The argument is that plants absorb nitrogen. Herbivores - i.e. plant eating animals - have higher concentration of nitrogen in their tissues and consequently, carnivores have a higher concentration of nitrogen than herbivores. When the bone sample of an ice age bear and the blood sample of a modern bear that was fed on a high meat diet were compared, the levels of nitrogen were equal in both samples. So, it stands to reason that the ice age bear must have had a meat component in its diet. Therefore, it could not exclusively be a herbivore. Hence the conclusion -
Thus, the prehistoric European cave bears (I'm using ice age bear to denote it) were not exclusively herbivores.P.S. They are comparing bone sample and blood sample to arrive at the conclusion.
Which one of the following, if true, would most strengthen the zoologist's argument?
(A) Plants can also absorb heavy nitrogen from a variety of sources other than rainwater.
> Okay but how does this strengthen the conclusion? I think this is irrelevant.
(B) The rate at which heavy nitrogen accumulated in the blood of Ice Age herbivores can be inferred from samples of their bones.
> This talks about rate and we are concerned about level of nitrogen. The argument makes the inference of level not of rate of accumulation. Example, the argument says that the samples of both modern bear and ice age bear show that 20 units of nitrogen (I don't know the unit of measurement of gas, excuse me) were present. This statement says that the rate of accumulation - say 0.1% nitrogen is obtained from one meal by a bear - can be inferred. The argument is about whether the ice age bear is exclusively herbivorous.
(C) The same number of samples was taken from present-day bears as was taken from Ice Age cave bears.
> Even if more number of samples were taken, the argument says nothing about whether the number of sample plays a role in determining the level of nitrogen.
(D) Bone samples from present-day bears fed meat-enriched diets exhibit the same levels of heavy nitrogen as do their blood samples.
> As mentioned above, we were comparing bone sample and blood sample. This strengthens the argument. Imagine that the statement was in the negative - bone samples and blood samples do not exhibit the same levels - then the conclusion would be weakened. When you measure like for like, the stronger the argument will be. If you are making a conclusion about about oranges, then you should use two oranges as your premises than one orange and one apple. D is correct.
(E) The level of heavy nitrogen in the bones of any bear fed a meat-enriched diet is the same as that in the bones of any other meat-eating bear.
> The argument is about ice age bear and modern bear. It isn't about bears.