This is both too narrow and not supported. It’s too narrow, because it doesn’t capture the author’s claim that insects play a role in the development of secondary substances. It’s not supported, because some secondary substances don’t act as defenses against insects.

This is both too narrow and not supported. It’s too narrow, because it doesn’t capture the author’s claim that insects play a role in the development of secondary substances. It’s not supported because the author never suggests that the range of secondary substances present in plants has narrowed, nor does she suggest that the range of insect species that eat each species of plant has narrowed. Rather, she states that the range of plants associated with species of insects has narrowed.

This best captures the main point, which is that insects play a role in the development of secondary substances in plants. The “evolutionary process of interaction” is described in P2 and P3.

This isn’t supported, because the author never suggests that the evolutionary pressures of insects have caused the secondary substances in plants to be similar among closely related species. Although the author does acknowledge that the substances are similar in closely related species, and the author does believe insects’ evolutionary pressure contributes to secondary substances, she never connects the evolutionary pressure of insects to the similarity of secondary substances. In addition, even if she had, the focus of the passage isn’t on what contributed to the similarity of substances, but rather the general role that insects play in the development of secondary substances.

This doesn’t capture the author’s belief that insects have contributed to the development of secondary substances in plants. The mere assertion that plants compete with insects doesn’t contain the idea that insects have played a role in how secondary substances have developed.