Under laboratory conditions, fruit flies can learn to respond to odors that elicit no response from them in nature. - Background info. Fruit Flies (FF) can learn to respond to some odors that FF doesn't typically respond to in nature.
Mutant fruit flies that cannot produce a certain enzyme are, however, incapable of such learning. - Highlights an exception - MFF that can't produce enzyme X and is incapable of learning. Are these correlated? Is enzyme the reason for the lack of learning? We don't know.
These mutant flies respond to other odors just as ordinary fruit flies do. - Another complexity: the MFF responds to other odors. For example, dog type B doesn't respond to the car horns and has different genes than dog A. But that dog B responds to other sounds such as home ring, etc. Its going towards that possibly both are not related in terms of one causing the other.
Thus it is unlikely that the enzyme's absence impairs the fruit flies' perception of odors, since presumably
fruit flies would not have an enzyme that was needed only for the perception of odors that fruit flies do not respond to in nature. - exactly. The enzyme can't be the reason/cause of lack of perception or response.
Given that many researchers believe that this enzyme is somehow involved in the process of forming memories, what the enzyme's absence probably impairs is the fruit flies' ability to learn. - opposite to the earlier statement, it means that the enzyme's absence is responsible in some form. How? Without this enzyme, they may still sense it but cant learn as this enzyme is responsible for forming memory.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
A) The first is an explanatory hypothesis provisionally put forward in the argument (No, it just states another complexity/fact); the second provides evidence in support of that hypothesis (The 2nd BF is not in support of BF1. The 2nd is an assumption supporting the intermediate conclusion).
B) The first is evidence that has been used to support a hypothesis that the argument challenges (ok); the second states an assumption explicitly made in challenging that hypothesis. (No. It supports the hypothesis that "it is unlikely that the enzyme's absence impairs the fruit flies' perception of odors."
C) The first is evidence that has been used to support a hypothesis that the argument challenges (ok); the second is a modified version of that hypothesis that is adopted in the argument. - No. What is adopted in the argument is that enzymes are somehow responsible - not in perception but in learning.
D) The first is evidence (okay) used in ruling out a potential explanation (what explanation—that the enzyme is required for perception—the idea that the enzyme is important) that the argument rejects (the argument concludes that yes, the enzyme is not required for perception but is required for learning); the second presents an explicit assumption (ok) used in arguing against that explanation(yes the explanation that the enzyme is required for perception—the idea that the enzyme is important ).
E) The first is evidence used in ruling out a potential explanation that the argument rejects (ok); the second is the explanatory hypothesis that the argument as a whole seeks to support. (No, the conclusion doesn't support this)