I'd love to join in as well!

Your explanation is great and not verbose at all.

In fact, after doing Drill for a week or two, I found that the logic of this question seems to be much more reasonable. A can indeed support reasoning.

Imagine a scene (I personally prefer to use specific examples, sorry) There are a large number of demonstrators in front of the museum divided into two factions. One faction claims "Hey, you should put the mosaic back", and the other faction says "No!". Both factions have their own reasons, for culture, history, national sentiment, etc. Now the museum director comes out, "Hey friends, shut up, I just want to hear the speech of the archaeology students." At this time (according to stmi) an archaeology student comes out and says "We have obtained all the archaeological knowledge of this mosaic, and future archaeologists will make mistakes without our records", which obviously enhances the reasoning.

Thank you for your explanation, which made me re-examine this question. I wish you good learning!

I chose C, but chose E in the blind review. It took me an hour to figure out this question. I hope my thinking process can help you.

The logic of the conclusion of the question is: the DNA of modern humans and Neanderthals is significantly different, so the prehistoric ancestors of Homo sapiens did not interbreed with Neanderthals.

My idea is that this question implies a core assumption, "If the ancestors of Homo sapiens had interbred with Neanderthals, their DNA should be closer to Neanderthals than modern humans (after all, modern humans can no longer interbreed with Neanderthals); and subsequent evolution may cause DNA differences to gradually increase."

Let me make an analogy (not so accurate). In the world of Harry Potter, magic is inherited by wizards, right? When a wizard marries a Muggle, their offspring also have magic. When two wizards marry, their offspring will be stronger than mixed-bloods (so those racists want to create a pure-blood wizard society).

Now let's assume that Jake is a Muggle and he has no magic at all. At this point, I came to a conclusion that there is a significant difference in magic between Jake and wizards, so Jake's ancestors have not interbred with wizards.

I need a necessary assumption to make this conclusion not so bad. In this case, answer option C translates to "Jake's ancestors did not have more magic than Jake", which is a necessary assumption. Because if we deny this option, it means that one of Jake's ancestors is more like a wizard than Jake, which means that he has at least a little magic, then he may have interbred with wizards, and my argument is completely broken.

Let's look at E, translate it, "The similarity between Muggles and wizards in magic must and can only come from interbreeding." Uh, it seems that it is not necessarily? Because I also know that some magic props can make Muggles have magic. Option E denies the behavior of other talented guys to make Muggles have magic, which makes E not a necessary condition.

#help

I am still confused, and I hope someone can help me answer my question...

Does answer choice A really support the conclusion that "mosaic should not be moved"?

I mean, "The only considerations that bear upon the question of whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological.", does it really mean that it is okay to move it? In my opinion, this option should be in the middle of the spectrum, which is equivalent to saying nothing...

Imagine this, "Whether to buy government bonds should consider macroeconomic regulation", so should I buy or not? I have no idea.

Or this more similar, "The only factor that affects whether this antique should be kept indoors is archaeology", does this really support the conclusion that "keep it indoors"?

So what on earth make it sense to justify the reasoning??

Let me try to solve your doubts. Stimulus points out that the coincidence of symptoms (especially the unique symptom of hiccups) indicates that the Athenian plague was caused by the Ebola virus.

Option E weakens the causal relationship based on the similarity of symptoms by suggesting that the Athenian pandemic was shorter than that of Ebola, suggesting that the causes of the two may be different.

For example,

In 2022, Let's say, I, got covid, so I lost my sense of taste for a week, and then experts said that the typical symptom of covid is the loss of taste for a week.

Now in 2025, one of my brothers Jake has also lost his sense of taste, but he has lost his sense of taste for 3 months. Although Jake and I had different onset times, different infrastructure in our cities, or other situations, this three-month loss of taste shows that he is at least a little bit unlikely to be covid, after all, "the typical symptom of covid is the loss of taste for a week."

If the symptoms do not match completely, it will more or less weaken the rationality a little bit.