I was thrown off by this question because of the weirdly IMO worded stimulus and AC E which was a bit tricky as well. Hopefully, this is helpful to someone down the road.
This ACs are questions, of which an answer will help determine (yes / no) of whether what Dr. Godfrey is saying can be defended against what Dr. Nash is saying.
Answer choice (A): Eliminate. Whether an individual has more or less success in his/her subsequent career does not really validate or invalidate the conclusion that Dr. Godfrey maintains. Dr. Godfrey seems to be concluding that working long hours does contribute to the academic problems that many high school students experience.
Answer choice (B): Eliminate. This is irrelevant and not pertinent to the argument discussed.
Answer choice (C): This is a contender. If one answers 'Yes' then Dr. Godfrey's conclusion is in question because of temporal issues around his claim. If 'No' Dr. Godfrey's conclusion is strengthened.
Answer choice (D): Eliminate. Whether or not they obey the laws and regulations does not translate to validating or invalidating Dr. Godfrey's argument.
Answer choice (E): Eliminate. Although this is a good answer, Dr. Godfrey's conclusion is around current academic problems students are experiencing due to working part time. This is present tense. This AC is about some time in the future that is not determined and would therefore, not have an impact on Dr. Godfrey's argument that is dealing only with what is happening presently.
This question stem kinda messed up my head, but basically it is just saying whether Dr. Godfrey's conclusion can be defended? Is "against Dr. Nash's counterargument" just extraneous junk that we should ignore?
