Fossilized teeth of an extinct species of herbivorous great ape have on them phytoliths, which are microscopic petrified remains of plants. Since only phytoliths from certain species of plants are found on the teeth, the apes' diet must have consisted only of those plants.
we are told that on FT of ESHGA P was found. P - remains of plants.
Since only P of certain plants are on FT, ESHGA ate only those plants.
that's a pretty bald conclusion. the author makes a giant leap from the facts to the conclusion. thus, the author must assume that all plants have P.
(A) None of the plant species that left phytoliths on the apes' teeth has since become extinct.
we are not concerned of the plants that are extinct. so it is irrelevant.
(B) Plants of every type eaten by the apes left phytoliths on their teeth.
ok, so pretty much what I was thinking during the analysis. If we negate this statement, then not all plants leave P, thus the conclusion that apes ate only specific type of plants is shattered and is no longer valid.
(C) Each of the teeth examined had phytoliths of the same plant species on it as all the other teeth.
irrelevant, nonetheless tempting one. so even if there were more than one species of plants found, it doesn't destroy the conclusion, since the conclusion states that more than one species of plants might have been the source of food for apes.
(D) Phytoliths have also been found on the fossilized teeth of apes of other extinct species.
this one is out of scope.
(E) Most species of great ape alive today have diets that consist of a fairly narrow range of plants.
this one is out of scope.
B is the best answer here.