Until recently, anthropologists generally agreed that higher primates

Until recently, anthropologists generally agreed that higher primates originated about 30 million years ago in the Al Fayyum region of Egypt. However, a 40-million-year old fossilized fragment of a lower jawbone discovered in Burma (now called Myanmar) in 1978 was used to support the theory that the earliest higher primates originated in Burma. However, the claim is premature, for______

Which one or the following, if rue, is the most logical completion of the paragraph above?

(A) there are no more primate species in Burma than there are in Egypt
(B) several anthropologists, using different dating methods, independently confirmed the estimated age of the jawbone fragment
(C) higher primates cannot be identified solely by their lower jawbones
(D) several prominent anthropologists do not believe that higher primates could have originated in either Egypt or Burma
(E) other archaeological expeditions in Burma have unearthed higher-primate fossilized bone fragments that are clearly older than 40 million years

In the argument there's a claim and 'claim is premature' suggests that author is looking to weaken the argument.
Only C is a weakener.
A and D are irrelevant.
B and E are strengthener.

IMO Answer C.

C is the answer in my opinion.

Premise: Until recently, anthropologists generally agreed that higher primates originated about 30 million years ago in the Al Fayyum region of Egypt.
Counter-premise: However, a 40-million-year old fossilized fragment of a lower jawbone discovered in Burma (now called Myanmar) in 1978 was used to support the theory that the earliest higher primates originated in Burma.
Premise supporting the argument: However, the claim is premature, for______

To complete the argument above, we need an information which backs the first premise since the use of however to introduce the uncompleted portion of the argument suggests that it opposes the counter-premise made in favor of the origination of higher order primates from Burma.

A is incorrect because it neither weakens nor strengthen the case for the discovery in Burma.

B is incorrect because it supports the idea that primates originate from Burma and this does not logically conclude the argument.

C is correct. If it is true that higher order primates cannot be identified solely based on jawbones alone, then the argument for Burma is shattered and this is exactly what is expected to logically complete the argument.

D is incorrect as well because it doesn’t weaken nor strengthen the evidence for Burma or Egypt.

E is incorrect because we do no expect that the incomplete portion of the argument will support the discovery in Burma.

Posted from my mobile device