Watson Glaser Test doesn't make sense?

Brain teaser alert below...

I've applied to some vac schemes and as part of that I have to do a Watson Glaser word comprehension test. I'm doing a practice test and I'm finding the worked answers infuriating! Some of them just seem wrong to me! Anyone else have this issue?

If anyone is good at these tests- please help me understand them!!

I'm specifically looking at:

https://www.assessmentday.co.uk/watson-glaser-critical-thinking.htm

Let me show you a few that I'm having differences with....
So, just looking at the 'assumptions' section for a start.

Q1
In 2008, the President of the USA promised to prevent the country entering economic depression, but he failed because at the beginning of 2012, over 12 million USA citizens were unemployed.

The number of USA citizens out of work ought to be less than 12 million.
Assumption made or not made?

Answer is apparently 'Assumption made'.
That's simply not true. This author assumes that 12 million unemployed constitutes failure to prevent economic depression, that's true, but there is no indication of the writer's moral stance.

It might be that due to the financial crisis, one would expect there to be 20 million unemployed and therefore the president and country has actually done a great job in limiting this to 12 million- it's just that the ambition to prevent economic depression completely was far too lofty an ambition. He failed in that, but that's not to suggest it ought to be less.

Q2:
Charities don’t have to charge VAT to customers, which means charity bookshops can charge lower prices than those charged by second-hand bookshops which are not registered as a charity.

Charities pay less tax than non-charities.
Assumption made or not made?

Apparently the answer is 'not made'.
But if the author does not make this assumption, then his assertion that charities can charge lower prices simply due to VAT being lower is logically nonsensical. That is, the assumption is necessary in order for the statement to make sense. I'm sure we are to assume that the writer of these passages are logical and therefore make assumptions that support a logical train of thought. Were it the case that charities pay higher taxes in other ways, you'd say "ah, but you're wrong, you've assumed that tax in other areas is the same, but they're not! Charities pay more tax over all!"

I agree with the other 12 worked answers (out of 14) in this assumptions section but to get through a law app process, one really needs to be in accord with ALL the answers. I've found the inferences section even worse!

Can anyone shed some light on how I should approach this differently?

Thank you in advance.