AmoyV wrote:
gauravkaushik8591 : Just because the stone artifacts were found in Zoomba Woomba and dated back to 50,000 years, doesnt mean that the remains were stone artifacts made by ancient inhabitants of ZW. E bridges this gap and makes it more likely that it was the *ancient inhabitants* of ZW who made these stone artifacts.
I am still with gauravkaushik8591 on this one. I have a pretty good record with CR but this one isn't sitting right with me. I agree with your statement "makes it more likely that it was the *ancient inhabitants* of ZW who made these stone artifacts" but the passage doesn't imply that ancient inhabitants of ZW are known for using bone tools. For all I know, the stone artifacts were found in a layer of trash, and therefore creating a link between the stone artifact and the ancient ZW ancestors, but the carvings on the artifacts could have been created by another piece of stone. The part of the question gauravkaushik859 and I are getting stuck on is "... are
evidence of the use of bone fragments as tools by the ancient inhabitants of Zumba Woomba?" To me, E doesn't provide that information.
May be I have to look at it through the lens of "showed that they
may have been chiseled with fragments of bone from local animals" implies that they (the stone artifacts) were carved using a bone and the passage doesn't provide information about the stone artifact being connected to ZW ancestors. In this case, E would provide that link; however, if that is the case, then the question stem, IMO, should read:
"Which of the following, if true, would, together with the information above, provide the best basis for the claim that the stone artifacts are evidence
that ancient inhabitants of Zumba Woomba may have used bone fragments as tools?"
When looking at the question in the link that Ian Stewart provided, E was the clear answer there IMO.