I was able to grammar parse pretty well and find the two conclusions, but didn't put the two together in the answer choice :'(

Hi! I had roughly the same causal chain that JY came up with except for when the traffic part was added at the end of the stimulus. You typically know how they're arranged by taking a look at the indicator words like "if" in the first sentence. To make it easier for myself, as soon as I saw "if", I switched the two ideas in the sentence structure.

So instead of how it's written, I switched the ideas as "If more consumers live in the downtown area, the profits of downtown businesses will increase," which mirrors what we learned about the "If, then" examples in the earlier sections. The lawgic translation then ends up being A -> B.

I knew I'd get humbled sooner or later :'(

Hi! If I'm correct, the way you can determine a sub-conclusion from a main conclusion is because the sub-conclusion would used further to support the main conclusion. The fact that "Athena is fluffy." is aiding the main conclusion.

I'm a tad confused. So is the distinction being "cited" late and actually being late? The example outlines what would be cited as "late", but not necessarily considered late. Is that why Kumar isn't considered late? He would just be "cited" late? #help