Two paleontologists debate the primary cause of the extinction of large mammals at the end of the last Ice Age. Paleontologist X posits that rapid climate change, specifically the Younger Dryas cooling event, created environments too unstable for these specialized megafauna to survive. Paleontologist Y contends that human hunting pressure, as early humans migrated across continents, was the decisive factor.
If evidence were found of specialized hunting tools and mass kill sites consistently preceding significant climate shifts in relevant regions, this would most strongly support which paleontologist's viewpoint?
Correct: B
The question asks what would 'most strongly support' a specific viewpoint. Evidence of hunting tools and mass kill sites *preceding* significant climate shifts directly suggests that human hunting was occurring and impactful *before* the proposed climate cause could have taken full effect. This would directly bolster Paleontologist Y's argument that human hunting was the decisive factor, as it establishes a temporal link consistent with their hypothesis.