Comprehension is often 'good enough' — heuristic, not exhaustive

Correct: B — Build shallow, often heuristic-based interpretations that suffice for the task — and can yield systematic misunderstandings of fully grammatical sentences

Ferreira (2003) showed that comprehenders frequently endorse incorrect interpretations of well-formed sentences — for example, still answering 'the dog' as the agent in 'The dog was bitten by the man', or accepting passive sentences over noncanonical structures. She argued that sentence comprehension is often 'good enough': listeners build a shallow representation by combining lexical-semantic plausibility heuristics with partial parsing, stopping when the answer is good enough for the current goal. The account predicts systematic errors when canonical sentence-form heuristics conflict with literal meaning, and reframes parsing as a continuum of effort rather than always-exhaustive analysis.