@marvin100 Sorry for misspelling! 3 in the morning is not when my mind is at its clearest state. Which explains muddling the matters in the attempt to clear them in my post #10.
I still think (A) is the right answer for the reasons stated in post #7.
What I don’t like about this answer though that the phrase “…, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, …”, while providing <<a relevant="" detail="" about="" alvarez’s="" credibility="" as="" a="" scientist="">> (and making (A) correct), does not establish a credibility of Alvarez and son team’s novel idea. So adding that phrase would align with the answer (A), but, at the same time, would be an example of sloppy writing. <a relevant="" detail="" about="" alvarez’s="" credibility="" as="" a="" scientist="">
The fact that the phrase <<does not="" provide="" any="" relevant="" support="" for="" the="" author’s="" purpose="">> is irrelevant: it does not have to, no matter what the author’s purpose is. That invalidates the part <<no, because="">> in (D), making the whole answer incorrect. It is an example of invalid argument, in which false conclusion follows true premise. </no,>
Thanks to @azwu, I opened Wikipedia on the Alvarez hypothesis page.
It turns out that Luis Alvarez and his son were conducting an interdisciplinary research:
Alvarez’s expertise as a physicist of the Nobel Prize caliber proved valuable, to say the least, in the study of geological structures.
Whatever the writing standards of Wikipedia are, the quoted facts are quite relevant here.