I totally misinterpreted "based on" in this question. I believe I was thinking of its colloquial usage, referring to the root cause/ foundation of something. I was initially thinking AC A) because of this misunderstanding, even though I knew the passage referred to the narrow interpretation of "tradition" rather than "long-standing".

I also chose AC B after considering the urban distinction compared to major cities in AC A. What I'm realizing however is that AC B is worse primarily because of the use of the word offset.

AC B:

As in the explanation, to offset something is to bring it to balance. It functions on a scale from 1-100%. In AC B, we have no idea to what degree the lack of pollution from cars offsets the pollution generated from plants, AND even if it did fully offset the pollution, it would be a wash - essentially making the whole venture a moot point. The only way AC B could have been right is if it stated that it more than offset the pollution generated by power production plants. This would at least imply that they were reducing overall pollution, but you still have to contend with the issue of whether the loss is statistically significant enough to warrant the whole project.

AC A however, doesn't have to contend with all of these issues while simultaneously supporting (mostly) Henry's argument. Because the question is a "strongest counterargument", it doesn't have to completely fulfill the argument's conditions - in this instance being an urban vs major city delineation - to be the best choice.

Hopefully my interpretation helps someone else rationalize A vs B.

I got this question right after spending a lot of time on it. I'm reviewing it now in hopes I can fully understand the logic and avoid getting stuck on something similar in the future. When I diagrammed the logic, I had put that well organized and self-motivated were conjunctive necessities for being highly successful. Alternatively, the video indicates that these aren't conjunctive but rather alternative necessities for being highly motivated. Can someone explain to me what I did wrong? Now I'm worried I'll make this mistake on another question in the future.

#help

I was also confused initially but I think I understand it now. The problem is answer choice A distorts the logic being stated in the passage. It performs under the assumption that having plentiful resources is necessary for people being able to devote themselves to the study of natural processes. Rather the stimulus is implying the study of natural resources is sufficient to having leisure, and so is having plentiful resources. It is not a chain where SNP -> L -> PR, so you cannot jump to the conclusion that SNP -> PR. The logic isn't there so the answer choice is wrong. At least this is my interpretation.

Actual conditional logic:

SNP->L

PR -> L

Answer Choice A conditional logic:

SNP -> L -> PR

- Remember that the word "when" indicates sufficient condition.

Hope this helps!

It's an EXCEPTION RULE!! I just finally grasped what that means! It simply voids the rule - they still COULD go to work on a holiday, but it is no longer a necessary condition. I feel like it's hard not to see it as a binary relationship and to account for all other potential outcomes. Hopefully that's the correct interpretation

"The only" and "only" messed me up in the third question. I feel it's going to be hard to remember the difference in a testing situation.