Hi,
I see it like this:
Part 1.- From the beginning of the argument you can state that people in general tend to strongly believe that an event X will happen to them if they are in frequent contact with proofs of this event X happening.
Part 2.- As a supporting idea you read that not only more lotteries have been stablished, but also the advertising of lottery winners has increased. Why could this be taken as a supporting idea?. Because if people need to see lots of proofs of an event that they would like to believe in (in this case to be a lottery winner), it is logical to asume that it would be a good idea to publish a picture of the winners on every media that you can in order to atract more consumers.
With this first info, we go to the choices:
1.- This idea could be part of the argument, but not the conclusion. Remember that the main point we are talking about is the people´s judgements, not what those who run lotteries want.
2.- Well, we don´t know. There is no information about this ratio in the original text.
3.- This is OK. Why?. Because it relates the two ideas stated in the text: people tend to judge that an event will happen to them if they see many proofs of this event happening, so I see lots of ads with lottery winners and I judge (and believe) that I will be one of them overestimating the real probabilities of winning (maybe one out of thousands).
4.- Irrelevant idea. We aren´t talking about taking right or wrong decisions.
5.-This seems to be a good answer. The problem is (like in choice 1), that it refers to the specific case of lottery businness, and remember that the main point is about people´s judgements in general. Lotteries are just an example to distract you.
Hope this could help
