Let's break down the stem first.
Fact: Archaeologists discovered charred bones at a single spot in the living grounds of an old society.
Hypothesis 1: The deposit may have resulted from communal food preparation
Hypothesis 2: The deposit is a result of animal sacrifices during ceremonies
Let's look at the options-
A) Since the questions deals with a specific settlement, the evidence discovered at other settlements. Also, its possible that these other societies were non-agrarian, and did not have agriculture as a part of their culture. Which would mean that their food habits would not be any good to draw conclusions about the settlement we are speaking of. Invalid option.
B) If the bones belong to species commonly hunted, it can be that they were used for food. But upon closer examination this appears to be a trap. These same societies are equally likely to sacrifice animals they capture to a higher deity.
C) This one is interesting. If we know the definite answer for this (in form of a Yes or No) we can strengthen one hypothesis.
A key thing to note: The question explicitly states that the animals that were sacrificed were 'burned whole'. So they will likely have no signs of butchering in any form. hence, if there are signs of butchering, they were definitely used for food, and if there are no signs of butchering at all, they were definitely sacrificed by burning. We keep this option.
D) Ages of animals are not a strong indicator of their use, as a young or an old animal can be used for sacrifice or food basis their religious beliefs and food preference. Invalid option.
E) Records of contemporary cultures are not a strong indicator of what happened in ancient cultures. Additionally, even if we use that as proof, presence of sacrifice in contemporary cultures does not strongly negate the fact that they were also used for communal meals. Hence, this option does not do the full job.
Since a definitive Yes/No for (C) clearly strengthens one hypothesis while weakening the other, (C) is the correct answer.
Ans: C