Thanks for the question! Here, we have an exchange between two individuals. Anders first makes the claim that the physical structure of the brain is important when it comes to thinking, so this structure should be considered by people developing "thinking machines," which are basically computers that can perform thought-like functions.
Yang then gives a counter example, saying that flying machines closely modeled on birds have failed, and researchers should focus on the brain's function, not its physical structure. The question asks us for something that would help s evaluate Yang's argument. One thing that might help us evaluate his counterexample is knowing if those flying machines closely modeled on birds helped us develop machines currently able to fly. This is what (A) tells us. If studies of the physical structure of birds still contributed in some way to the development of workable aircraft, then analogously, studies of the physical structure of the brain might contribute to these thinking machines, even if they aren't closely modeled on the brain. If not, then Yang might be right, and we can ignore the physical structure.
(D) is incorrect because it's not relevant to Yang's argument if there are researchers who specialize in the structure of the brain working on the thinking machines. Yang's point is that the structure of the brain is basically irrelevant anyway because of the bird analogy, so a correct answer that helps us evaluate Yang's argument will have something to do with the bird analogy. Hope this helps!
