请教GWD里~~始祖鸟化石那篇文章的一道直接事实题~~

始祖鸟化石那篇文章~~(文章贴在后面)

Which of the following is mentioned in the passage as an argument made by scientists who are unconvinced that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs?  Answer: BàC

1. There are no known theropod dinosaur fossils dating from a period after the time of Archaeopteryx.

2. There are no known theropod dinosaur fossils that indicate the structure of those dinosaurs’ lungs.

3. Theropod dinosaurs appear in the fossil record about 150 million years ago.

4. Theropod dinosaurs did not have fused clavicles.

5. Theropod dinosaurs had certain bones that look just like those of Archaeopteryx.

怎么可能是C呢~~C简直就把文章的事实说反了呀...见文章划线部分~~

      that birds evolved from ground-dwelling

      theropod dinosaurs, some scientists remain

Line   unconvinced.  They argue that theropods 

  (5)    appeared too late to have given rise to birds,

noting that Archaeopteryx lithographica—the

oldest known bird—appears in the fossil

record about 150 million years ago,
                        where-

as the fossil remains of various nonavian

 (10)    maniraptor theropods—the closest known

relatives of birds—date only to about 115

million years ago.  But investigators have

now uncovered bones that evidently belong

to nonavian maniraptors dating to the time of

 (15)    Archaeopteryx.  In any case, failure to find

fossils of a predicted kind does not rule out

their existence in an undiscovered deposit.

Skeptics also argue that the fused clavicles

(the “wishbone”) of birds differ from the

 (20)    unfused clavicles of theropods.  This

      objection was reasonable when only early

      theropod clavicles had been discovered,

but fossilized theropod clavicles that look

just like the wishbone of Archaeopteryx

 (25)    have now been unearthed.  Finally, some

scientists argue that the complex lungs of

birds could not have evolved from theropod

lungs, an assertion that cannot be supported

or falsified at the moment, because no fossil

 (30)    lungs are preserved in the paleontological

record.

lz分析一下这篇文章的结构。

argue：把fossil出现的时间不对当作证据而不同意X恐龙进化成X鸟,后面是反驳，意思是说即使没有确凿的化石证据并不足以证明不是X恐龙进化成X鸟。注意文章的用词failure to,那后面就要跟一个确凿的证据。也就是说fossils of a predicted kind 时确凿的证据，就把你划线的那部分取非就行了。

不知道说清楚了没。