Top Law Schools

Can someone please help me understand this question, I can't for the life of me wrap my head around it.

simplify the stimulus first.

Previously, T was considered harmful and E and Z were harmless. T was banned and E and Z was not.

Now, E and Z are both more harmful than T.

Conclusion (or something like that): both E and Z should be banned or T should be legalized <->equivalent to

they can all be legal or they should all be banned

A: the stimulus indicates that all three pesticides can be legal (yet E and Z are more harmful than T)
B: the stimulus indicates all three pesticides can be legal (all of them are harmful)
C: i think this is the most tricky one. i ruled it out based on it only touches part of the condition. in the stimulus, it concludes even all them are harmful, all of them CAN be legal.
E: all three are harmful here, so harmless does not apply to this situation.

finally check D: if one is legal and one is illegal, it must be the legal drug is less harmful than the illegal one. (fits the stimulus)

i guess it's not a standard way to solve a principle question, but i always compare the principle to the stimulus, and ruled the wrong answer out.

Thanks, I understand it now. Probably a good indication that I'm burnt out.

Yes, probably burnout. This is pretty simple stuff (I just finished the PT 50 three days ago), but I oftentimes encountered days where I was unable to comprehend even the most simple questions.