Critical Reasoning

Which of the following best completes the passage below?

The 1906 San Francisco Earthquake destroyed over half the city and changed the development of the California economy, but much of the damage was actually caused by fire. It has been estimated that as much as 90% of the total destruction was a result of fire damage rather than movement of the earth. This figure is likely exaggerated, however, because the nearly universal practice of insuring San Francisco properties against fire but not earthquake damage all but guaranteed that .

(A) most damage to the city was blamed on fire
(B) the city would eventually be rebuilt
(C) insurance companies were forced to offer earthquake coverage
(D) residents subsequently moved to other cities where earthquake coverage was available
(E) buildings not damaged by fire were never repaired

OA is A

Only A & B makes some sense as one of choices.

But B can be eliminated since no where they mentioned anything about reconstruction.

A is a safe choice because they are blaming everything on fire since their insurance covers fire accidents but not earthquakes. This can be safely inferred from the question.

user123321

The argument here is that the fact that 90% of the damage was blamed on fire is exaggerated. Rightly so, because almost every property was insured against fire and it made sense to blame the mishap on fire!

IMO (A).