If you contrapose the second conditional it becomes J -> Comp ToB or RGBEL

In other words, not justified is a premise you need here to reach the conclusion either Comp ToB or RGBEL. But all of the answer gives us RGBEL or Comp ToB or RGBEL or Comp ToB as premises, not conclusion.

Just want to put this out there so it might help other ppl: the premises really doesn't support the conclusion because conclusion is making the premises to be causation while the premises are only correlation.

D weakens because it's basically saying the necessary condition (how much better ppl are doing) can actually also be the sufficient condition (how much better -> treatment time) and not just that (treatment time -> how much better ppl are doing).

I think I was initially caught up with E too but here's my digressive take because none of the answers really sufficed why E is wrong on a more logical and systematic basis:

E can be supported, but it also can be not supported; but A can be supported with certainty. Why?

E says: "will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation".

Okay: E can be supported if

environmental damage caused by power plants OUTPACES environmental damage caused by emissions. = increase damage (not net reduction).

"not net reduction" also means = stay the same. So maybe all of the environment damage caused by producing these batteries is offset by the zero emissions of the car itself. So yeah, E is supported.

But E can also be not supported given possibilities in the premise: damage from producing the batteries is not great enough, but still damage, so net reduction still happens.

BUT 🍑

Because the proponent says that there will be an absolute reduction of environmental damage caused by car emissions, we can say with absolute certainty that, no. Just as we argued in E, the production of the EV may cause the entire process of the EV to have a small increase, no increase, or decrease in environmental damage.

And then i suddenly also remembered: it might be useful to know that on the LSAT (read this in PowerScore and Mike Kim book), cause-and-effect are different from correlations because cause and effect generally are explicit; 1 cause guarantees 1 stated effect.

But the author, by going against the proponent, is basically saying, nah bro: the decrease in car emissions cannot guarantee the reduction of environmental damage. It may reduce less, not reduce, or even increase. How the hell do we know, we are not given any metrical index to guarantee it. So thus, whatever the possiblities might be (again, for your reference: reduce less, not reduce, or increase) environmental degradation, it is not as great as the cause-effect guarantee that the proponent thought. I don't think this question is purely a "tone" question where we have to read between lines of the author.

The author disproved the 1 cause (no EV emissions) -> 1 effect (reduces environmental degradation) by saying that the cause here (EV car's battery, which is part of EV as a categorical whole and so applies to its emissions too) have so many different effects (increase, reduce, not reduce, reduce less) environmental degradation.

the trick this question plays on is that, take the contrapositive of the last sentence

regular intervention → forest maintaining full complament

we were also told that: forests → last refuge for some of the endangered species

so then:

no regular intervention means the forest can't maintain its full complement, but it doesn't guarantee that, not maintaining full complement = endangered species is included in that loss. That what makes B wrong, because just because endangered species survive, doesn't mean there was regular intervention. In the premises we are given so far, it doesn't matter if there are intervention or not, we don't know if the endangered species is impacted by regular intervention and being able to maintain full complement of species

yes

I'm just posting my take on this (since I got it wrong) for Q20. I actually eliminated the right answer, so it took me a while to see how this is right.

In the first paragraph, very first sentence, passage says that "The survival of nerve cells, as well as their performance of some specialized functions, is regulated by chemicals known as neurotrophic factors,,..."

By this, combined with the knowledge of attributes of cell-growth factors (the same thing), we know that neurotrophic factors

1) last paragraph: nerve cells w/ neurotrophic factors "will form connections for transmission of nerve impulses," and the factor is received from local cells. This makes sense, like NGF, other neurotrophic factors are essentially telling nerve cells to connect to the muscles/organs that needs nerve impulses to function (JY had the example of arm muscles).

2) first paragraph: besides the survival we just talked about, that neurotrophic factors ensures a nerve cell connects to the muscle/organ thereby preserving their function, there's also the "some specialized functions." So besides ensuring the survival we just talked about, we knew NGF's specialized function is, in the last paragraph: "during some periods of their development, the types of nerve cells that are affected by NGF... (die if factor not present/encounter anti-NGF antibodies)." I think it's a bit hard to see what the specialized function of NGF is, but even if we are not sure, we can be safe to assume that NGF has a specialized function than other neurotrophic factors we are told. Say maybe NGF is necessary for "continued survival of those nerve cells," but another neurotrophic factor's specialized function ensures they are, I don't know, extra sensitive from the "supporting cells" that was also talked about in the middle of the second paragraph.

I think this is how I went about interpreting this with the given evidence of the passage, but others can feel free to modify this too.