Woohoo! Congrats!

To make the stimulus easier to comprehend, I identified the type of reasoning being used - cost/benefit. The premises only note that a good thing occurs when not intervened with. The conclusion then is that we shouldn’t intervene. But what about potential costs? We haven’t determined yet if they get factored into the situation, so if we are to conclude that just because this positive thing happens that we shouldn’t intervene, we have to establish that no other considerations matter in our cost/benefit analysis. aka even if there are costs, they are can’t weigh up to the positives our premise gave us of it flourishing. Answer choice B does that for us by saying the only legitimate concern is the one the premise gave us.

Last sentence should be corrected to say It must be that when the premise supplied and the sufficient condition both happen, they together require that the person should pay to make the premise relevant and the conditional conclusion follow. (Not have to both happen)

If you are a visual person, think of it as if you were completing a puzzle with puzzle pieces. Imagine the following argument.

Premise: I have completed most of my puzzle. Conclusion: Therefore, if I find one more puzzle piece, then my puzzle will be completed.

Well that doesn't make sense...how would I know that one more piece would complete it just based on the sole premise that I have completed most of it? Who says? That conditional conclusion came out of thin air! Therefore, we need a rule stating that IF most of my puzzle is completed AND and I find one more piece, THEN my puzzle will be completed. If we didn't have that rule, the premise and the sufficient condition in the conclusion would not have resulted in my puzzle being completed. I think of it as basically making the premise given and the sufficient in the conclusion relevant to the rule the conclusion makes.

The same goes for this question. If we add in answer choice D, it still doesn't show us why we end up with a conditional conclusion. It must be that the premise supplied and the sufficient condition have to both happen to require that the person should pay to make the premise relevant and the conditional conclusion follow.

I think the confusion in your labelling stems from misunderstanding what "this" is referring to in the stimulus in 3.2 and similarly in those surrounding questions. When the stimulus states "This is not a stable long-term answer", the word "this" is referring to the stopgap arrangements. To my understanding, it is not referring to the premise that "there has yet to be an adequate waste management plan." Therefore, "This is not a a stable long-term answer" wouldn't be a sub conclusion since it isn't using any premise to support it; it would just be a premise to support the conclusion that "they should cease manufacturing toys and close operations immediately."

I read AC A how you did the first time as well before it was explained!

At first, I had a hard time understanding why unreliable does not equate to not accurate. But then I thought of what preponderance of the evidence means; you just have to tip the scale ever so slightly in your favor (50% plus a feather). Both sides may present accurate facts, but one side just gave a more complete story to tip the scale in their favor. In that way, one side of the scale is the pilot's reports and the other side is the air traffic control tapes. So, return to how the airport administrator said in the stimulus that the air traffic control tapes are unreliable. The administrator isn't saying the tapes are not accurate, but that the scale is tipped in the pilot reports' favor.