by tommywallach Sun Jul 20, 2014 6:49 pm
Hey Mesch,
Let's break this down.
Marta says there may be more productive ways of using the railway land than making walking trails.
Arthur then says the plan is still good because the railway land is perfect for walking trails.
Arthur seems to have misinterpreted Marta. She agrees that the railway land should become recreational areas, but thinks there may be better ways to do that then with walking trails.
(A) This is too extreme. Arthur doesn't suggest that Marta thinks conversion would be "entirely unproductive," only that it would be less productive than some other approach.
(B) This is Marta's actual idea, but Arthur didn't seem to catch it. He doesn't get that she wants to consider things other than walking trails; he thinks she wants to dismiss the proposal entirely. This is actually the opposite of what we want.
(C) Marta never says that the complaints are ill-founded, nor does Arthur say that she does. She simply talks about HOW to change the land into a recreational area.
(D) CORRECT. Arthur says "we should not dismiss this proposal without further consideration." But Marta never implied that they should. She simply said that there "may be more productive ways of using" the land.
(E) This is about whether the conversion is possible, but both Marta and Arthur seem to believe it's possible.
Hope that helps!
-t