Why is a “ring if life “ more appropriate to describe the relationship between archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes than a “tree of life “?

A "ring of Life" is more appropriate to describe the relationship between archaea, bacteria, and eukaryotes than a “tree of life “, because each group of single-celled prokaryotic organisms produces something that is a necessity to another group of single-celled prokaryotic organisms. so therefor it is not like a tree of life which is more of a hierarchy than an everyone, and everything is equal Ring of Life.

The tree of life refers to a conventional model, which illustrates the origin of Eukaryotes and the relationship amongst the organisms. On the basis of this model, the Archaea and Eukaryotes are the sister lineages, as both descended from the bacterial ancestors.  

On the other hand, the ring of life is a present time model on the basis of which, the emergence of Eukaryotes took place due to the combination of two other domains, that is, Eubacteria and Archaea. The ancestors of Eubacteria and Archaea combined their genomes to produce the initial Eukaryote. That is, two distinct branches of the tree of life were combined to produce the ring of life.  

the potatoes have high sugar concentrations and although these potatoes were different we could seethe effects that their sugar concentrations had in different environments. for example, the potatoes in sample a, were placed in pure water. this created a hypertonic environment and caused the potatoes to draw in water from its surroundings. we saw the opposite happen with the potatoes in sample b when placed in the sodium chloride solution. the potatoes in this case were in a hypotonic solution and therefore lost water to their surroundings.