1. The Clue: In 1986, the idea of home banking was compared to "flying cars." This suggests that, at the time, the idea was considered a fantasy or a remote, futuristic impossibility.
2. The Contextual Shift: The sentence notes that this argument was made in 1986 , but we are evaluating how it sounds "today."
3. The Reality Check: Today, digital and mobile banking are ubiquitous, while flying cars remain largely experimental or non-existent. Therefore, an argument claiming home banking would never happen (or was as unlikely as a sci-fi trope) now sounds ridiculous or absurd.

Vocabulary Breakdown

- (A) Prescient: Having or showing knowledge of events before they take place. If the argument had been right, it would be prescient. Since the argument was wrong, this is the opposite of what we need.
- (B) Paradoxical: Seemingly absurd or self-contradictory. While the situation is ironic, the argument itself isn't a logical paradox; it’s just incorrect.
- (C) Presumptuous: Failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate. This describes a person's behavior (being overconfident or arrogant), not the quality of an outdated technological prediction.
- ** (D) Preposterous (Correct Answer):** Contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous. This perfectly describes an old prediction that has been proven spectacularly wrong by modern daily life.
- (E) Pithy: Brief and full of meaning; concise. This refers to the style of prose, not the validity of the claim.

The sentence per se is pretty straight sir: what before was untinkable now is the norm or daily usage we do of those specific transactions.

However, the real gist is that NOW looking back what they said is absurd. We have to see that in the past with the lens of today , right now , in this precise moment of time and therefore, thast in the past looked absurd.

why - at the time IN THE PAST of the prediction - that specific thing could not happen ? What was the real reason why it was highly improbable to realize in the future ? we do not know or we do not have enough information.....that's why sound absurd, and tha's why D is the answer

So the answer is D and is cogent

Carcass Thank you so much for your prompt reply and insightful answer.

Though conducting banking transactions from home became reality, the Argument that its possibility is remote is absurd from today's PoV.

Hats-off!