There are just two ways a moon could have been formed from the planet around which it travels: either part of the planet’s outer shell spun off into orbit around the planet or else a large object such as a comet or meteoroid, struck the planet so violently that it dislodged a mass of material from inside the planet.
Background
Two ways a moon can form
1. part of the planet's outer shell spun off into orbit and became the moon
2. a comet or meteoroid slammed into the planet, dislodging a mass of material from inside the planet, which then becomes the moon
In the case of Earth's moon, it doesn't seem to be made of materials that resemble Earth's outer shell.
Evaluate
That last fact heavily suggests that Earth's moon was formed the 2nd way, with something crashing into earth and ejecting material from inside the planet out into orbit, where it then coalesced into the Moon.
However, this question stem is asking us to support the idea that the moon wasn't formed from a piece of the Earth. Both 1 and 2 involve a piece of the Earth (they only differ in terms of whether that piece came from the outer shell or from inside the planet).
So it's pretty confusing what we're supposed to be doing here. It seems like if we're saying that the Earth's moon was not formed from a piece of the Earth then we're denying that either of the "just two ways" occurred.
Does that mean we're supposed to argue that ?
Goal
If it did form from a piece of Earth, then we'd have to think that it formed from one of the 2 ways named. So if we're going to argue that the moon didn't form from a piece of Earth, then it seems like we need an answer to shoot down the 2nd way (i.e. tell us that Earth has not been hit by a comet / meteoroid, or tell us that the Moon's materials do not resemble materials from inside the Earth).
Or we need to suggest that the moon didn't form from the planet Earth at all. It formed from Mars's materials (for example) and then somehow floated over to us and got locked in an orbit with us