For chaining purpose, the necessary condition of the first sentence is the sufficient condition (in contrapositive) of the sufficient condition right?

While it may not true for all answer choices, this is how I approached this question based on its stimulus.

Considering the two rules for overall success: Economic success & individual protection.

I knew that the correct answer choice was going to begin with an if-then clause, based on economic success, because one portion of the conjunction was covered (individual protection).

On harder questions the writers may do away with the basic "If-then" formula, but seeking the other rule is still relevant.

C keeps throwing me off. I correctly chose E, I'm sitting here trying to explain C away.

In simple terms, is C speaking to a reverse causal Linkage relative to their view?

Can someone verify my line of reasoning????

Tina claimed that the linkage was caused by the Renaissance custom

Sergio with no opinion

C flips the subjects, stating the linkage explains the Ren. Custom

Thanks in advance

This requires the assumption (although commonsense) that the more traffic the slower and less able to move at a high rate of speed, correct?

That self-selection/assignment problem underscored in the cruise argument, made the intended approach click.

Before reading on, here is my Theory and its application to causation related LR:

Attacking this argument I can now make a prediction on similar strengthen/weaken questions.

In this case, the self selected group of Dramamine takers are intentionally taking it for their high level of sea sickness. Hence exhibiting more symptoms

I think there is a typo at the end of B. But it is making an absolute claim, correct?

On question 1, the portion " unauthorized access to all computers at the same time could be virtually eliminated"is an intermediate conclusion correct?

because its supported by a premise and supports the ultimate conclusion simultaneously