The spacing of the four holes on a fragment of a bone flute excavated

Since we are trying to support a hypothesis, let's start with that hypothesis: "the diatonic musical scale was developed and used thousands of years before it was adopted by Western musicians." Why do musicologists believe this hypothesis?

• A fragment of a bone flute was excavated at a Neanderthal campsite.
• This bone flute fragment had four holes.
• The spacing of the four holes "is just what is required to play the third through sixth notes of the diatonic scale." - Obviously this does not PROVE that the bone flute was used to play diatonic scales, but this evidence SUGGESTS that the bone flute could have been used to play the diatonic scale.
• The diatonic scale is "the seven-note musical scale used in much of Western music since the Renaissance."

We are given that the diatonic scale was used by Western musicians since the Renaissance. But now we have evidence of a bone flute that MAY have been used to play diatonic scales. This evidence was discovered at a Neanderthal campsite. This might suggest that Neanderthals were playing diatonic scales thousands of years before the Renaissance.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports that hypothesis?

The number of musical instruments made by Neanderthals is irrelevant. Was the excavated bone flute used to play the diatonic scale? Choice (A) does not help strengthen that hypothesis, so eliminate this one.

Choice (B) tells us that the excavated bone flute may have been one of the earliest instruments used to play a diatonic scale. But perhaps the excavated bone flute was not used to play the diatonic scale at all. Maybe the first diatonic instruments did not appear until thousands of years later? Choice (B) does not strengthen the hypothesis and can be eliminated.

Who knows what to make of this evidence... maybe the Neanderthals killed/cooked some cave bears and left their remains in the caves? Or maybe the bears came in and killed the Neanderthals, taking over the cave? This evidence does not help us determine whether the excavated bone flute was used to play diatonic scales, so eliminate (C).

At first, (D) doesn't look bad. It might suggest that a diatonic instrument could have been produced by a primitive species, such as Neanderthals. But regardless of whether that instrument is simple or complex, we we already have the evidence in our hands. We've excavated a Neanderthal bone flute capable of playing 4 of the 7 notes in the scale. This instrument, no matter how simple or complex, may (or may not) have been used to play the full diatonic scale.

Choice (D) doesn't hurt, but it doesn't leave us any better off than we were given the information in the passage. I might hang on to (D) for now, but let's see if (E) is better...

Based on the evidence, we know that the bone flute could have been used to play four of the notes in the diatonic scale. But does that necessarily mean it was used to play the ENTIRE diatonic scale? Maybe it was only used to play 4 or 5 notes? In that case, the full diatonic scale may not have been developed and used until thousands of years later.

Choice (E) does not PROVE that the flute had all 7 notes. However, (E) gives us evidence that the flute could have easily been long enough to play a full diatonic scale. Sure, the Neanderthals may not have used the full length of the leg bone for the instrument. However, with choice (E), we are now better off than we were given the information in the passage.

(E) definitely supports the hypothesis and is the best option.