I have a doubt about Q3 part 2: "
The mice in the healthy communities had all been born of parent mice that had previously been infected with Virus Alpha." Where in the Article it is mentioned that "....
by placing recovering mice, which had been infected more than two weeks prior, into healthy mice communities.", so it should automatically decline that there is any further scope of outbreak other than contagion. Also, here as per the article the conclusion was made on the basis of contagious nature of the virus. Hence, how the given point weakens the conclusion of the researchers.
Any help would be appreciated! 
Bismuth83
Part 1.
1. We are asked to figure out which statements can be answered using the text.
2. How long would it take for someone to become infected with Virus Alpha? This isn't mentioned anywhere since the study only talks about how long does the virus stay contagious in a body. So, this statement can't be answered using the text.
3. What is one component of the researchers' proposed public service announcement about the virus? The text does answer this: "our research team plans to send a service announcement to the major web-based news magazines, radio stations, and television networks with recommendations about methods of prevention, when and how to avoid contagion, and symptom recognition". So, this statement can be answered using the text.
4. Why do people panic when confronted with information about viral contagion? The blog talks about a tendency for people to panic with possible causes and study could be one. However, tendency doesn't mean always and we can't assure that this applies for the viral contagion. So, this statement can't be answered using the text.
Part 2.
1. We need to find which statements are a necessary assumption for the conclusion: "Thus, attempts by the health industry to educate the citizenry via the Internet and newsfeeds result in less public security, not more".
2. Responses to public health announcements should always be anticipated by the leaders of the health industry. This is irrelevant since even if the leaders didn't anticipate this, then the data will still often "inflate". So, this statement isn't a necessary assumption for the conclusion.
3. It is more important to provide health alerts to the workers in a society than to the consumers. This statement is also irrelevant because even if it was less important, the worker productivity would still lower. So, this statement isn't a necessary assumption for the conclusion.
4. The public does not quickly receive balanced and correct information via the Internet to counteract exaggerated speculations and rumors. If the public did receive correct information quickly, then the conclusion couldn't be made since the internet is the root of the problems. So, this statement is a necessary assumption for the conclusion.
Part 3.
1. The question asks us to find which statements would weaken the researcher's conclusion about the period of contagion for Virus Alpha.
2. The healthy mouse communities were isolated for three weeks prior to the introduction of the infected mouse. The researchers argue that the mice can be contagious up to 3 weeks. Leaving the healthy community isolated for 3 weeks long would guarantee that the mice didn't catch the virus in any other way. So, this statement wouldn't weaken the conclusion.
3. The mice in the healthy communities had all been born of parent mice that had previously been infected with Virus Alpha. This could mean that the mice received the virus from a different way, which dismisses the conclusion. So, this statement would weaken the conclusion.
4. In some cases, the virus could be transmitted on the gloves of the researchers handling the mice. This also would mean that the mice received the virus from a different way, which dismisses the conclusion. So, this statement would weaken the conclusion.