Until recently, paleontologists believed that the rapid decline of megafauna in prehistoric North America was caused exclusively by sudden climatic cooling. However, recent radiocarbon dating of fossilized remains demonstrates that several megafaunal species survived for thousands of years after the onset of the cooling period. Furthermore, early human settlement patterns closely match the progressive geographic disappearance of these animals. Consequently, researchers now argue that human hunting was the primary catalyst for the megafauna's extinction. Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the researchers' argument?
- Fossilized megafaunal remains from the period show virtually no butchery marks or weapon impact damage attributable to early humans.Cevap
- BResearchers have established that human hunting was also responsible for the decline of several smaller mammal species during the same era.
- CSeveral megafaunal species in regions without human presence also underwent extinction during earlier geological epochs.
- DEarly human settlements relied primarily on flint and obsidian to craft their hunting tools.
- EThe onset of climatic cooling was preceded by a long period of stable weather conditions across North America.
Cevap
The argument is most weakened by the finding that fossilized megafaunal remains show virtually no butchery marks or weapon impact damage attributable to early humans.
The correct answer provides direct physical evidence that contradicts the hunting hypothesis. If fossilized remains show no physical signs of butchering or stone tool damage, it strongly suggests humans were not hunting these animals in significant numbers, thereby undermining the conclusion that human hunting drove them to extinction.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Evaluating argument strength by finding evidence that directly contradicts a causal claim
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s