Looking at how B and E are incorrect, is it fair to rule out an answer because chronologically it doesn't make sense? Like, if you think about what B is saying, the second paragraph could serve as preemptive support for one of the later recommendations (new ways of conducting research), looking at the entire passage holistically. Similarly, E could be describing how the study in the second paragraph 'takes into account individual viewing habits' serving as support for/an example of what is later fleshed out by Question 2.

I understand why D is correct, but should we always interpret purpose in context questions by assessing their purpose specifically at that point of the passage, or are some of them to be viewed retrospectively/overall role? hope that makes sense #help

My problem with this question was struggling to interpret the conclusion in the way that J.Y. framed it, "one should not acquire money if it sacrifices health." Rather, I read it as "If acquiring money is the reason one is sacrificing health, then they should not sacrifice health." Acquiring money was therefore a sufficient condition in my mind, which what led me to focus on the value of wealth v. health to happiness and pick E. Is there a different strategy for making sure you're properly framing questions so as to not reach alternative conclusions?

I'm confused about the logic explanation of 5.1-5.3

So, if it says something like "some believe that" or "some infer that", etc... the contrapositive isn't necessarily true? I guess I just don't understand what the "Logic" explanation here is getting at.