The wording here is tricky. It's important to see that the information Jennifer provides doesn't actually support "each of the claims" Peter makes — it only supports his conclusion. Jennifer's point about mildly drought-stressed plants producing toxins doesn't support Peter's first claim, his premise that because mildly drought-stressed plants have tougher leaves than abundantly watered plants, insects prefer abundantly watered plants. Those two claims aren't logically related to each other — they both just function as independent premises supporting Peter's conclusion.

This answer choice suggests that the information Jennifer provides is somehow a necessary assumption that Peter’s argument didn't clearly state. That's not accurate. Jennifer’s comment provides additional support for Peter’s conclusion, but it isn't logically necessary in order for Peter's conclusion to be true.

Jennifer provides an independent premise to support Peter's conclusion. She doesn't explain any of Peter’s premises.

This is incorrect. Jennifer’s comment does not support Peter’s premise about tougher leaves, nor does it undermine that premise — and it certainly doesn't undermine Peter's conclusion. Her comment is simply an independent premise offering additional support for Peter’s conclusion.

This is correct. Jennifer supports the conclusion that to minimize crop damage, farmers should only water crops just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. Her comment provides independent support for this conclusion, beyond the support that Peter provides.