Even in ancient times, specialized farms (farms that grow a single type of crop or livestock) existed only where there were large commercial markets for farm products, and such markets presuppose urban populations.
Conclusion
The ruins in the site at Kadshim are probably from a mostly uninhabited ceremonial structure, not a densely populated city.
Evidence
The land in the region of Kadshim could never have supported any farms except mixed farms.
Specialized farms (the opposite of mixed farms) only occurred where there were large commercial markets, which only occurred within urban populations.
Evaluate
When we're doing a Flaw question and see conditional logic indicator words, then we immediately start to suspect that the author will mess up this conditional logic, usually doing the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw.
What are the conditional logic indicator words we should be seeing in the first sentence? only where presuppose
only, only if, only where, only when = necessary indicators (put the attached idea on the right side of the arrow)
obnoxiously, "the only" is a sufficient indicator.
presupposes, implies, requires, depends on = necessary indicators (put the Required thing on the Right side of the arrow)
So the author said
Specialized → large commercial → urban farms markets populations
The author's conclusion is trying to establish that some ruins were from an .
Since the author is trying to prove "these ruins are not from an urban population", we have to understand how the author was attempting to use this logic chain in order to reach her conclusion of "not urban population".
The author is envisioning an illegal negation of this chain of logic:
Since we know ,
Specialized → urban farms populations
... the author is thinking, .
Specialized → urban farms populations
Goal
We need to either call out the formal conditional logic mistake, (Nec vs. Suff) or point out our possible objection --- it's possible that this region had mixed farms that catered to urban populations.