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。

@Tina老师，老师，这道题帮忙讲一下b和c选项呗。主要区别在谓语单复数和后面的to provide 还是providing。主语是两个不可数名词and并列，谓语要用复数么？

@陆旭老师 我想问一下 这里面的数字7是哪里来的呀？我想了一下排除0和它本身应该还有8个呀，不是很明白。

@陆旭老师 为什么这道题选b呀？我把（1）代进去能求出答案，把（2）代入则x=5与题目要求不符，求讲解。谢谢

@陆旭老师 这道题思路是什么呀？应该怎么做呢？

这道数学题 我想问问数学老师为什么我的两个方法答案都不对 首先 我理解这道题是问事件M或者R只发生一个的概率 我的第一个方法就是用M发生*R不发生+M不发生*R发生 这样哪里出错了 需要怎么改呢？ 我的第二个方法是用总体减去M和R同时发生的概率再减去M和R都不发生的概率，这里哪里出错了 要怎么改呢？ 谢谢老师的回答！

@英吉老师 我想问一下这道题A选项错在了哪里，算是犯了什么错误？

@英吉老师 这一道题里的c选项还是不是很明白哪里错了，请问这句话要是怎么改就算对了呢？

@徐小梅老师，徐老师您好，第4)题，我也看到了“至少2人”这个字眼，也是按照至少2人来算的。但我是这么理解的：原来男女共有12个人，先从5个女生中取2个人，保证了至少有两个女生，所以是C5^2; 接着，再让剩下的3个女生和7个男生合并，共10人，取3个人（此时不论男女都可以），是C10^3。然后合起来就是C5^2*C10^3。

为什么4）不能直接用C5^2 *C10^3?先从5个女生中选2人，再从剩下的10人中选3。这样我算出来的是1200。但是按照图片上老师的方法算的是596。很疑惑，求老师解答一下，谢谢！

为什么分子是5 就一定有一个分母是2的三次方有一个分子是1呢？