Explanation

Creating a filter: In the original sentence, the word "both" is misplaced. The intended meaning is "both palate and psychology," not "both accessible and something else," so the word "both" must come after "accessible."

Applying the filter: We review the choices and find that our filter knocks out only answer choice (A). We'll have to find new points of comparison among the other choices.

Finding objective defects: we compare (B) and (C) and find them similar. In answer choice (B), could there be an objective defect in including "both?" Indeed, there is: "both... and..." is a two-part construction that must have parallel elements, but it fails to have parallel construction in (B), because "psychology" is missing the words "to the" in the remainder of the sentence, after the underlined portion. So (B) is out. In (C), meanwhile, if you discard the word "both," there is no two-part construction and the sentence is valid. So (C) looks good. Answer choice (D) actually leads to the whole thing not being a grammatical sentence with subject and predicate; "which stormed" begins one dependent clause, and "and they" later begins what is another dependent clause, since it starts with the conjunction "and," so there is no independent clause. So (D) is out. Choice (E) changes the intended meaning of the sentence by making the vineyards examples, not the point of the sentence. So (E) is out. We are down to one answer choice. The correct answer is (C).