Why is the answer not B?

Hi @Veda-Bhadharla, Thanks for the question! So let’s quickly go over the stimulus. We’re told that superior conductors get to insist, even with top orchestras, that rehearsal work has to be intensified. And this authority, we’re told, can’t be claimed. The conductor has to earn it by winning the orchestra’s respect for his or her artistic interpretations. So now we’re asked for something the author presupposes; in other words, this is a necessary assumption question. So let’s look at (B), which tells us that superior conductors are perfectionists who are never satisfied with any performance even by a top orchestra. Is this something that the argument has to assume? We can see by negating it; superior conductors aren’t perfectionists who are never satisfied with any performance even by a top orchestra. This doesn’t weaken the argument at all; the argument still stands even if the negation is true. As such, it’s not a necessary assumption, and so (B) isn’t the answer. Now let’s take a look at (D), which says that top orchestras can appreciate the merits of an interpretation even before they’ve brought it to full realization. Let’s see if this is a necessary assumption again by negating it. Top orchestras can’t appreciate the merits before they’ve brought the interpretation to full realization. Well, if this is true, then the conductor can’t ever win the respect of the orchestra. The orchestra has to know whether the piece and interpretation it’s rehearsing are good while they’re rehearsing. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

In plain English, Is is axiomatic that "to respect X" necessitates/requires/presupposes "the appreciation of the merits of X"? In other words, in the English speaking world, is it a fact that X cannot earn the respect from Y, unless Y appreciates the merits of X? I ask because it is straight forward to equate the phrase "before they have brought it to full realization" from answer-choice D with the phrase "currently pursuing" from the stimulus. However, the notion of "appreciat[ing] the merits of" from answer-choice D is a new term unless it is inherently intrinsic to the concept of "respect" in the stimulus which is necessary for earning the "authority to insist." Authority to Insist ------> Won the Orchestra's Respect Won the Orchestra's Respect ------> Appreciate the Merits In retrospect, contrapositive: NO appreciation of merits ---> NO respect ---> NO authority to insist, hence the necessity of the conditional relationship between "the appreciation of the merits" and "the respect." However, "appreciation of merits" has to be conventionally and axiomatically, though implicitly. within the boundaries of the notion of "respect." So, it needs to be made explicit, though it is within the scope of the parameters that the notion of respect outlines; otherwise it is out of scope.

I dont think this is axiomatic in English. It's perfectly possible to respect something for the effort one put into creating it, or because it is interesting, without truly appreciating its merits. That said, for an artist to respect the work of a conductor whose vision they will be executing, I think these are close enough to the same thing.