I'm not understanding why choice A is correct, when choice B seems to be more so correct.

Gregory,

This question is tricky. The deal here is that the two paleontologists disagree over whether or not the footprints were made by early hominids.

Dr. T. says they WERE, and he bases this on the shape of the footprint.

Dr. R. says they were NOT, and he bases this on the manner in which the creature that left the footprints must have walked.

So we've got to peel back a layer here. We've got to figure out where the two Dr.'s are coming from.

Dr. T. thinks that evidence of foot shape is more important than evidence that indicates gait (manner of walking) when determining a species.

Dr. R. thinks that gait is more important than foot shape.

They disagree about the relative importance of the evidence.


As for choice (B):
Neither Dr. disputes that it's possible to distinguish early hominid footprints from other footprints. So there is no disagreement over "the assumption that early hominid footprints are distinguishable from other footprints."


If this helps, please review us on iTunes.