It would be great if you could send the copy my way too! shama.barot@tpn109220.com Thank you so much!

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 was in the same predicament, but what helped me pick B over A was anticipating that the argument could be vulnerable if there was some outside factor causing the low sales. The idea in A says that sales would be even lower without the campaign. Why would we expect sales to be even lower? It did not provide any explanation. On that same thought, B answered this exact question by claiming that some outside factor was the cause of low sales all together, so the campaign really had nothing to do with it and it wasn't ill-founded after all.

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?

I had a hard time with this as well. However, in paragraph 2 there are a handful of little key phrases that point to the idea that these photographs took a long time. As you mentioned, the passage does not come right out and say it, but it's more support than any of the other choices had. Here are the lines that helped me understand:

1. Line 24 "sitting" - this term does not sound like a quick snap of a picture. If they were sitting around to make this photograph happen, it likely took time.

2. Line 25 "all the dressing up" - again, a timely activity. It does not say it outrightly, but by adding "all the" in front of dressing up allows us to believe that this was a bit of a process.

3. Line 31 "trying desperately hard to sit still" - more obvious of the few, as most adults would not have to try desperately to sit still for a quick photograph.

4. Line 32 "the way each sitter endures his..." - similar to the statement above, if they are having to endure a pose, it suggests that enough time had passed for the sitters to need to do so. Again, if this were quick, there would be nothing to endure.

I'm not sure if that provides any clarity for you, but that's how I made sense of it.

Hope that helps!

I think the distinction between the stretch you are aligning between B & D is that D only provides one very specific statement that the answer choices try to spin into being equivalent to "harsh environmental conditions," namely the "catastrophic changes in climate that we would expect to follow from such an impact." You could argue that the dinosaurs had no problem with harsh climates, they just had problem with severe change?

Anyways, to help clarify B there are a few different statements that provide more support for the idea of flourish: First, it says that the smaller mammals are "generally better able to survive," then as you noted, "mammals fared relatively well," and finally the last sentence claims "their success..." - If nothing else, I think the success bit provides most support for the idea of flourish, but the combination of the other two statements strengthen the idea.

Hope that helps!