According to a theory advanced by researcher Paul Martin, the wave of species extinctions that occurred in North America about 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene era, can be directly attributed to the arrival of humans, i.e., the Paleoindians, who were ancestors of modern Native Americans. However, anthropologist Shepard Krech points out that large animal species vanished even in areas where there is no evidence to demonstrate that Paleoindians hunted them. Nor were extinctions confined to large animals: small animals, plants, and insects disappeared, presumably not all through human consumption. Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene. Still, Krech attributes secondary if not primary responsibility for the extinctions to the Paleoindians, arguing that humans have produced local extinctions elsewhere. But, according to historian Richard White, even the attribution of secondary responsibility may not be supported by the evidence. White observes that Martin's thesis depends on coinciding dates for the arrival of humans and the decline of large animal species, and Krech, though aware that the dates are controversial, does not challenge them; yet recent archaeological discoveries are providing evidence that the date of human arrival was much earlier than 11,000 years ago.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken Krech's objections to Martin's theory?
Further studies showing that the climatic change that occurred at the end of the Pleistocene era was even more severe and widespread than was previously behaved
New discoveries indicating that Paleoindians made use of the small animals, plants, and insects that became extinct
Additional evidence indicating that widespread climatic change occurred not only at the end of the Pleistocene era but also in previous and subsequent eras
Researchers' discoveries that many more species became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene era than was previously believed
New discoveries establishing that both the arrival of humans in North America and the wave of Pleistocene extinctions took place much earlier than 11,000 years ago
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是 E。Krech 否认 Martin 的理论,基本上依赖于人类到达北美和大型动物物种消失的时间以及它们之间的关联。因此,如果有新发现表明人类到达和物种消失也都发生在 11000 年之前,这就会削弱 Krech 的反对 Martin 理论的观点,因此 E 是正确答案。
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene. 注意这里是 exclusion of climatic changes 也就是说 Martin是不支持气候论的,Krech支持气候论。因此AC错误...
注意读题 是weaken Krech's objections,而不是strengthen
“Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene.“
C中的climatic change的新发现不也削弱K反对M的理由吗?
K反对M的理由是 widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene,是did occur.
而C答案是说not only at the end of…… but also in previous and subsequent eras 不仅在end 发生了,在之前和之后也发生了
其实是加强了K的理由
"not only at the end of…… but also in previous and subsequent eras"想要表达的不应该是:别的时期也有climate change,但没有导致灭绝,这个时期发生的climate change没有特殊性,也不会导致灭绝
求问
Krech also contradicts Martin's exclusion of climatic change as an explanation by asserting that widespread climatic change did indeed occur at the end of the Pleistocene. K--这句话中最重要的论元是did occur ,那就隐含了M 认为 did not occur
所以C选项是strength了呢
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
回到原文找答案……
其实是一个小的考古的推理:结论:不是人类搞死他们的哦 支持的原因:发现大型动物的地方没有人类hunt的痕迹 这种考古的最好的削弱就是有个什么发现使得之前全部否定的说法不成立。