Imagine, lawmakers, a future in which food security is not
available to all, in which people go hungry because poor
farming practices have allowed droughts and bad weather
to destroy a whole year's harvest. Now imagine that you
had the power to pass this law requiring sustainable
farming practices of all government food suppliers.
Because you do have that power.
What does the comparison between drought and the lawmakers most clearly
illustrate?
A. Drought represents a consequence of the lawmakers' inaction.
B. Drought represents the price of passing responsible legislation.
C. Drought represents a circumstance for which the lawmakers can
make the consequences less severe.
D. Drought represents a counterargument to the idea that the
lawmakers should pass the law.

b. failure at least that one seems the most negative out of all of the answers provided pls correct me if i'm wrong. : ))

peace, morning, sun glooming, sorrow, woe pardon’d, punished, more hence, talk, story. all of these three words have to do something with a depressed, regretful tone. woe is another word for misery, heartache, so all of these words are about unhappy feelings.

to eliminate ambiguous remote or broad reference it is necessary to focus on anaphoric reference. by definition "anaphoric reference means that a word in a text refers back to other ideas in the text for its meaning." the references should be clear and leave no room for ambiguity.

in the first case the pronoun it probably refers to the car but it has not been mentioned before so we should replace it for the car. in doing so the statement becomes clear.

in sentence number   two   the pronoun he refers to charles dickens the author. yet, the first half of the sentence is about the book a tale of two cities. to repair this it would be better to rephrase the first half : after i read   a tale of two cities by dickens, he so as to remove the remote reference.