The correct answer is:

Internet cafes do not offer any other services, aside from online access, that would enable them to be profitable. 

The crux of the argument is that internet cafes are not successful because the service that they offer -- online access -- is now made available for free by other outlets. However, this argument depends on the assumption that internet cafes do NOT offer any other services that would make them profitable -- such as a community base that would attract clients, or food and beverages that consumers would be interested in buying. 

The argument is based on the premise that landlines are either used for personal or business uses, and that no third use exists for them. Therefore, in order for the argument to hold water, there is an assumption that:Landlines will no longer be necessary for any reason aside from personal or business communication. 

The argument assumes that functioning government existed in the past and that the current situation is unprecedented. Attributing blame to one particular party directly contradicts the author. Similarly, the idea that government can never get anything done is at odds with the premise that normal, functioning government actually is possible. Furthermore, the patriotism of the nation’s founders is not relevant to the argument. In addition, the author neither states nor implies anything about what will happen in the future. Only the correct answer reflects the author’s view that the current situation is an aberration.

The argument assumes that declining readership, which leads to declining advertising revenue, makes it financially impossible for newspapers and magazines to survive. This can only be true if there are no other sources of revenue to offset these losses. Arguments about which news source is better are irrelevant since the author does not address the issue of quality. Similarly, the First Amendment argument is irrelevant since freedom of the press deals with political expression rather than business viability, which is the author’s main concern.

The argument assumes that the reason for the appeal of comic books beyond their traditional base of young readers has been the introduction of mature themes. The author expresses no opinion about whether or not this is a good thing. And while it may be true that costumed heroes and villains are inherently appealing to children, this does not relate to the broader appeal of comic books to older readers. Finally, the widespread introduction of comic book characters into movies and television relates to the form of media rather than the age of the audience, which is the author’s main point.

The argument assumes that spending too much time following celebrity/entertainment news is not just pointless, but dangerous. Claiming that serious, national problems and celebrity news are equally important is therefore incorrect since the author considers these problems to be more important. Similarly, the author clearly believes that these problems have some basis in fact, so the fears are not groundless. And while the author may agree that all news about celebrities and entertainment is trivial, this does not go far enough in addressing the danger about which the author warns. Finally, the economic impact of the entertainment industry is irrelevant to the issue of whether it distracts people from dealing with serious problems. Only the correct answer makes the connection between the prevalence of celebrity obsession and the danger it poses in the form of distraction.

The argument assumes that the only way to ensure humanity’s long-term survival is to find another planet that can sustain us after the sun dies. For that to be true, it must be assumed that alternatives to planetary living, such as space stations, won’t be up to the task. While the other answers may be arguably true, none of them make the case that space travel is vital for our survival.

The argument assumes that there is a correlation between morality and helping the vulnerable since this is what the author is recommending to promote moral development. Although political and economic power are related, this observation lacks the essential component of morality. Likewise, the assertion that people undergoing hardship must learn to endure is true, but it also omits any reference to morality. Similarly, the answer noting the existence of “haves” and “have-nots” addresses the reason there are vulnerable members of society, but says nothing about the moral imperative of helping them. Finally, the author neither advocates nor implies that any criteria be applied to determine which members of society are most worthy of help.

The argument assumes that knowledge of the death penalty’s certain application will deter criminals from breaking the law. In order for this to be true, it is necessary for criminals to rationally calculate the costs and benefits of their actions. This directly contradicts the assertion that the death penalty has never worked. Observations about the appeals process, the financial costs of incarceration and the failure of rehabilitation all support the main point, but are subordinate to the author’s primary focus on deterrence.

The argument assumes that government regulation and “red tape” are unequivocally harmful. Therefore, the best answer is the one that compares regulation to its opposite - deregulation. While the author might agree that the global economy has made us all more vulnerable and that “survival of the fittest” is the organizing principle, these answers do not address the issue of deregulation. Similarly, the observation that deregulation imposes other serious costs directly challenges the author’s main assumption. This is also the case with the answer that attributes foreign success to reasons other than deregulation, which is the author's primary focus.