There was no mention of moral principals in the stimulus. In fact, the stimulus is mostly concrete statistics. Also, answer B mentions when the principal is "usually correct," to which the stimulus never mentions when such a principal is or is not applicable. There was also no mention of "foreseeable effects" anywhere in the stimulus on either side of the legislation: neither side mentioned the "foreseeable effects" on the local fishing economy or on public health.

I'm sure there are other reasons to knock out B, but those are the ones I noticed.

no, the term for a biconditional is "if and only if". there may by other terms that also conclude a biconditional: if they exist, i'm not aware of them.

"only if" can be translated into "then." So, the sentence could read as "if james had an endorsement, then he included all the recommendations by the chair."

The correct answer is an exact negation of the necessary condition that I just wrote out.

I was looking for an answer that included "mandated penalties" (from the first sentence) and "harm" (from the second sentence). Only A and C included both of those objects, and C was too extreme ("unusually great harm" when the stimulus was talking about equal harm), so I went with A.

I don't fully understand what A was saying, but glad I got the answer right anyway...