I don't understand when an assumption is "too strong" does that just mean its encompasses too much and it as specific as it need to be to apply to the conclusion?

im confused, how does vampire myths exciting in europe long before the book came out help justiy why the assumption of that the myths of vampires turning into bats is false? like how do myths being present before the book was published tell us that the bat myth is false? 

I was thinking B because, yea we already know the halophytes tolerate sea water and can grow with it, but if some of them require seawater wouldn't that help neutralize the part in the stimulus that says there's a smaller yield with sea water. So yea there's a smaller yield but some of them need it to grow.

I do understand that we don't know if the halophytes we have do or don't require salt water, but I feel like that still strengthens bc what if we do? is that not a valid assumption?

or is it that since we don't know which ones we have (we just know the they can be watered with seawater) this doesn't strengthen or weaken bc we just don't know.

So the only thing I was confused about was how is the "and" here is separated bc I would have put those two claims together.

like:

large nursery -m-> commercial and only disease free