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。

请数学老师解答 谢谢老师

老师，我选的是D选项，因为我认为前后表达的语意上没有因果关系，所以没有必要用A那种形式，doubling作结果状语。D选项就是一种对前面增长多少的修饰，感觉比较合理，希望老师能够完整解答一下这道题的解题思路和步骤，谢谢老师。

在AC两个选项中间纠结了很久，因为这两个选项只有时间状语语序上的区别，最后觉得C把时间状语放在前面表意比较清楚一点，请老师纠正一下我的错误，再讲讲这道题的解题思路，谢谢！

请数学老师解答下 为什么选a 谢谢老师

我的思路是这样的:看到A选项有because 和so就给排除了，B选项句子结构太碎了，而且觉得好像larger than和farther than是并列的不能一个当做修饰一个重点说，C选项句子结构不完整，E选项缺少主句。D选项的句子前面成分可以看成是sun的修饰成分，觉得还是比其他选项优秀的，就选了D。请老师纠正一下我的错误并解答一下这道题的解题思路。谢谢！*^_^*

这道题我就没看懂句义，错选了B,认为原句想表达的句义是:就像.....一样。请老师完整解答一下这道题的解题思路，谢谢老师。

麻烦老师给我解答一下，刚才是我选择B答案纠结了一下，就是顺着读下去that are inseparable很容易理解成修饰social phenomena 主谓不一致，就是that 从句是可以跳跃修饰到emotions 上的吗？这个部分不是很清晰。

请数学老师解答

请数学老师解答，谢谢老师

请老师给我讲解下这一题，我自己是采取带值的方法，感觉这样子不是很合理。