Sentence Correction

The first trenches cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.

A. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but

B. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously but

C. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but

D. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but

E. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but

Please discuss the tenses → were arising Vs arose

why is tense of continuity not preferred here over the simple past?

Can we also discuss evidence for / evidence of / evidence that in terms of their idiomatic existence?

According to the Ron Purewal:

"evidence for" → This is used for some argument or position, not for some thing that once existed.

OA : E

richachampion wrote:The first trenches cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but independently of the more celebrated city-states of southern Mesopotamia, in what is now southern Iraq.

A. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence for centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East that were arising simultaneously with but

B. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously but

C. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East were arising simultaneously but

D. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence of centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arising simultaneously but

E. cut into a 500-acre site at Tell Hamoukar, Syria, have yielded strong evidence that centrally administered complex societies in northern regions of the Middle East arose simultaneously with but

For the sentence to parallel/logical, we need simultaneously with but independently of. ("Simultaneously" and "independently" are adverbs, while "with" and "of" are prepositions, giving us the construction: adverb + preposition but adverb + preposition)

Eliminate B, C, and D.

The easiest way to eliminate A is to ask what "that" refers to. The verb with "that" is "were," indicating that we want a plural antecedent. The closest plural antecedent is "Northern regions," and this wouldn't make much sense.

As for continuous past vs simple past, continuous past would be used for an activity that happened continuously over some duration in the past, while simple past connotes that the activity happened at some point in the past. "A" seems to make it sound as though these societies "were arising simultaneously" for some duration, but then they stopped arising at the same time. Whereas in "E" it sounds as though the two events simply happened at the same time.

thanks. very crisp and precise analysis.

Can we also discuss evidence for / evidence of in terms of their idiomatic existence?

According to the Ron Purewal:
"evidence for" → This is used for some argument or position, not for some thing that once existed.

But I didn't completely understand the above.

richachampion wrote:thanks. very crisp and precise analysis.

Can we also discuss evidence for / evidence of in terms of their idiomatic existence?

According to the Ron Purewal:
"evidence for" → This is used for some argument or position, not for some thing that once existed.

But I didn't completely understand the above.

That certainly seems right to me. Consider the following sentences:

"The gun is a damning piece of evidence for the prosecution." (Whom is the evidence for? The prosecution.)

However, if we swapped "of" for "for" we'd change the meaning. "The gun is a damning piece of evidence of the prosecution." Now it sounds as though the gun is evidence that the prosecution exists.

Similarly:

"Can you provide evidence for your assertion that Tim is guilty?" (What are you providing evidence for? Your assertion/claim that Time is guilty.)

Contrast the above with: "Can you provide evidence of your assertion that Tim is guilty?" Now it sounds as though we want proof that you made an assertion.

So if we're trying to communicate that there's evidence that something exists, we'd use "evidence of." (Or "evidence that")

But if we're trying to find evidence to support a claim, we'd write "evidence for."

Sir, I took a couple of days to understand, but still, couldn't understand why the past continuous tense is wrong. After all, civilizations wouldn't have evolved in a day, but in a continuity of many years.

So, I couldn't understand why the past continuous tense is wrong as it doesn't conveys a nonsensical meaning.