Archaeologists working in two recently discovered limestone

Hi dpo28, I will try that.

Q4 asks to identify a situation which will negate the possibility mentioned by author in the passage. Now lets take each option individually and try to decipher:

A. The use of brushes made from animal hair did not become a common practice until about 6,000 years ago.
-> The use of brush became a common practice only 6000 years ago but it could have been used by a few "uncommon" artists before that, and hence, this does not undermines or negates author's point convincingly. Hence this is incorrect option.

B. Stones found in a nearby cave have been painted exclusively with animal figures.
-> The paintings found in a nearby cave does not negate the possibility that the ones found in the cave of importance in the passage are not unusual. The line "Hunters, warriors, and hunted animals, the typical subjects of cave art, are largely absent from these works" states "largely" which gives a room for "some" of the paintings to have animal figures as well. This as well is a incorrect option.

C. A chemical analysis shows that some of the paintings contain no gypsum, manganese, or malachite.
-> Again use of "some" in this option leaves a gap for possibility of use of above metals in the paint of some of the "other" paintings. Conclusion, this is a incorrect option.

D. To show that someone had died at the approximate age shown in a painting, the artists who created the stone paintings made a mark on the head of the figure by chipping the stone.
-> Now, if we consider this to be true, please note the option doesn't have any speculative or approximate word, likes of "some", "most", "largely" or any other been used in previous options. If this statement is considered to be true (read absolute truth because of no approximate or speculative word), the possibility of paintings depicting family trees becomes questionable because the mark which was considered to identify a individual in childhood and adulthood can not be so. Instead, it depicts the child died at that approximate age and hence can not be painted for his/her adulthood and so the reasoning is flawed that paintings represent family tree. Hence this is a correct answer.

E. Carbon-dating reveals that the stone paintings were created over a period of 200 years.
-> This option states a period over which the paintings were created, but doesn't provide the age of the paintings. It could be 5500-5700 or it could be 6200-6400 years ago and hence the possibility of the paintings ageing more than 6000 years can not be neglected straight away. This is incorrect option as well.