A pottery shard found in a site in Texas, 1,500 miles north of Mexico, is dated to be 9,500 years old. Researchers concluded that since the desert conditions prevented human migration north from the Mexico-Guatemala region between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago, humans must have arrived in North America more than 12,000 years ago.

Which of the following pieces of new evidence would cast doubt on the conclusion drawn above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

(A) New archaeological findings in Mexico indicate that humans were present there at least 11,000 years ago.

(B) A new site was discovered in Arizona with artifacts dated at 10,500 years old.

(C) A climate model suggested that the desert conditions were not as severe as previously thought, allowing for migration as early as 12,500 years ago.

Correct

(D) New dating techniques revealed that the pottery shard from the Texas site is actually 9,800 years old.

(E) Studies of migration patterns suggest that once the climate improved, humans could have moved from Mexico to Texas in about 15 years.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

To determine which piece of evidence casts doubt on the conclusion that humans must have arrived in North America more than 12,000 years ago, we need to analyze each option. The original conclusion is based on the assumption that desert conditions prevented migration from the Mexico-Guatemala region during a specific time frame. Option (C) states that a climate model suggested…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

Bish0pMar 7, 2025

can you explain more?

rijulAug 29, 2024

thanks for posting

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.