Looking at the AC A vs. B debate I was initially puzzled why B was wrong. However, by looking into the wording of AC B it is much clearer. By saying that "Wildlife populations that have been harmed by the excessive spraying of insecticides on croplands are likely to recover if the amount of insecticides sprayed on those croplands is reduced even slightly." it is insinuating that by reducing the insecticide by even a tiny fraction, it will make the populations likely to recover. While it isn't necessarily standard practice to use common sense all the time in LR, it is incomprehensible to think that for example, reducing aggregate pesticide use by 1 drop would cause populations to be more likely to recover. With that reasoning, A is much more attractive.

I solved this in a little different way, but to me it is the most straightforward:

a=solution to govt. problem...

b=Change in consumer

c=Economically enticing

d=few serious ecological problems...

PREMISE

a-->b-->c

CONCLUSION

not d--->c

missing link must either be

not d-->a

not d-->b

AC A yields not d-->a and is therefore correct

It helps to look at it abstractly and not worry so much about few, most, etc. As long as you can translate from specific to abstract you are good.

Not sure if this was the right mapping but i thought of it in this way, making sure in my head to understand that it isn't sufficient/necessary:

MT--->cmb

not mj<----->knowledge of history

C: Knowledge----->not mt

I find it more straightforward to think of the premises in this case as:

P1: acq $-----> sacrifice health (not health)

P2: not health----->not happy

MP: acq $------> not happy

C: Should not acquire money