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. 　3. In the last sentence of the passage， the author refers to “recent archaeological discoveries” (lines 27-30) most probably in order to 　　(A) Refute White's suggestion that neither Martin nor Krech adequately account for Paleoindians' contributions to the Pleistocene extinctions 　　(B) Cast doubt on the possibility that a more definitive theory regarding the causes of the Pleistocene extinctions may be forthcoming 　　(C) Suggest that Martin's， Krech's， and White's theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions are all open to question 　　(D) Call attention to the most controversial aspect of all the current theories regarding the Pleistocene extinctions 　　(E) Provide support for White's questioning of both Martin's and Krech's positions regarding the role of Paleoindians in the Pleistocene extinctions 老师，我在做这道题的时候，首先定位到最后一句觉得没说什么重点，就有个yet转折，可能这是用来驳斥前面的某些观点的。所以看选项找有没有驳斥的意思的， 发现5个选项全都在驳斥。。。心里慌了往前找。再回去找的时候时间已到。我就随便选了个B（时间一到各种混乱），因为在做这篇文章之前，我大体看了下原文，记住了原文讲的是P反驳M，W反驳P。后来答案我也看明白了，我认为我做这道题的思路出现了偏差，我想问一下应该怎么修正。

老师请问这个问题如何解答

请Tina老师讲解。这个题目问法第一次遇到，说下面哪个不是削弱。这种问法相当于在问哪个是支持或者无关吗？做题时觉得AB都是与原文逻辑无关选项。CDE都在解释一个城市与另一个相比，心脏相关手术的成本因素不同，感觉都与原文相关，但是也不是削弱。这个题目感觉摸不着方向

请王文静老师解答。我理的逻辑链：因为热的地方容易缺水，且全球变暖让温度更高，所以肾结石病会增加。我选的E，说天气热的地方结石病多，冷的地方少。A选项给我感觉是因果倒置，病多的地方，天气热，反了。请老师讲解这个题的正确解题思路，并且指出我的错误在哪，如何避免

C选项的It为什么是指代不清呀

金老师好，当时看B觉得to conquer 的发起者是登山者，不应是hazards，但是根据including觉得是hazards包括这几个事，E从语法上成了amateur including了，这个Ving找动作发起者的规则这里不适用吗？

请老师讲一下思路

请老师讲下第七题思路。我的理解是条件1可以判断，想要成立则xy的个位数应该是5或者0，这样次方之后依然是5或者0，即xy的个位应该相等，所以答案是No。老师，我是错误理解题意了吗？

徐老师讲下第六题，是用捆绑法吗？做这种题特别没有思路，怎么办？

求问解题思路

请问这两题的解题思路