Self-study
A purse containing 32 ancient gold coins that had been minted in Morocco was discovered in the ruins of an ancient Jordanian city some 4,000 kilometers to the east of Morocco. ██ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████ █ ███████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ████ █████████ █ ████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████
Objective: Identify a Strongly-Supported Hypothesis
The question stem asks us to find a hypothesis supported by the stimulus. That's a hint that we can approach the question through a phenomenon-hypothesis framework. The facts in the stimulus are the phenomenon that we're trying to explain with a strongly-supported hypothesis. Keep in mind that the correct answer doesn't have to be a fully valid inference—a strongly-supported hypothesis will offer the best explanation for the facts even if the hypothesis isn't guaranteed to be true.
Now let's turn to the stimulus, which tells us about an ancient purse of gold coins. Here's what we know about that purse: (1) the coins were originally minted in Morocco; (2) the purse was found in an ancient Jordanian city east of Morocco; (3) the city was an important center of trade along an east-west trade route; (4) the city was also an important stop for pilgrims travelling between Morocco and Mecca; (5) the purse has less diversity of coins than we would expect from a trader's purse.
If we chain some of those facts together, we can start to make inferences. The coins were minted in Morocco but found many kilometers east, so someone must have transported the coins from Morocco to this city. And the stimulus offers two possibilities for who transported the coins, a trader or a pilgrim. We also know the purse was unlikely to have belonged to a trader, which lets us eliminate one option to be left with the other: that the purse probably belonged to a pilgrim. This is a hypothesis supported by the stimulus that would explain the facts we know.
5.
The statements above, if true, ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
Moroccan coins were ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████
This claim isn't supported by the stimulus, which doesn't mention anything about the relative value of different coins.
b
Most gold coins █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████
This claim is too strong to be supported, because we don't know anything about other sources of gold coins at that time or where they may have come from. If (B) said that "some" gold coins were minted in Morocco, that would be supported.
c
The purse with ███ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████
This claim is supported by the stimulus and explains the facts given, which makes it an effective hypothesis. The stimulus strongly indicates that the coins belonged to either a trader or a pilgrim, and then tells us they probably didn't belong to a trader—so this hypothesis is our best explanation for where the coins came from.
d
Gold coins were ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
Like (B), this claim is way too strong to be supported. We don't have nearly enough information for such an absolute hypothesis. If (D) said that gold coins were "a" medium of exchange, then it would be a better option.
e
Pilgrims and traders ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████
The stimulus never mentions interactions between people, which leaves this claim without support. We know that both pilgrims and traders passed through this city, but we'd have to assume too much to say anything about their interactions.