Can someone please explain why A is correct? Here was my initial breakdown/reasoning for why I thought E was the right point of issue:
Stim: There were some footprints found.
Dr. T: These are obviously hominid footprints because they have some human characteristics.
Dr. R: No Dr. T, these are not obviously hominid footprints because if you're right, then these hominids would've walked in a really weird way that's unlikely
ACs:
A: Originally got rid of A because it seemed like they both acknowledged the significance of the evidence, just that they interpreted the "squarish heel and a big toe etc" evidence differently in terms of what it meant
B: Neither of them really touch on this - seems like they both agree this set of footprints is at least somewhat distinguishable
C: Gait? Isn't mentioned by either
D: Dr. R isn't saying that this isn't enough evidence to support T's conclusion, she's saying that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion
E: R mentions how weird it would be if the hominids walked "in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot," which I assumed was just walking upright. Hence why I chose E
#help




