If the city is going to tear down the concert hall to build a public auditorium and simply move the concert hall somewhere nearby, why would that be justification for why the concert goers oppose the tearing down of the concert hall? They still have a concert hall nearby and it will be better. Are we assuming that they do not want a public auditorium or that the new location for the concert hall is not as ideal at the current one? Or maybe they do not want construction?

I can make assumptions to justify answer D, but I don't see how it explains the discrepancy as it is.

I'm still having a hard time finding the difference between answers A & D. I think the distinction is that A has a single flow of thought from "permissible only if --> most given consent," whereas D has multiple links from "justified only if --> each agreed" and "had they been consulted --> each could have agreed."

Is it this additional required link that makes D wrong because we are forced to assume what would have happened had they been consulted, but in reality we do not know since they were not consulted?

I'm confused because it seems A is stating the same thing, but simply as an assumption because how can they give their consent without being consulted? What am I missing?

It would be great if you could send the copy my way too! shama.barot@.com Thank you so much!