namnam123 wrote:Yes, I still do not know how D strengthen the argument.
according to kaplan classic method, a strengthener is new information which is an assumption or increases belief in an assumption. I do not see D increase the belief in any assumption. Pls, help , show me the assumption which D is relevant.
Keeping aside any method to be used, lets consider the options one by one
Premise1 -> Cultivated wheat found in Europe and Asia
Premise2 -> The "only
" place where wild wheat HAS BEEN FOUND is west Asia
Conclusion -> Since premise 1 and premise 2 are are true for the "same" location, wild wheat was domesticated at this location !
Realize that the conclusion is based on the veracity of the location where the two premises coincide ! To support the conclusion, even though we will add some outside information, it should deal with the same location and nothing else !
A. The present-day distribution of another wild wheat, einkorn, which was also domesticated early in the development of agriculture, covers a much larger area of southwest Asia.
Irrelevant - some other larger location will not help us.
B. Modern experiments show that wild emmer wheat can easily be domesticated so as to yield nearly as well as traditionally domestic strains.
Firstly, wild wheat can be domesticated easily .. ok, but we know that. Premise 2 says it has been growing.
Secondly, traditionally domestic strains is something which is outside the scope. The tradition could have started years after first cultivated wheat was found ! we are assuming traditionally means from the time when cultivated wheat was first found. We cant assume anything.
Therefore, we cannot relate conclusion about history and present with this statement !
C. At the time when emmer wheat was first cultivated, it was the most nutritious of all the varieties of grain that were then cultivated. -- Irrelevant to say the least ! nutrition ? who cares ?
D. In the region containing the strip where wild emmer wheat has been found, climatic conditions have changed very little since before the development of agriculture.
This option says climatic conditions have not changed. Because agriculture, cultivation require specific climate condition for each kind of crop, whatever ( wild wheat in this case ) HAS BEEN GROWING COULD HAVE GROWN AT THAT TIME (when cultivated wheat was found ) AT THAT LOCATION as well !
Even if you are not convinced, keep it aside coz neither is it irrelevant nor does it weaken.
E. It is very difficult, without genetic testing, to differentiate the wild form of emmer wheat from a closely related wild wheat that also grows in southwest Asia. -- Irrelevant, outside the scope.
Even through point of elimination 'D' strengthens relatively more than other options.
D does not make the claim outright correct, it pushes in favor of the argument.