How will the right answer fit in terms of support and conclusion?

Only the right answer will accurately describe a flaw in the argument, in other words a reason why the conclusion isn’t supported.

Highlight the main conclusion in the passage, if there is one:

they don’t.

Columnist: [BACKGROUND], but [MAIN CONCLUSION]. [SUPPORT]. Thus, [INTERMEDIATE CONCLUSION].

The argument is that “vagrancy laws increase crime”, therefore they don’t “reduce criminal activity”. This is pretty tricky. But this author just said these laws only increase crime by making “innocuous everyday occurrences” into crimes. That doesn’t sound like real “criminal activity”. I’d expect the right answer to call out that little shift in the wording.

Map the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage:

(A) …most innocuous everyday occurrences are harmful…

This is the rare wrong answer choice that isn’t even coherent. The definition of “innocuous” is harmless.

(B) …vagrancy laws are associated with an increase in many innocuous everyday occurrences…

Haha, what? That’s badly misquoting the passage. There was no increase in people crossing the street or picking their kids up from school.

(C) fails to specify…

I mean, yah, technically that’s accurate. But it’s not calling out why the conclusion isn’t supported. We can understand the author’s point without specific examples. Still, I could see not eliminating this until a better option shows up.

(D) …even in the absence of vagrancy laws

Nope, the argument is only about the impact of vagrancy laws, so what happens without them isn’t relevant.

(E) does not adequately distinguish between…criminal activity and…certain occurrences…

This all maps really nicely to the wording in the passage. If the only increase in crime is because we’re arresting jaywalkers, then this support doesn’t convince us that vagrancy laws don’t reduce “criminal activity”.

(E) is the correct answer.