The critic's idea of what makes a successful civil building is about its effect on the life of the city, not whether it's elevated. The idea of a hilltop site doesn't actually play into the argument; it's effectively irrelevant.

The critic doesn't make any claims about the necessary factors for a city to have social cohesion. The critic's argument is purely focused on what makes a civil building successful, and this principle isn't relevant to that.

Like (A), this isn't a relevant principle to the critic’s argument, which is only concerned with judging the success of civic buildings. Elevated purposes are just mentioned for context, not to judge whether those buildings should be built on special sites.

The critic takes no position on how downtown areas should be designed, so this principle has no relation to the argument. The critic is just focused on the purpose and success of civil buildings, not the design of larger areas of a city.

This principle aligns with both of the critic's conclusions: that the art museum fulfills its purpose because it encourages social cohesion and makes the city more alive, and that the concert hall is unsuccessful because it lacks this quality.