1- The correct answer is B.
The narrator could not believe what Miguel had said, so he run off to the park to investigate. When he arrived, he realized Miguel was correct: there were no traces of the carnival there: no holes where the spikes had been, no hay scattered about.
2- The correct answer is D.
The narrator's father was astonished because he believed that Miguel and the reporter were wrong. He could not understand how it could be possible for there to be no carnival in the area when he and everyone in town had been to one the night before.
Sentence 1 is the topic sentence. other sentences are based on 1 to support sentence 1, elaborating the topic sentence.
So I don't believe that it is common, though I do believe that many can be commonly misinformed. It's not the event that is to be mistaken, instead it is more common to find a misdated event. Does that make sense? So the title or name of the event is not mistaken for another, but instead I believe the date or the event itself can be misinterpreted. Since, in order to know exactly what happened, you need to be there, and at the same time, there are many different perspectives. If you need further explanation, just let me know.
