Is this not just a regular inference question, it doenst feel like an MBT at all

I think J.Y.'s Explanation doesn't properly give attention to the modifier "contemporary artists". My reasoning using that consideration was the following: For answer choice D it really feels like a wild card: I could use it however I want when it comes to inferring Lea's perspective. What are the smaller art galleries that are being referred to in answer choice D? its possible that it's referring to art galleries which primarily include contemporary artists, in which case Lea Would strongly disagree. It could also be the case that the smaller art galleries that are being referenced only include paintings form renaissance era artists, in which case we dont know what Lea would say. I chose the interpretation that the smaller art galleries are the one that include contemporary artwork (where Lea would strongly disagree) because I can. The answer choice does not exclude that possibility and so I reasonably inferred it. And then Susan supporting it didnt feel like a big jump

I find it hard to connect the conditional logic with the real concepts that are being communicated. Like I feel like I can accurately write down sentences in conditional logic without ever understanding the conclusion thats actually being made in english. I end up having to decipher the actual argument later which take sup valuable times. Any Advice?