Thank your response...........
But, I'm sorry that I can't understand what you mean for this question?
I'm non-native English...........
So, I maybe need an explanation in simple word.
Sorry!! if you have willing to do so again.............
Anyway...........thank you a lot.............
1. Whats the argument ?
Government restrictions on the advertisements did not have the intended impact. advertisers created more inventive and humorous Advertisments.
2. We need something that will support the argument.
D says the advertisments have become more humorous than the other advertisments. But that does not support the argument.
It does not matter if the advertisments are more humorous , inventive than others..Government regulations were meant to reduce the "impact" of these advertisments on the audiences.
Remember, we have to stay " within " the boundaries of the argument.
so we cannot assume that "more inventive and humorus" means "more attractive" or " more sales"
E directly supports the argument...it says the more inventive the Advertisements are , the more attractive it makes the advertised product appear. Government regulations were intended to prevent that.