Final answer:
The relationship between the method of development and the line of reasoning in an article like 'The Grant Shapps Affair Is a Testament to Wikipedia's Integrity and Transparency' should be supportive if the development method logically organizes evidence to back up the thesis. Logic and the structure of evidence are key to ensuring the development method aligns with the reasoning. If the method of development detracts from the reasoning, then it would not support the argument, indicating a potential need for revision.
Step-by-step explanation:
The relationship between the method of development used and the line of reasoning in the article The Grant Shapps Affair Is a Testament to Wikipedia's Integrity and Transparency reflects how different methods of development can either support or detract from the effectiveness of an argument. In historical inquiry, the development of historical evidence entails drawing conclusions based on sources that answer guiding questions, which should align with the article's line of reasoning. Additionally, the scientific method involves forms of reasoning such as induction and deduction to support hypotheses, reflecting a structured approach to problem-solving that can be applied to non-scientific issues as well.
Similar to other forms of research, the line of reasoning in an article should be an organizational arrangement that supports the thesis with evidence and supports. In the case of the Grant Shapps article, if the method of development adheres to a logical structure and supports the thesis with clear evidence and reasoning, the relationship would be that the method of development supports the line of reasoning (A). Conversely, if the method of development contradicts the evidence and the argument presented, then it would not support the line of reasoning (B).
Logic as the science of reasoning formalizes the process of reasoning and is essential for verifying claims in philosophical or any argument-based writing. If logic is used correctly in the article's method of development, then the line of reasoning will likely be clear and well-founded, further supporting the argument (D). If neither the method of development nor the line of reasoning is clear, it could indicate an issue with the clarity of the article itself.