Two women, one living in Los Angeles, the other living in New York Cit

What a fun and quirky question, one that does not follow the typical pattern of a GMAT™ CR question. I know there are different opinions as to the value of third-party questions, but for my part, if something helps develop critical reasoning in a manner similar to what is taxed on the test, then that is a worthwhile something. My take on this question:
Okay, so two women--where they happen to live is immaterial, although I could see someone from L.A. and someone from N.Y.C. debating over the Dodgers, for example--carry on a dispute over certain personality traits of Winston Churchill. They exchange letters. Finally, one of them concedes a point. Why, though? What has changed? The last line tells us: "'Yesterday I met someone who actually knew Sir Winston, and he confirmed your opinion.'" Okay, so a first-hand source confirmed a view previously held only by the other person, thereby settling a live and apparently raging debate. This sort of appeal to authority, as it were, is what we are after in the answer choices. Let us have a look:

Analysis: The two women could certainly have debated the content or meaning of such material. Notice that the passage does not wrap up the debate by telling us that one woman mentioned a new article on Sir Winston or anything of the sort. Thus, this answer choice does not deliver on the EXCEPT condition. Red light.

Analysis: Like the published biographical information above, old film footage does not turn up in the passage, meaning that the two women could have used such a source to fuel the fire of the debate and define or underscore their own point of view. Perhaps they viewed the footage and interpreted it differently, in terms of the personality traits of the former PM. This is not our answer. Red light.

Analysis: If either woman had used a direct personal acquaintance of Churchill before, then this new evidence, the word of such an acquaintance, would have no bearing on the outcome of the debate. Rather than concede, the other woman would be expected to say, "Yeah, but my guy said this instead." Therefore, we can assume that this approach has not been tried before to start the debate or provide the basis for the views of one of the women. Green light.

Analysis: If I could rank red-light answers, this would have to be the weakest of the bunch. I mean, anyone can assume anything they want to try to make a point, and two women could certainly have kicked off a debate by assuming something about the personality traits of Sir Winston. If anything, I would imagine that unfounded assumptions would anger the other party and get the debate going. Red light.

Analysis: This answer falls into the same camp as both (A) and (B) above. Whether direct or third-party reports said something truthful or apocryphal about the old PM, such information could have been used by either woman to form the basis of an argument on the personality traits of the man. The type of report is therefore irrelevant to the question being asked. Red light.

I enjoyed this one, which took 35 seconds for me to complete. Sometimes I talk to my students about employing linear thinking to CR and RC passages. That is, if the passage mentions someone who actually knew Sir Winston, then the answer needs to take this information into account in some way. In this case, just a single answer does so, the correct answer, and nothing else comes close.

I hope that helps the community. I would be happy to answer further questions.

- Andrew