I chose D mostly because I was looking at the question through a formal logic lens rather than a causal logic lens. I still struggle a tiny bit because the answer B makes sense when you look at it through a causal lens but I don't fully understand how, when looking at it through a formal lens, having another necessary condition invalidates the argument. On the same note, I chose D because I figured that if there was an example of a form of life that evolved without the presence of water then then it shows that water is not a necessary condition for life to evolve. Am I supposed to disregard the answer on the basis that it requires extra assumptions that the other planets where water wasn't present are analogous in other ways that it applies to Europa in other ways?

Interested as well!

Wow that is significantly easier than what I did to get the answer lmao