Examine (D) closely to understand what it's actually saying.
According to the passage: The BWR makes enough money from sales of its anthologies to cover most operating expenses.
Say its "operating expenses" are $105. That's internet, rent, electricity, etc. costs. Further, say, income from "sales of anthologies" is $100. That means "most" ($100) of the $105 is covered by income from anthology sales.
We still have $5 left that's not covered. Let's give this $5 a name. How about "operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales?" Because that's what it is.
Now look at (D).
The BWR depends on donations to cover most operating expenses not covered by income from anthology sales.
In other words, (D) says: The BWR depends on donations to cover most of $5. So... what, like $3.67?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?
(E) is right. Drawing relevant distinctions is how we weaken arguments by analogy. (E) draws the distinction between "your" magazine's anthology and the BWR's anthology. We just kind of presumed that the BWR's anthology would contain only a reprint of stuff already previously printed, which brings up the question "why in the world would anyone spend money on the anthology when it contains only stuff that I already have in separate editions of the magazine?" (E) tells wrecks that presumption. There's new stuff in the BWR's magazine. That's maybe (likely) why people are paying money to buy it. That means the original suggestion in the passage for "your" magazine to just do a reprint will result in an anthology very much unlike the BRW's anthology.
(A) is also incorrect. Parse out what (A) is saying. Like in (D) we have this concept of "most operating expenses". (A) tells us the money that covers "most operating expenses" isn't donation money. Okay, so what about the remaining expenses? Is that donation covered? We don't know. So could it be that the BWR and your magazine still depend on donations? Yes.
That's even besides the point. The point is what I said in (E) about how you weaken arguments by analogy.
This question plays off your presumption that once the nomads crossed the Bering land bridge into America, they didn't go back. Because why would anyone who made it to America want to go back to the god forsaken land of Siberia? No, thank you.
But of course, this was tens of thousands of years ago. Who knows. Maybe Siberia was awesome and they went back and forth for generations while the bridge was still around.
If that were the case, then the Clovis point could easily have been invented in America, carried with the nomads back over into Siberia, deposited and buried there for us to find thousands of years later.
If that's what happened, then finding a cache of Clovis points in Siberia doesn't suggest that it was invented in Siberia.
Of course, (A) also doesn't prove that it was invented in Siberia either. (A) in conjunction with the premise in the stimulus just makes it more likely that it was invented in Siberia.
That's all we're being asked to do in a Strengthen question.