lunarpower wrote:also

by far the easiest way to kill (c) is subject-verb agreement: "includes" (singular) doesn't make sense, because "tools" (the clearly intended antecedent) is plural.

there is also a VERY subtle difference in meaning here, which is wholly idiomatic.
namely:
if you say "tools that include X", then X is A COMPONENT of the tools. so, for instance, "tools that include a bottle opener" means that a bottle opener is one of many attachments.
on the other hand, "tools(,) including X" implies that X is ONE OF the tools. so, for instance, "tools(,) including a bottle opener" means that the bottle opener itself is one of the tools in question.

clearly, S-V agreement is the easier way to go.

lunarpower wrote:
when you see "comma + including", you should think of "including" as a preposition, not as an -ing modifier. therefore, "including X" will become a prepositional phrase that describes the stuff preceding the comma.

apple100 wrote:The new image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany including , three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be about 400,000 years old.



(A) merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including
(B) as merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from examining tools found in Germany, which include
(C) as mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that includes
(D) mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which includes
(E) mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, including

[spoiler]OA is E, but what is wrong with C. If C were "that include" instead of "that includes" would it be correct? Also does "that" modify Germany?[/spoiler]

lunarpower wrote:

vishwas.arora wrote:Will it be correct to eliminate (D) on the basis of "includes", which does not go with plural "tools"?

yes.

And if my contention is correct, then will it be correct as,

(F) mere scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which include

first -- in general, you shouldn't try to do this.
don't try to fix sentences!
even though this section of the test is called, ironically, "sentence correction", you do not need to be able to fix the sentences; you only need to be able to select the correct answer choice from the choices given.
trying to fix the sentences is an irrelevant skill set; if you do too much of this, it will distract you from the skill set that you actually need.

--

your choice (f) here is ... not wrong, but it's sort of weird. (this is almost always what happens when students try to write their own versions of the official sentences -- they create versions that may not be objectively incorrect, but that still have this "eeehhhhh" factor.)
the weirdness comes from the present tense "include", which is a strange and unnecessary shift of tense from the original. (writing "have included" would also be wrong, though, because that would imply that the set of tools changed or evolved over time.) "including" is better, because it automatically adopts the timeframe and situational relevance of whatever the sentence is talking about.

... but, the best way to answer this question is "don't try to fix sentences".

apple100 wrote: [spoiler]OA is E, but what is wrong with C. If C were "that include" instead of "that includes" would it be correct? Also does "that" modify Germany?[/spoiler]

if you say "tools that include X", then X is A COMPONENT of the tools. so, for instance, "tools that include a bottle opener" means that a bottle opener is one of many attachments.
on the other hand, "tools(,) including X" implies that X is ONE OF the tools. so, for instance, "tools(,) including a bottle opener" means that the bottle opener itself is one of the tools in question.