Restriction Requirement

I received an office action from the USPTO to restrict an application.

One concern that I have is the possibility of double patenting
resulting from a divisional application, but I browsed through Nolo
literature and found that you are immune from double patenting
resulting from divisional applications filed on an involuntarily
basis.  It also states that it is generally very difficult to argue
against a traverse.  I only have a vague idea of the term "traverse"
but I assume if I only elect one set of claims, that is without a
traverse.

My instincts are to go with the set of claims I feel that completely
and unambiguously describes the invention, and consider filing the
others in divisional applications.

Before filing the divisional application, is it possible to argue that
the remaining two or more sets of claims that the examiner had pointed
out as distinct are not patentably distinct, I guess that would be a
traverse, and file them in the same divisional application?

Thank you in advance ...