Critical Reasoning

Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago, as the climate became warmer. During the same period the large mammals that were once abundant in North America, such as the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct. Thus, contrary to the myth that humans formerly lived in harmony with the rest of nature, it is clear that even 12,000 years ago human activity was causing the extinction of animal species.

The argument is most vulnerable o the criticism that

(A) it adopts without question a view of the world in which humans are seen as not included in nature

(B) in calling the idea that humans once lived in harmony with nature a myth the argument presupposes what it attempts to prove

(C) for early inhabitants of North America the destruction of mastodons, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers might have had very different significance than the extinction of mammal species does for modern humans

(D) there might have been many other species of animals, besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers, that became extinct as the result of the spread of humans across North American

(E) the evidence it cites is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the large mammals’ extinction was a direct result of the same change in climate that allowed humans to spread across North American

IMO E
since this option provides the other cause for the effect.
Climate caused the extinction and not the human activity and hence this weakens the argument.

madhur_ahuja wrote:Humans began to spread across North American around 12,000 years ago, as the climate became warmer. During the same period the large mammals that were once abundant in North America, such as the mastodon, the woolly mammoth, and the saber-toothed tiger, became extinct. Thus, contrary to the myth that humans formerly lived in harmony with the rest of nature, it is clear that even 12,000 years ago human activity was causing the extinction of animal species.

The argument is most vulnerable o the criticism that

(A) it adopts without question a view of the world in which humans are seen as not included in nature

(B) in calling the idea that humans once lived in harmony with nature a myth the argument presupposes what it attempts to prove

(C) for early inhabitants of North America the destruction of mastodons, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers might have had very different significance than the extinction of mammal species does for modern humans

(D) there might have been many other species of animals, besides mastodon, woolly mammoths, and saber-toothed tigers, that became extinct as the result of the spread of humans across North American

(E) the evidence it cites is consistent with the alternative hypothesis that the large mammals’ extinction was a direct result of the same change in climate that allowed humans to spread across North American

B and E are quite close.I will go with B

IMO E. E proves that author's conclusion is case of correlation causation.

Thanks all, OA is E

E is the most suitable option in this case.