In the first paragraph, the author refers to a highly reputed critic's persistence in believing van Meegeren's forger...

I got 4 correct by process of elimination, but I wanted to ask about the use of new/different vocabulary in the conclusion. Oftentimes in answer explanations, we are told that we should pay close attention to vocabulary changes between the premise and the conclusion as this could highlight an unstated gap/assumption in the reasoning and could be a flaw in the argument. In this scenario it talks about "allowing more steel imports" and the conclusion talks about "not lifting restrictions on steel imports". I see the connection between these two phrases, but they are not exact and leave some room for interpretation/an unstated assumption. In the case of this question, it didn't matter since the other choices were wrong, but I wanted to get some clarification on how to know when to "overanalyze" the differences between the wording in the premise/conclusion, as opposed to when to accept the difference as a mutual meaning. In this specific instance I feel as though based on past answer explanations the difference in vocab would be just to then say that the conclusion is invalid as the premise only talks about not increasing imports, and while of course lifting a restriction would increase imports, there could be other things done that have the same effect, and nowhere in the premise a connection made between the two.