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。

请陆旭老师回答一下。我觉得B和E都挺对的，因为都说了such labour怎样，和需要填空之前的内容关系非常密切。感谢老师解答！

请陆旭老师回答一下。请问这一题为什么选D。D选项没怎么看懂，然后我选了E。

请问陆旭老师，这道题我在网上找不到，不知道来源，只好贴上。这个CR正确选项D，没有过度推理吗？如果只是大众知道这个鸟有药用价值，不一定引发偷猎吧？C我反而觉得更直接削弱逻辑链：这个鸟住在palm tree上，森林区片化减少了鸟的数量。C：fragmentation 使palm tree 长得更好了，很直接地作用于这个逻辑链啊。我想不通为什么您上课说D更直接？或者您认为削弱题目给出一个他因是一种非常直接的削弱方法，优先于对原文给出原因提出质疑？

@Tina老师，我想问您一下关于跳读的事儿。我一直比较纠结😣 我觉得对于长文章跳读是抓主旨，然后题目问到细节时再回读原文。可是我做细节题的时候再回来看原文的时候，就发现跟原文那个框架逻辑连不上了，没有一遍我都读下来我理的细节和框架之间的关系清。还有的细节题我如果第一遍不全读时就找不到定位的位置，内心就会很急躁，第一遍读了的话，我可能看到那个题目问细节就会直接有反应，但也可能因为模糊记忆而出错。但是有些难文章，我如果都读的话，就是细节也没看懂，主旨也会读的糊涂 老师，我这种情况是不是应该还是把全文都看了呀，如果细节我发现乱乱的话，再不读？您有什么好的建议么？

@Tina老师，老师，A和E您讲完我觉得确实E的语意更好。但是E的修饰as the first American women那里我觉得有问题。前面的Dr那个人是一个定语，可以被那个as…那个短语修饰到么？就被我直接排除了，求老师解答。

@Tina老师，老师，这道题我明白AB的surely语意不太好。但我不明白CDE里面该怎么选。我觉得c选项，as much technological as 没有DE明确的 technological infrastructure和 economic infrastructure这样比直接。C选项是什么和什么比吖？DE为什么被排除了呢？谢谢老师！

@Tina老师，老师这道题我AC选项当时纠结选了C。觉得A原文只是说吃油是导致diseases的原因，没说是不是主要。C选项说的比较含糊，说这个inflammation和是一种反应，这种反应和immune 系统有关。我觉得c挺好的，为什么不对呢？

@Tina老师，老师我主要想问您一下C和E选项。C选项的claim是只表示观点的意思不能指事实么？E选项我排除是因为后半部分。conclusion about a predicted bad effect of the policy. 是怎么理解鸭，B2是批评critics的。我觉得critics是说的关于这个政策的坏影响（不好的地方）。所以把E排除了。麻烦老师帮忙解答。

@Tina，老师，我想问您这道题AB选项，应该用have shown 还是have been shown 吖，还是说主被动都可以呢。我觉得have shown读的挺顺的。英吉老师说since跟前面都previous形成反差，我觉得也有道理，但我做题时没想出来这点。

@Tina老师，老师，我想问一下这道题的b和c选项，我没有太理解