Please help.

@mprezzy. What struck me that (A) was the weakener is that the argument is assuming that people who watch tv are not also reading newspapers. And A is saying that they are the same people... so they do both actions and thus an adequate conclusion is weakened.

Wow, there really needs to be some sort of notification bell so instructors here know to answer questions. I'm not sure if you are still around since it's been a year since you've posted your question, but A doesn't provide a "false premise" since you are assuming this choice to be true. And if assumed to be true, it points out a reason why the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The premise was that 30 seconds is insufficient amount of time to examine an issue thoroughly but the author goes too far in concluding that this means people who watch these programs think in oversimplified ways. If it is true that the same people who watch these shows are much more likely to read newspapers, which, according to the stimulus, have the amount of detail needed to understand an issue well, then it casts doubt on the idea that these people are thinking simplistically.