Hi! This was my approach. Thought it might be helpful to share it to others.
So the stimulus is saying IFE reduces AP and being dependent on imported oil, so some people said to manufacturers to do IFE. But smaller cars would make one more prone to serious damage and less protection. IFE risk not worth it. Therefore, manufacturers should not try to do IFE.
My loophole to destroy argument: What if making smaller cars is not the only way to IFE?
Explanation: It's saying no to IFE because smaller cars are bad. But why isn't auhtor looking at more options? That's just one problem. Maybe there are other reasons the author needs to consider before outright saying to not venture out into it.
A. Left this one open. But decided not to choose it because the author didn't make this claim at all. It literally says more likely to increase risks. Saying impossible is too strong. It's not something you can support.
B. I chose this one because it's saying what I said above there, just in a very wordy day (hello lsat). It was only one option given. And since that one option is not possible, then it shouldn't be pursued at all, which the author concluded.
C. Left this one open. But decided to not choose it because we don't know if these statements are proven as facts.
D. this is circular reasoning. That's not what is happening. Crossed this out
E. that's not the right relationship happening. It's saying Only IFE -> decrease AP ("the only" is sufficient and "only" is necessary. On top of that it didn't say anything about dependency on imported oil. Crossed this out.
Hope this helps. Let me know if this is a valid approach
)
