Critical Reasoning

Psychologist: Some astrologers claim that our horoscopes completely determine our personalities, but this claim is false, I concede that identical twins---who are, of course, born at practically the same time---often do have similar personalities. However, birth records were examined to find two individuals who were born 40 years ago on the same day and at exactly the same time---one in a hospital in Toronto and one in a hospital in New York. Personalities of these two individuals are in fact different.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the psychologist’s argument depends?
(A) Astrologers have not subjected their claims to rigorous experimentation.
(B) The personality differences between the two individuals cannot be explained by the cultural difference between Toronto and New York.
(C) The geographical difference between Toronto and New York did not result in the two individuals having different horoscopes.
(D) Complete birth records for the past 40 years were kept at both hospitals.
(E) Identical twins have identical genetic structures and usually have similar home environments.

I choose B but the OA is [C]

[/spoiler]

Premise 1- Some astrologers claim that our horoscopes completely determine our personalities

Premise 2- I concede that identical twins---who are, of course, born at practically the same time---often do have similar personalities. However, birth records were examined to find two individuals who were born 40 years ago on the same day and at exactly the same time---one in a hospital in Toronto and one in a hospital in New York. Personalities of these two individuals are in fact different.

Conclusion - ...but this claim is false

A- No logic to experimentation
B- If you see the example stated, the two people ought to have similar horoscopes because of having the same birth date and time. what is assumed here is the two people admitted in the hospital had the same horoscopes when they were admitted in the different hospitals. B ruled out.
D- overstated what is already mentioned in the argument
E- opposite to what is assumed.

I go with C

Negate C; the conclusion weakens.

I agree with OA