[問題] 關於一題閱讀

[zealotofsc (XDDDD)]

Archaeologists studying Bonito phase (ca. A.D. 900-1140) Native American
ceramics from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, observed that many pots had been
altered after firing to revise their decorative designs--usually,
intricate geometric patterns painted in black on white slipped surfaces.
In some cases, a new design was imposed over an earlier one; less often,
the original design was simply covered with white slip. Crown and Wills
doubt that the alterations were made to correct design errors. Many
Chaco pots with design errors were left unaltered. Furthermore, when
errors were corrected, revisions were made prior to firing—either by
painting directly over the error or by scraping off designs and applying
new slip and paint, which is a less time-consuming method than repainting
and refiring flawed pots.

1. The author of the passage mentions Crown and Wills primarily in order to
A. Distinguish among different factors that might have caused Chaco potters
   to alter their pots’decorative designs.
B. Introduce new evidence related to the question of why Chaco potters
   altered their pots’decorative designs.
C. Show how one potential explanation for the alteration of Chaco pots has
   been discounted.
D. Present a hypothesis about why Chaco pots were altered to revise their
   decorative designs.
E. Explain how archaeologists discerned the method by which Chaco pots were
   originally decorated.

答案是C，但是我認為是D...
不太懂文章哪裡有說 explanation has been discounted....
請解惑，感謝大家<(_ _)>

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 50.24.54.162
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/GRE/M.1460866596.A.75C.html
→ kaifrankwind: 第三行altered...to revise就是意味這群考古學家對
→ kaifrankwind: 那些pot在firing後還被altered的解釋是為了修改
→ kaifrankwind: Crown and Wills就是反駁說 就算要修改也是在firing
→ kaifrankwind: 前
→ kaifrankwind: 但是C and W沒有提出新一個假說來解釋
→ zealotofsc  : 看來我句意搞錯了...謝謝樓上!