The important part about the answer choice is that it's well publicized. So if everyone already knows that there's already going to be a new concert hall nearby, it makes sense that they wouldn't want to replace this one.

D would explain why the concert goers did not want to remodel the current hall, since a well publicized plan is already in motion. I think the trick answer choice is B, which states that most of the people that live in the vicinity of the concert hall do not want to see it torn down, but in selecting that answer choice, you have make the assumption that most of the concert goers are indeed locals, which is not necessarily true. Hope this helped!

Let me give it a shot. So the conclusion states that the reason for more craters is because there are less disruptive geological processes. Why should we believe that to be true? The answer choice you are looking for has to make it a valid conclusion, as it is a sufficient assumption question type. Let's look at the answer choices. Try to put the answer choices in front of the conclusion and see if it leads to a valid result.

Answer choice A doesn't really do anything. So what if a new meteorite erases evidence of old ones, still doesn't explain why there are more craters in more geologically stable areas.

B says that the rates of geological stability vary from time to time. Still doesn't make our conclusion valid.

C says the rate of meteorites striking Earth has increased recently. Still has nothing to do with why there are more craters in stable areas.

D says impacts have been scattered fairly evenly throughout the Earth's surface. Ah, if they were scattered evenly, and these craters were disrupted by geological processes, wouldn't that explain why there are more craters in geologically stable areas? I think this is it.

E says geologically stable regions have been studied more intensely than less stable regions. It doesn't really do much for our argument, who cares if that's the case? Still doesn't explain why there are more craters in geologically stable areas.

If that's the case, I would do pt's in the 70s (or LRs from 1-34) before you redid your 60s. I have experienced what you are talking about before, and for me it meant I hadn't done enough LR questions. Once you only start to see the logical skeleton instead of the filler meat, that's when you know you're at a high level.

Why would context matter in pronunciation? If it were definition that makes more sense.