Maps are essential décor for any social studies class, and though they

Hi nikNewMusic,

I will be happy to help with Q2.

Here is the author's main argument (marked in bold to separate from the other parts of the passage text):

"Maps are merely 2-D representations of a 3-D world and will always carry certain inherent inaccuracies. Because of their flatness and size restrictions, maps require manipulation, rendering them incapable of showing the actual shape of the earth and the continents, nations, and other features upon it. Though these might seem like necessary concessions, the implications of such manipulations move beyond the blackboard and can have damaging effects; forcing students to see the world in 2-D each day has the attendant effect of teaching them to understand the world in two-dimensional terms.

Furthermore, maps present borders as fixed, unchanging entities, which is a misleading implication to present in a history course. Borders have been changing throughout the history of civilization, and the United States is a perfect example of a country with borders that have blurred and bled into one another for decades as states continued to form and join as recently as the 20th century."

The author's main argument is that maps are flawed because they are static and they are 2-D representations of a 3-D entity. An option which shows that this isn't the case would weaken the conclusion -- for example, an option which says maps are dynamic or that maps can adequately represent 3-D data. Option (C) does the former.

(B) doesn't work because even if most teachers do not rely on maps in the classroom, the above flaws remain and students can study the maps outside the classroom as well (it is not written that students are exposed to maps ONLY in the classroom.

Hope it helps

­Can some one explain Q2