Thanks for the question! First, let’s recap this stimulus. So we’re told that there was this study that showed that businesspeople who travel internationally on business are much more likely to suffer from chronic insomnia than those who don’t travel at all on business. International travelers experience some stresses that people who don’t travel feel. And so, the argument concludes, it’s likely that these stresses cause the insomnia.
Now we’re asked for something that strengthens the reasoning above. (C) tells us that “businesspeople who already suffer from chronic insomnia are no more likely than businesspeople who do not to accept assignments from their employers that require international travel.” In other words, some businesspeople might already have chronic insomnia before they start traveling. But that group isn’t more likely to be internationally traveling. That’s what (C) tells us. Does that strengthen the argument? Why yes, it does! And how? Well, one might say, “well, you say that businesspeople who travel who insomnia because of the stress, but maybe it’s just all the insomniacs who are out there traveling!” And (C) shows that this isn’t the case. By ruling out an alternate explanation, it strengthens this one, and is the correct answer.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.