in mathmatics, set theory already has a symbol (∈) for A 'is in set' B. and also a symbol for therefore (.'.)

I would suggest a more universal 'lawgic' to be:

A⟶B

x ∈ A

.'. x ∈ B

I am confused by this.

Kim explicitly states increased agriculture will decrease forests. Hamptons response of not 'significantly increasing' % of land used for ag includes ag land increasing a little, not at all, or even falling, but the context implies agreement in direction (increasing).

Regarding B however, kim makes no mention of her opinions on biotech, so I'm not sure how we can just assume that she would be pro-biotechnology. Biotech is a very controversial topic, with peoples opinions on it formed based on more than just how worried they are about the degradation of natural environment.

And so whilst both responses contain at least the option of D being true, a shaky assumption is required for B to be true to both