The question below made me confused because I thought the conditional statement "the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands" was a fact because there is a Sufficent Condition that triggers a Necessary Condition there for it must be true. So when I learned A was wrong, I was confused because the conditional statement created a "rule." So, I need help. How do you disprove a conditional?
THE QUESTION:
Recently discovered prehistoric rock paintings on small islands off the northern coast of Norway have archaeologists puzzled. The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of the painters. This theory cannot be right, because the painters must have needed to eat the sea animals populating the waters north of Norway if they were to make the long journey to and from the islands, and there are no paintings that unambiguously depict such creatures.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument against the predominant theory about northern cave paintings EXCEPT:
A. Once on these islands, the cave painters hunted and ate land animals.
B. Parts of the cave paintings on the islands did not survive the centuries.
C. The cave paintings that were discovered on the islands depicted many land animals.
D. Those who did the cave paintings that were discovered on the islands had unusually advanced techniques of preserving meats.
E. The cave paintings on the islands were done by the original inhabitants of the islands who ate the meat of land animals
Mr. Thomas was found dead in his apartment. His girlfriend's fingerprints were found at the crime scene. His girlfriend is the only other person with a key to his apartment. There were no signs of forced entry. Therefore, the investigator has reasons to believe the girlfriend is the culprit.