Hi tshraiteh,
Thanks for the question! This is a confusing fact set, mostly because of the hard science in it. Let's simplify it by focusing on the conditional relationships identified in the second and third sentences. We have three protagonists here: POLY, PYR, and ZEO.
- POLY formed from PYR (with ZEO)
POLY attach on or in ZEO
ZEO change color POLY formed from PYR (on or in ZEO)
It turns out that a yellow ZEO (free of PYR) was submerged in PYR, and its color changed to black. According to the second premise (above), we know that POLY must have formed from that PYR. Apparently, no POLY fanned on the outer surface of the ZEO, so we can assume that the POLY formed in delicate chains within the ZEO's inner channels (given the info in the second sentence).
This is enough to validate answer choice (C): at least some POLY was formed from PYR. This inference can be proven by reference to the third sentence alone.
Answer choice (A) cannot be true, because the ZEO was free of any PYR when it was submerged. How can POLY have already formed on or in it? Precisely what causes the color change (B) is unknown. Answer choice (D) is false, because a color change indicates the formation of POLY from PYR. How much of the PYR reached the inner channels of the ZEO is unknown (E), but considering no POLY fanned on its outer surface, we can assume that a decent amount of PYR actually reached the inner channels of the ZEO.
I know... crazy question. But if you focus on what they are telling you and simplify it, you'll realize that topic doesn't really matter
Hope this helps!!
