GWD 24-38 (TTGWD4-Q14讨论区没有)，一个干扰项为什么不对呢？

Which of the flowing most logically completes the argument?

The attribution of the choral work Lacrimae to the composer Pescard (1400 – 1474) has been regarded as tentative, since it was based on a single treatise from the early 1500’s that named Pescard as the composer.  Recently, several musical treatises from the late 1500’s have come to light, all of which name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae.  Unfortunately, these newly discovered treatises lend no support to the attribution of Lacrimae to Pescard, since _______.

A.      the treatise from the early 1500’s misidentifies the composers of some of the musical works it considers

A.      the treatise from the early 1500’s misidentifies the composers of some of the musical works it considers

B.      the author of the treatise from the early 1500’s had no very strong evidence on which to base the identification of Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae

C.      there are works that can conclusively be attributed to Pescard that are not even mentioned in the treatise from the early 1500’s

D.      the later treatises probably had no source for their attribution other than the earlier treatise

E.       no known treatises from the 1600’s identify Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae

答案是E，为什么B不对呢？是不是因为没有E好？

D.      the later treatises probably had no source for their attribution other than the earlier treatise就是说1500年, 但是statement里面已经说from the late 1500’s have come to light, all of which name Pescard as the composer of Lacrimae.,所以, the later treatises是有source的

否定了D

D for sure

这道题D选项我的理解是 后来的这些treatises没有来源除了之前的treatises； 而文中说之前的treatises没有论断，它还想看看以后的treatises是不是P的；所以后出土的那些treatises也不能说明是不是p的了。

好绕啊，不知道这个理解对不对。

以前的一个东东说是P写得，只有一个证据，略显不足。

后来发现了几个证据，以为可以充分证明了。

没想到，还是不充分啊？为什么呢：

因为后来的这个也是基于以前的那个证据为依据来源的。。。

（以一个还在被怀疑的证据为依据来源，来做自己的依据，这就类似“伪证的循环”了，当然不行。）