if it won't lead the students to abandon it. In other words, if you introduce calculus to students, then make sure that they can handle the "cognitive challenges" (or "level of abstraction") "without losing motivation" (or "without abandoning it"). That's (A). (A) tightens up the space between the premises and conclusion.
(C) is problematic for two reasons. First, is calculus a "cognitive task that requires exceptional effort"? We don't know. So we have to presume that it is. Okay, that's bad enough.
But, even if we presume that it is. Then all (C) tells us is that it undermines the motivation of those who attempt them. In other words, calculus just straight up hurts your self esteem and motivation. Never mind be ready to handle the "level of abstraction". It just hurts you. So... how does this help our argument?
A
Because of technological innovation, most workplaces in the high-risk industries do not require as much unprotected interaction between workers and heavy machinery as they did in 1955.
B
Most of the work-related injuries that occurred before 1955 were the result of worker carelessness.
C
The annual number of work-related injuries has increased since the legislation took effect.
D
The number of work-related injuries occurring within industries not considered high-risk has increased annually since 1955.
E
Workplace safety conditions in all industries have improved steadily since 1955.
Economist: Historically, sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia, and it continues to be a major source of income for several countries. The renewed growing of sunflowers would provide relief to Kalotopia’s farming industry, which is quite unstable. Further, sunflower oil can provide a variety of products, both industrial and consumer, at little cost to Kalotopia’s already fragile environment.
Summary
Sunflower seed was one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia. Sunflower seed is a major source of income for many countries. Renewing the growth of sunflower seeds in Kalotopia would help its unstable farming industry. Sunflower oil can provide a variety of industrial and consumer products at little cost to the environment. Kalotopia has a fragile environment.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
A former production crop in Kalotopia could help the farming industry if it were grown again.
A
Kalotopia’s farming industry will deteriorate if sunflowers are not grown there.
This is unsupported because we don’t know that the industry will get worse without the sunflowers. We only know that it is currently unstable.
B
Stabilizing Kalotopia’s farming industry would improve the economy without damaging the environment.
This is unsupported because while we know that the cost to the environment would be little, but not necessarily zero.
C
Kalotopia’s farming industry would be better off now if it had never ceased to grow any of the crops that historically were large production crops.
This is unsupported because we don’t know whether Kalotopia had important reasons for ceasing sunflower production in the past that made the country better off than if it had continued sunflower production.
D
A crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia would, if it were grown there again, benefit that country’s farmers and general economy.
This is strongly supported because the author states that growing sunflower seed, which used to be a large production crop, would benefit farmers and create new products.
E
Sunflower seed is a better crop for Kalotopia from both the environmental and the economic viewpoints than are most crops that could be grown there.
This is unsupported because the author never compares sunflower seed to other possible crops that may be able to solve the instability just as well.