So the answer should be D right?

That's what I got too.

A table made entirely from the trunk of a tree said to have lived 1,000 years was recently claimed to be made from that of a much younger tree. In order to rebut this charge, the craftsman summoned a team of dendrochronologists to prove that the tree lived to be at least 1,000 years old. Dendrochronology, or the technique of using tree rings to date wood, is based on the fact that for each passing year a tree develops exactly one ring, as seen in a horizontal cross-section of the trunk. Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.
A. The craftsman has not used the trunk of the same tree in other works of art he has produced.
The passage did not mention about the craftsman's other crafts from this same tree.
B. The tree was not less than 1,000 years old when it was cut down.
This is the conclusion of the passage.
C. The craftsman worked on the wood consistently, without taking breaks of more than one year.
The passage did not mention how long it would take to complete the table.
D. The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of 1,000 tree rings.
Answer. The author assumed that the table has at least 1000 rings, otherwise the conclusion that the table is at least 1000 yrs old would not be true.
E. Dendrochronology has shown to be inaccurate for the oldest trees in the world, since parts of the trunks are so worn down that traces of tree rings are difficult to discern.
If Dendrochronology is inaccurate, the conclusion is rendered wrong.

Hi Carcass, thank you for the revised answer and explanation. Can you please edit the OA too?

Sorry for my mistake in the OA

Fixed

Great question!!

Each passing year, the tree develops one ring, until it is taken down. Table is made from wood extracted from these trees. Dendrochronologists need to ascertain if the table's wood has at least 1000 rings to confidently date the table as 1000 years old.

What if the table's wood is not big enough to accommodate 1000 rings. What if it's small enough to have 500 rings only - The dating will be inaccurate.

Therefore, option D: The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of 1,000 tree rings, is an assumption that the paragraph depends on.

Sir please

In the end, what are you pointing out about the question? explain to me so I can come, possibly, in handy

I have also explained above

There is nothing wrong with the question, in your explanation, the premise in the 9th line needs to be reviewed:

Premise: Given that dendrochronology is accurate for trees that lived less than 2,000 total years, the dendrochronologists will be able to determine whether the work comes from a tree that lived to be at least 1,000 years old.

Your explanation: This technique is sure to assert if the tree has more than 100 years, considering that it gives us an accurate result up to 200 years

My clarification: There is no mention of 100 yrs or 200 yrs in the paragraph. Instead of more than 100 years, it should be at least 1000 years and 200 should be changed to 2000.

And option D in 19th line also needs to be reviewed:

Premise: The wood used in the table is large enough to contain a span of 1,000 tree rings.

Your explanation: Bingo. To know if the tree lived more than 100 years, the table (which is basically an excerpt of the tree) must contain in it a span of 1,000 tree rings

My clarification: This should be changed to 1000 years because there is no mention of 100 years in the paragraph. The words 'more than' should also be omitted to avoid confusion.