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。

求解

请问这道题为什么选B呀？

请问余数可以不是整数嘛？这道题怎么解释？

老师这个问题还没有解答 As引导的句子问题： 第一个句子as...as...是表示链接的内容程度一样吗，翻译起来感觉不太顺。the circumstances翻译成了这些规律和原则，哪些规律和原则？指代的是什么？此外with引导的是伴随状语？那as...as...作什么成分呢 第二个句子insofar查了是adv.在这个范围；到这个程度的意思。insofar as引导的是什么？insofar as the literature analysis is concerned怎么理解呢 第三个句子，四个as...第一个as意思是作为,第二个as意思也是作为？generally accepted as a race in any given region of ethnic competition怎么理解？第三和第四个as,表示和。。。一样，并列的是哪两个部分，什么和什么一样呢，后面the Chinese in California and the Jew in medieval Europe省略了什么

画线部分不理解。more...than..more后面的of the preindustrial European population比the 2 or 3 percent多？the preindustrial European population是不是应该放在investigate后面比较好

所以这一题c选择creating之所以修饰individual是因为这不是一个svo，+doing的形式所以采取的是就近修饰原则吗？

想问一下金老师，这道题c选择og解释里面说的是修饰individual不是reactions呀，您为啥说是修饰reactions呢

请问怎么从第二段看出来作者的观点是enable to enforce property right不是因为arbitrary 而是因为earlier parents often violated copyright law

我画粉色的这个是一个svo+doing形式吗 还是说它跟在that之后就不算一个完整句

请问什么情况下可以跳着修饰呀？