I kind of struggled to wrap my head around this but I think I figured it out. I had initially predicted the assumption that "hey, what if those other plants don't have the substances?". Despite it being very likely, I did think it was an important assumption that was somewhat necessary for the conclusion. Now my issue was with why does it have to differ from existing meds/substances already discovered? The way I was able to understand this, I looked back at the context. NOTICE that many important types of medicine have already been developed. Our conclusion is that MORE types of medicines will never be developed without the rainforests. SO this means that to develop those important medicines, we MUST discover different substances from those that have already been found to develop meds. This made it easier for me to understand. If negated, it would basically say any new discovered plants would just have the same substances as the existing meds that have already been discovered. This causes the conclusion to crash because NOTE the substances we would find have already made medication. Hope this helps someone

This may be wrong but it feels like the pointing to "installation and cost" of the machine kind of acts like an independent solution or strengthener to the argument. I would assume that because it is cost benefit, that is just the nature of the AC but I feel like it kind of goes against the rule that we should ignore AC's that try to bring in an alternative explanation that disrespects the support structure.

I was pretty stuck on trying to understand why A was wrong but it makes more sense now and will try to explain to those who may be confused. Basically, because A has the same set as one of the premises instead of the conclusion (people who browse the web), the Ac is saying that of those people who browse, MOST of them browse specifically to self-diagnose. Now this is attractive because of the ignorance toward the incorrect set being talked about here. The number of people that browse specifically to self-diagnose is completely irrelevant to the gap of discrimination and harm. The quantity, even if it is most of the people that browse, is irrelevant to whether people will do more harm than good. Even if it was not most, that does not takeway from the fact that people can still do more harm than good to themselves by relying on the quackery.

I was still a little bit confused with AC C but I kind of connected it back to the lawgic statement for those of you still struggling.

Note that AC C is actually materializing the benefits. Saying that these benefits usually do not outweigh the cost and difficulty. This is very different from the expectation of the benefits to not outweigh the costs. More specifcially it could be that even though this usually happens, a consumer could still expect something else. Because this AC is not an expectation, I thought that "hey that will not trigger our conditional". NOTE that our lawgic relationship is based on an EXPECTATION, not whether something usually happens. When I looked back at my lawgic, I realized that whether benefits usually outweigh costs or not is NOT RELEVENT as we are interested in the expectation.

Did not realize the "in addition" allowed you to put both "business computer" and "reasonable grounds that computer has evidence" on the sufficient side with each other. I ended up linking all three together by assuming that "in addition" was just like an "also" introducing the next fact. I linked "reasonable grounds of evidence" to "justified", which then linked to "business computer" from the first sentence. I guess the "in addition" threw me off. Didn't realize you could just slap em together like that on the sufficient side to connect to "justified".

May be a little late but the predators coming into this answer choice is what reinforces this as the right answer. We are told in the stimulus that mild winters allow bird species to forage naturally, which is why the proportion of birds visiting feeders has decreased.

We are then told in this answer choice that birds that attend feeders are more vulnerable to predators than when they forage naturally. Well... If less birds are visiting feeders, wouldn't that mean less are vulnerable to predators. Here I made an assumption that because they are now foraging naturally, their population will either remain the same, or increase, given that birds will mate, but there will be less of a negative impact on their population.

For that reason, we can determine that C is strengthening our explanation, simply because the mild weather is leading to less feeder visits from birds, reducing vulnerability of being eaten.