Hey Izzy,
No, you don't have to assume "people" just means "artists". This stimulus tells us a few conditional logic rules:
Skilled artists
Creative People
good at abstract reasoning
Right away looking at this, we can say that at least one (some) skilled artists are also good at abstract reasoning. Do you see that as well?
Moving on, we're told
Skilled artists
famous
and the conclusion, people good at abstract reasoning
famous.
Remember we are trying to justify the conclusion here, so we need to look at the author's argument. The psychologist concludes that some people good at abstract reasoning are famous because not all skilled artists are famous. As it stands, this doesn't really make sense. We need an answer choice that, when added in, would let the psychologist draw this conclusion logically.
If we add answer choice (E) to this equation, we can now say
Skilled artists
famous
AND
Skilled artists
creative people
This means that at least one (some) skilled artist is both famous and a creative person. With that knowledge in mind, we can conclude that some people who are good at abstract reasoning are famous, because some (at least one) skilled artist is both famous and a creative person, and all creative people are good at abstract reasoning.
Does that make sense? If not, please let me know where you're getting lost in the explanation. Hope that helps!