Please explain

@JeremyG, Happy to help. Let's take a look at the answer choices. The question says, "Suppose a scholar believes that the surviving text of a classical Greek play contains alterations introduced into the original text by a copyist from a later era. Which one of the following pieces of evidence bearing upon the authenticity of the surviving text is most analogous to the kind of evidence mentioned in the last paragraph of the passage?" This is essentially an analogy question, and it's probably the hardest question in this entire section. We need to first be able to analogize the different components of the hypothetical in the question. "Scholar," "surviving text," "classical Greek play," "alterations," and "copyist from a later era" are all things we need to find analogies for in the passage. So, who's the scholar? The scholar is Steele. Steele (the scholar) believes that the surviving copy of our DNA (the surviving text of a classical Greek play) of the original DNA contains alterations introduced to the original DNA by the virus (a copyist from a later era). Steele presents evidence of "signature" of past events that are "written all over the genes" as evidence that suggests that in the past, information has been transferred into DNA in the reproductive organs. (E) says "vocabulary in the surviving text that is typical of the later era and not found in other texts dating from the classical period" It's important to note that from the last paragraph, we know that evolutionary evidence is circumstantial evidence, so it only provides indirect support. In the analogy, we know that a scholar is attempting to prove that a given text contains alterations. In looking at (E), we see that the divergent vocabularies in the text provide support for the assertion that the text has been altered, but they don't do this in a direct way (the divergent vocabularies indirectly support this). This closely mirrors what's going on in the analogy between the question stem and the last paragraph, so this is the correct answer. (A) says "a copy of the original, unaltered text discovered in a manuscript independently known to date from the classical period" (A) is way too direct for it to match the circumstantial evidence mentioned in the passage. For instance, if we were to find a copy that we know has been unaltered and then see that it's different from the other text, then we know with certainty that the other text has been altered. This is too strong and does not match the analogy, so it's out. (B) says, "a letter in which the copyist admits to having altered the original text in question" (B) isn't perfect evidence; however, it isn't circumstantial evidence, and that's the type of evidence we're looking for. (B)'s evidence is flawed due to the fact that it relies on the copyist's claims, and these claims may or may not be true. The fourth paragraph's evidence exists independently of human claims, and this evidence can be considered to indirectly support a claim, whereas (B)'s evidence is built around claims made by a human, so it's out. (C) says, "an allegation by one of the copyist's contemporaries that the copyist altered the original text" (C), just like (B), relies on the claims of an individual. We're looking for evidence that exists independently of human claims. (C)'s evidence relies on a human claim, so it's out. It doesn't match the structure of the analogy. (D) says, "an account dating from the playwright's time of a performance of the play that quotes a version of the text that differs from the surviving version" The problem with (D) is that its evidence is way too weak. (D)'s evidence puts too much reliance on the account having everything correct. Were the lines memorized correctly in the play? Did the person who recorded the play remember everything correctly? IWe also must trust that the altered version of the text in question is the one that we are researching and not the one that was performed. There are a large number of variables in play with (D). It relies way too much on human accuracy, so we can get rid of it since it doesn't match the analogy for the evidence from the fourth paragraph. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Thank you that's very helpful!

@JeremyG, happy to help! Let us know if you have any other questions!