All of the children who can copy angles can also
Why this is right
On its face, this doesn't seem to speak of any chronological sequence. How could it help us determine our chicken before the egg riddle? Conditionally, this answer looks like this: child can copy angle ? child can copy curve When we have a conditional like A ? B, we can read that as "If A, then B" or as "A requires B". If we read this conditional as "can copy angle" requires "can copy curve", then it definitely sounds like good support for this hypothesis. In fact, that literally is what the hypothesis says: Copying angles requires first learning to copy curves. This hypothesis makes a prediction that "anyone who can copy angles can copy curves", and this answer choice matches that prediction. If we have a hypothesis that makes a prediction, and the observed data matches that prediction, then say that data adds plausibility to the prediction. If I said, "you must ace Games before you can reliably score in the 170s", then I am committed to the prediction that "anyone reliably scoring in the 170s is acing Games". If you show me someone reliably scoring in the 170s who isn't acing Games, then you've shown my hypothesis is wrong. But if we say, as this answer choice did, that "all of the students who are scoring reliably in the 170s are acing games", then we're supporting my hypothesis.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.