The problem that the author has with Temple isn’t that his methods were not carefully derived––we don’t know what the author thinks about this. Because (A) does not accurately capture the author’s perspective, (A) doesn’t describe the author’s purpose in using the phrase “semblance of rigor.”

This isn’t the purpose of the phrase “semblance of rigor.” This sentence already tells us that direct proof was impossible to attain. The purpose of “semblance of rigor” isn’t to communicate the same idea that has already been communicated earlier in this sentence.

The purpose of using the phrase “semblance of rigor” isn’t to contrast the accuracy of Temple’s secondhand information with his firsthand research. This contrast isn’t something that the author is trying to communicate in this paragraph, so we know that this isn’t the author’s purpose in using this phrase. Instead, the author says “semblance of rigor” to show that things might not be as they appear.

This is the author’s purpose in using the phrase “semblance of rigor.” Remember that “semblance” means the appearance of having some quality, even when that may not be the case. The author’s purpose in this sentence is to say that Temple’s additional findings made his argument seem rigorous. However, this appearance of rigor is superficial, since Temple’s quantitative research was about turkeys, while he was making conclusions about dodos.

We don’t know what the consensus among experts is regarding Temple’s conclusion. We know that the author, Strahm, and Speke question Temple’s conclusion, but we don’t know if this indicates consensus among experts. Additionally, the author doesn’t admire Temple’s precision and creativity. Because the author doesn’t agree with the claim in (E), we know that this isn’t the author’s purpose in using the phrase “semblance of rigor.”