<p>I found this problem to be extremely difficult and confusing. In answering it, I first tried to ID wat the author's assumption about the impact of mechanical clocks was. Ultimately, I think that the assumption was that all believe perceived their "physical clocks" and were thus surprised to find that time could be measured in the external environment. With this assumption in mind, why is A not the best answer here? (The correct answer was B)</p>
<p>There’s a line in there that says “Body time flows at its own variable rate,” which would make B correct because it is the opposite of discrete, uniform intervals and would therefore undermine the author’s claim that body time flows at its own variable rate</p>
<p>(A) - If people were oblivious to physical time (so they cared about mental and physiological time only) before the mechanical clocks arrived, they would sure be surprised to discover that physical time not only existed but also could be measured.
No contradiction here.</p>
<p>(B) People have always perceived time in a discreet manner; why would they be surprised to discover that time can be measured in intervals?
The author’s assumption does not fly here. (B) is correct.</p>
<p>(C) means almost the same as (A).</p>
<p>(D) and (E) can be countered with “so what?”. These statements (if true) do not conflict with the author’s position stated in the two sentences in lines 37-42.</p>