Solution
The passage says Europeans believed pepper trees were guarded by dangerous serpents, and the only way to harvest pepper was to burn the trees to drive snakes away.
From passage: "As far back as the 7th century Europeans thought that pepper in India grew on trees 'guarded' by serpents that would bite and poison anyone who attempted to gather the fruit. The only way to harvest pepper was to burn the trees, which would drive the snakes underground. Of course, this bit of lore would explain the shriveled black peppercorns"
The key insight -> this story was meant to explain why peppercorns look black and shriveled (because of burning), not anything else.
What would people logically conclude from a story about dangerous snakes and burning trees?
π Option 1 -> logical conclusion -> dangerous snakes guarding trees would make people think "I shouldn't go harvest this myself"
π’ Option 2 -> context-shift -> the snake story explains appearance (black/shriveled from burning) but has nothing to do with pepper being spicy/hot. The burning is just to scare snakes, not to create spiciness
π Option 3 -> logical conclusion -> dangerous harvesting conditions would naturally make something expensive
π Option 4 -> logical conclusion -> if it's dangerous to harvest, supply would be limited
The confusion students might have: Options 1, 3, and 4 all seem reasonable. But Option 2 makes a connection that isn't there. The story explains appearance (burning makes peppercorns black), not taste (spiciness comes from natural compounds, not burning).