>>>>> Is there not any wisdom to giving rural areas a counterweight to heavily populated urban areas?
As GP said above -- a counterweight to to heavily populated areas. Which the more rural areas were at the time.
The more rural states (like Virginia at the time) had most of the population, which is why they preferred representation based on population.
The argument was one of population (whether current or expected), as writings by all involved in it will tell you explicitly.
Regardless, the US Senate was created with two senators from each state provided equal representation to each state in that house.
Which was and still is, a counterweight to heavily populated areas. Rural or urban really doesn't make a difference.
Edit: Clarified rural vs. urban importance WRT US Senate representation.