Top Law Schools

I did this question twice in a span of about 3-4 weeks. I got it wrong both times.

So what I did was diagram the stimulus:

TT-->OM-->OD
S-m->OM

OM=Older than Maples
OD=Older than Dogwoods

A) I eliminated because there is no relationship between dogwoods and tulip trees
B) We don't know anything about the youngest sycamores only about the sycamores that are older than dogwoods
C) I picked this when I did it last night. I actually thought it was correct because we know that most sycamores are older than dogwoods, so there must be some that are either younger or the same age as dogwoods. I guess this is wrong because of "oldest dogwoods" am I correct?
D) Similar to A there is no relationship that can be said between tulip trees and sycamores
E) same as D

Can someone help me. Clearly my reasoning is incorrect somewhere because I got this question wrong not once, but twice. I am incredibly grateful to whoever can help me understand this problem!

When I did that question, in my head I kind of envisioned it with older being above and younger being under (and if not all were older or younger then then they would go above and below the tree). Basically it looked like this:

T||S
M
s||D

So all of T is above(older than) M and most of S is above M and then a small s to denote the some that are below (younger than) M and a big D to denote that all dogwoods are younger than the maplewoods the bars separate T and S as well as s and D because there isn't a connection given between them. As you can see, since all of the Tulips are older than M that means that of some of the sycamores (the ones below M) those aren't as old as even the youngest tulip trees.

C is incorrect because no connection is given between the youngest Sycamores and the Dogwoods so they could be all as old or older than the oldest dogwoods, some could be not as old, but enough information isn't given. Hope this helps understand the reasoning and the thought process for approaching it. Sometimes I stink at explanations.