Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

Scan to solve math questions

QUESTION IMAGE

section 1, module 2: reading and writing until recently, the earliest e…

Question

section 1, module 2: reading and writing
until recently, the earliest evidence for homo sapiens occupying tropical forests
came from asia and oceania and placed that occupation around 45,000 years ago,
while the earliest evidence from africa showed occupation around 18,000 years
ago. h. sapiens emerged in africa around 300,000 years ago and could much more
easily access tropical forests in africa than those in asia and oceania. tropical
forests the world over present comparable preservation conditions, so in all
likelihood, this rather perplexing timeline simply reflected geographic differences
in the extent of paleoanthropological research.
which choice best describes the function of the underlined portion in
whole?
a it supports the texts conclusion by eliminating a potential
competing explanation for the relatively late date of the earliest
evidence of african tropical forest occupation by h. sapiens.
b it acknowledges a limitation of the texts argument for why the
earliest evidence of tropical forest occupation by h. sapiens is
later in africa than in asia and oceania.
c it presents an observation that is crucial to the texts conclusion
that tropical forest occupation by h. sapiens occurred significantly
later in africa than in asia and oceania.
d it bolsters the texts explanation for the geographic difference in
the earliest dates of tropical forest occupation by h. sapiens by
showing that tropical forests in africa have been less researched
than those in asia and oceania.

Explanation:

Brief Explanations

The text states that the earliest evidence of Homo sapiens in tropical forests was later in Africa than in Asia and Oceania. The underlined part about comparable preservation conditions eliminates the idea that preservation differences (a potential competing explanation) caused this. So it supports the conclusion by removing a competing reason.

Answer:

A. It supports the text's conclusion by eliminating a potential competing explanation for the relatively late date of the earliest evidence of African tropical forest occupation by H. sapiens.