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.