I misread/misunderstood C under pressure and glanced over that 'takes for granted' phrasing and read it as 'fails to consider' -- which to me, is really why A is right and C is wrong!!

The conditional logic in both A and B is correct, it's the logical force/negation language that makes B incorrect. I explained a little more in my comment above! ^

I just wanna add something that might help explain why A is the right answer over B, which was tricky for me to realize for a bit! The stimulus says regular intervention is needed for forests to "maintain [their] full complement of plant and animal species." In other words, ALL of their species. I quickly eliminated A at first because of the 'Most' in the beginning of the answer, but now that I've re-read A's 'at least some' - I see it is a much better match. Without regular intervention, forests won't be able to maintain their full complement of species; translate that to 'forests could lose at least some species.' That's much better than saying 'without regular intervention, many species won't survive'. Animals not surviving is not the logical negation of retaining all species -->; its's losing some species (A) is the appropriate negation. Going back to fundamentals: "All do/are" negation "Some do/are not"

This was really helpful, thank you

https://testing.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?f=744&t=6752&sid=50368de4e0dadd1acd57d8633d5af51f

Didn't see that D was a repeat of the stimulus :(

Interested!

For Question 23, I didn't realize that 'the latter' referred to c mites. I thought it was referring to the untreated plot. Do you have any tips for how to get better at understanding referentials when there are two lists next to each other? This has happened to me before!