What kind of question is this? It doesn’t fit cleanly into any of the common question types. But! It’s also a great example of how much critical information question stems often provide. This stem alone tells us:

1. We can expect two viewpoints in the stimulus that are in disagreement
2. Arthur’s viewpoint will be based on a misinterpretation of Marta’s position
3. Our job is to identify the argument Arthur thought Marta was making

So it’s a rare blend of the Disagree and Method of Reasoning question types, but it’s also just its own thing: what does Arthur think Marta is saying?

This prompt calls for heavy anticipation. Unlike causal questions, for example, where there could be a million different alternate causes and trying to anticipate the exact right one is silly, this question turns on one specific misinterpretation. Find it and frame it in your mind before moving to the answers.

Right off the bat, it’s notable that Marta’s claims aren’t structured as an argument – she presents one fact (people want more recreational areas), another fact (some people are pitching turning old railway land into walking trails), and gives her take on the situation (maybe there are better uses for the railway land). She doesn’t give a big THEREFORE WE SHOULD DO THIS.

But Arthur comes in hot with an impassioned defense of the walking trails idea. The land is ideal! This injustice has gone on too long! How dare you throw this idea in the trash without any further thought?!?

Maybe Marta does secretly want to throw the walking trails idea in the trash, but she certainly never said that. All she did was point out an additional consideration. Her stated position is perfectly open to further consideration of the walking trails idea.

So there’s our misinterpretation: Arthur’s criticism suggests that he interpreted Marta to be calling for the immediate trashing of the walking trails idea.