Expert Advice needed

[akash singhal]

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears
was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human
ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who

OE D
Please explain...

[GMATGuruNY]

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human
ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who

A and C: was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground
B: had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground
In these options, the usage of the past tense implies that the hunting ground WAS or HAD BEEN ancient IN THE TIME OF OUR ANCESTORS.
Not the intended meaning.
Only NOW is the hunting ground considered ANCIENT.
To our ancestors 400,000 years ago -- who USED the hunting ground -- the hunting ground was NOT ancient.
Eliminate A, B and C.

E: stunning evidence of human ancestors
Here, the implication is that the hunting ground is evidence of HUMAN ANCESTORS.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended meaning is that the hunting ground is evidence not of the ancestors themselves but of what human ancestors DID: that they systemically HUNTED big game.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is D.

[manik11]

Researchers in Germany have unearthed 400,000-year-old wooden spears from what it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who systematically hunted big game much earlier than believed.

A. it appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground as stunning evidence of human ancestors who
B. it appears had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and stunning evidence that human
ancestors
C. appears was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground and is stunning evidence that human ancestors
D. appears to be an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence that human ancestors
E. appears that it is an ancient lakeshore hunting ground, stunning evidence of human ancestors who

A and C: was an ancient lakeshore hunting ground
B: had been an ancient lakeshore hunting ground
In these options, the usage of the past tense implies that the hunting ground WAS or HAD BEEN ancient IN THE TIME OF OUR ANCESTORS.
Not the intended meaning.
Only NOW is the hunting ground considered ANCIENT.
To our ancestors 400,000 years ago -- who USED the hunting ground -- the hunting ground was NOT ancient.
Eliminate A, B and C.

E: stunning evidence of human ancestors
Here, the implication is that the hunting ground is evidence of HUMAN ANCESTORS.
Not the intended meaning.
The intended meaning is that the hunting ground is evidence not of the ancestors themselves but of what human ancestors DID: that they systemically HUNTED big game.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is D.

Hi Mitch,
Can we also eliminate the answer choices A,B,C, and E based on the incorrect usage of idiom "appears to be.."?

Thanks
Manik

[GMATGuruNY]

Can we also eliminate the answer choices A,B,C, and E based on the incorrect usage of idiom "appears to be.."?

Yes.
Correct idioms:
X appears to be Y.
X appears to have been Y.

For an official SC with the latter idiom, check here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/sc-question- ... 72822.html

[thang]

in this context,
evidence +that clause
is logic
and evidence of ancestor
is not logic

in other context, for example

evidence of his existance

is also logic.