关于OG12 RC第4题的疑惑

xyan5678

(5)
(10)
(15)
(20)
(25)
A recent study has provided clues to
predator-prey dynamics in the late Pleistocene
era. Researchers compared the number of tooth
fractures in present-day carnivores with tooth
fractures in carnivores that lived 36,000 to 10,000
years ago and that were preserved in the Rancho
La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. The breakage
frequencies in the extinct species were strikingly
higher than those in the present-day species.
In considering possible explanations for this
finding, the researchers dismissed demographic bias
because older individuals were not overrepresented
in the fossil samples. They rejected preservational
bias because a total absence of breakage in two
extinct species demonstrated that the fractures
were not the result of abrasion within the pits.
They ruled out local bias because breakage data
obtained from other Pleistocene sites were similar
to the La Brea data. The explanation they consider
most plausible is behavioral differences between
extinct and present-day carnivores—in particular,
more contact between the teeth of predators and
the bones of prey due to more thorough
consumption of carcasses by the extinct species.
Such thorough carcass consumption implies to
the researchers either that prey availability was
low, at least seasonally, or that there was intense
competition over kills and a high rate of carcass
theft due to relatively high predator densities.


4The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) present several explanations for a well-known
fact
(B) suggest alternative methods for resolving a
debate
(C) argue in favor of a controversial theory
(D) question the methodology used in a study
(E) discusstheimplications of a research finding

疑问：
1，（E）这个选项是什么意思？有哪位高手可以翻译一下。总感觉把implication理解成“含义”有点说不通，难道是“讨论了一个研究发现的含义”？如果是这样理解的话就有点不符合文章主旨了。文章是提供了几个解释，然后排出了几个，保留了一个，并加以论证。怎么讲也应该和explanation有关啊，为什么选E呢？
2，如果把（A）选项中的well-known去掉，是不是也可以算正确答案了？

DUKB24

A选项去掉了well-known也不对，它说的是present，但是文章整体结构是提出了N个，最后只认同一个，所以不能认为是正确答案，至于implication，直接理解成为暗示什么的都可以，主要就是说这个发现让研究者做出了一个可靠的定论之类神马的

雨天的书

同意二楼的

myjoke

我的理解这样的。

科技说明文 主题在第二段第一句  强调 explanations && finding  两个focus。

故而主旨只能是  a 和e  

BTW： debate 无  alternative 写作思路不同。in favor of controversal 不符合理性

a 和e  明显 fact  不对。fact 用在说明文中太怪。另外 为了present severa for well knownl 写一篇文章干的有点费
不符合考察逻辑