@mh212529 Late reply maybe it can help others in the future through. To be honest I look at it like this. First the question stem sets up what you are looking for: it states that both Peter and Yoko "disagree," this is signaling the correct answer should be explicit. Not implied but rather "obvious." Therefore, throwaway the notion of needing an assumption unless there are key words indicating an implicit answer. Where answer choice B goes wrong is it states, "tends to be less frightening," only Yoko said anything about stories being "frightening." Peter did not refer to frightening in any realm of conversation. To make a connection even one based on disagreement would be making an assumption that Peter in some way was addressing current stories as being "frightening," and that would be incorrect. Think of these questions like geometry, most of the correct and incorrect answers have proofs and solid reasoning as to why it's either correct or incorrect. Next time you get hung up play devil's advocate and try to reason why your answer would be correct or incorrect and vice versa. If this helps leave a like so I know.

@Sameer_Ahamad Whether it is the opposite or not still does not negate the fact that it is an "alternative" explanation. What you are doing here is confusing sufficiency for necessity in your futile attempt to be a smart ass. So, you have obviously overlooked the hundreds of lessons relating to sufficiency and necessity prior to this and somehow you still have arrived here which is beyond me, allow me to reiterate in hopes of clarification. In simplistic terms being sufficient is a subset or if you will a "small bubble" inside of the larger superset, necessity or "large bubble." Therefore, following the same formal logic an answer choice being "opposite" is sufficient for being "alternative." For the sake of checks and balances if you take the contrapositive of that statement, it makes perfect sense. If this still does not make sense, please refer to logic traps at the end of last lesson.

Lastly, next time you try to correct curriculum in an attempt to make yourself feel "special" or more intelligent than others or the teachers. Remember that what error you think you have discovered is not clever or insightful but rather most likely you are being too inept to understand basic foundational knowledge. Everything aside this is simply a joke and I'm teasing you. Have a good one :)

@delkmason18474 Get use to reading, studying law has no lack thereof.