Question

It can be inferred from the passage that if radiocarbon dating determined the last giant sloth fossils from Cuba and Hispaniola did NOT coincide with the arrival of humans, then:

• A. human hunting must have been the cause of the giant sloth extinction
• B. climate change would have less likely been the cause of giant sloth extinction
• C. the theory that a great flood caused the sloth extinction could be discredited
• D. human hunting as a cause of giant sloth extinction would be a less viable theory
• E. scientists would need to find other fossils that confirmed their opinion

Hint:

In inference questions, focus on how changes in information would impact the theories or conclusions presented in the passage.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the implication.
If the radiocarbon dating shows that the last fossils of giant sloths did not coincide with the arrival of humans, this would challenge the human hunting theory. The passage suggests that humans may have been involved in the extinction, but the arrival of humans is key to this theory.

Step 2: Analysis of options.
- (A) Human hunting is still possible as a cause, but without the timing correlation, it becomes less certain.
- (B) Climate change is still a viable theory regardless of the radiocarbon dating results.
- (C) The great flood theory is not discussed in the passage, so this is not a valid conclusion.
- (D) If human arrival didn't coincide with the sloth fossils, the theory of human hunting as the cause would be less viable. This is the best conclusion based on the passage's information.
- (E) The need for additional fossils is a general statement but not the best conclusion based on the specific scenario in the passage.

Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct answer is (D), as the timing of human arrival is central to the human hunting theory, and without that connection, the theory becomes less plausible.