This doesn’t relate to either of the two points the author brought up as criticism of the anthropologists. So there’s no support for thinking the author would encourage them to apply taphonomy to modern hunter-gatherer societies. Although taphonomy is a method the author discusses later in the passage for learning about ancient societies, there’s no indication the author believes the anthropologists should use the method on modern societies.

This doesn’t relate to either of the two points the author brought up as criticism of the anthropologists. The author wants the anthropologists to study differences between modern societies and the societies of early hominids. But the similarities among the various modern hunter-gatherer societies is not relevant; (B) doesn’t involve a comparison between modern hunter-gatherer societies and ancient hominids.

There’s evidence the author would encourage the anthropologists to research (C), because the author believes the differences in environments of modern societies and early hominids was something overlooked by the anthropologists. The differing competition for food faced by modern vs. ancient societies is part of how their environments were different.

This doesn’t relate to either of the two points the author brought up as criticism of the anthropologists. The author cares about the comparison between modern hunter-gatherers and prehistoric hominids. Studying hunter-gatherer societies of the “previous century” (the 1800s or 1900s, depending on when the passage was written) doesn’t involve a study of prehistoric hominids.

This doesn’t relate to either of the two points the author brought up as criticism of the anthropologists. The author cares about the comparison between modern hunter-gatherers and prehistoric hominids. (E) relates only to modern hunter-gatherers.