This doesn’t differentiate the shore from the savanna and woodland. Even if early humans needed less fat, why did brain development occur in the savanna and woodland, which had less of the food resources required by the brain than did the shore? This doesn’t provide a theory.

This doesn’t differentiate the shore from the savanna and woodland. Even if early humans had smaller brains, why did brain development occur in the savanna and woodland, which had less of the food resources required by the brain than did the shore? This doesn’t provide a theory.

This compares savanna/woodland of the past to savanna/woodland of today. But it doesn’t compare the past savanna/woodland to the past shore environment. The stimulus still tells us that the past shore environment had more of the food resources than the past savanna/woodland.

This doesn’t suggest anything about the level of food resources available in the shore environment. Don’t assume that because the techniques were recently developed that we should doubt the facts given to us in the stimulus.

If it cost more in calories to gather food in the shore than it did to gather food in the savanna/woodland, this extra cost could have outweighed the benefit of more food in the shore. It’s possible overall calorie intake could be higher in the savanna/woodland than in the shore.