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?

What prevents us from equivocating the two, though? Like how is it flawed to think that other methods = the biologists' methods?

Technically, within the rules of Group 4 conditionals, it is requires -> /denied. His explanation of using "receive" is essentially that for some questions you just must use context and intuition to determine whether a negation can equate an opposition. He's basically saying to not get caught up in the technicality of it, and to use mental inferences. In this case, if anything, we can infer that if healthcare is offered, it is probably received, since no one who requires emergency medical treatment is going to deny that offer (reasonably).

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.