Question

even though one book after another repeats this myth, the popularity of spices had nothing to do with disguising the taste of meat or fish that had gone bad. any lord who could afford spices (which were expensive) could easily get fresh meat or fish (which were readily available); and when a cook happened to be stuck with rancid food, the spices he had available could not hide the awful smell or taste. whenever they could, people used the spices that were so popular, they became an expensive necessity: pepper, ginger, sugar, sometimes saffron. only the very rich could afford the luxuries—such as ambergris (which is coughed up by whales and offers a strange, perfumy taste of the sea). -sugar changed the world, marc aronson and marina budhos the central idea in this passage is that spices were popular because they were flavorful, not because they helped people eat spoiled food. which ideas are key details supporting this? check all that apply. spices could not disguise bad meat. ambergris has a briny, sealike taste. fresh meat and fish were easy to find. only the very rich could afford luxuries. a myth is often repeated in books.

Explanation:

The passage argues spices were popular for flavor, not hiding spoiled food. It states lords could get fresh meat/fish and spices couldn't hide bad - food smell/taste. "Fresh meat and fish were easy to find" supports that lords didn't need spices for spoiled food as fresh options were available. "Spices could not disguise bad meat" directly supports the idea that spices weren't for hiding spoiled food's taste.

Answer:

Spices could not disguise bad meat.
Fresh meat and fish were easy to find.