The reason I elimiated C as an answer was because I considered the first sentence to be an exception to the rule that C lays out. It wouldn't logically make sense to have a conditional that stipulates "/understand history -> attribute moral significance" if the first sentence states that it is likely for someone to see hisotry as the working out of moral themes if they held clear and unambiguous beliefs.

I guess the "unlikely" makes the latter claim more ambiguous and not conditional or formal logic, but is that line of reasoning valid? If it's not unlikely for someone to see history as the working out of moral themes if they have clear and unambiguous beliefs, is fair to infer that having clear and umambigous beliefs is an exception to the rule that only those who don't understand history attribute moral significance to historical events?

C wouldn't work, I thought, because if someone does understand history AND holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs, then it would not be unlikely for them to attribute moral significance to historical events.

Let me know!

@pamelajkok was going to ask the same question but this clarified it - thanks!

For Q5, would it be incorrect to assume that the 'rights of any presently living individual' refers to their right to have their artistic heritage preserved?

I figured 'the rights' was a referential to 'the right to have their artistic heritage preserved'.

Upon reviewing, I'm wondering: is it that "the rights" isn't referential becuase it's plural?