The discovery of diminutive hominin fossils on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 was greeted by many paleoanthropologists as evidence that a previously unknown human species — Homo floresiensis — had survived into the relatively recent past, perhaps as late as 50,000 years ago. The strikingly small cranial capacity of these specimens, however, soon fractured this initial consensus. A vocal minority of researchers advanced an alternative interpretation: the fossils represented nothing more than modern Homo sapiens individuals afflicted by pathological conditions, most plausibly microcephaly or Laron syndrome. Proponents of the pathology hypothesis pointed to the presence of a fully modern human skull from the same region exhibiting comparable dimensions, arguing that the Flores material fell within the range of documented congenital variation. Yet this skeptical position has struggled to account for a growing body of evidence that cuts against it. The Liang Bua cave sediments have now yielded multiple individuals spanning tens of thousands of years, all consistently diminutive in stature and uniformly small-brained — a pattern extraordinarily difficult to reconcile with the sporadic occurrence of rare developmental disorders. Moreover, detailed morphometric analyses of the wrist bones, shoulder girdle, and foot proportions of the Flores specimens have revealed anatomical features that align them not with modern humans but with far more archaic hominin lineages, including Homo erectus and possibly even earlier australopithecines. The pathology hypothesis, whatever its initial plausibility, now requires defending a cascade of increasingly strained coincidences.

Which of the following most accurately characterizes the function of the passage as a whole?

A. Weighing the evidentiary foundations of two competing accounts and identifying the one that currently faces the greater explanatory burden
B. Tracing the historical evolution of a scientific controversy from its origins to its eventual resolution
C. Arguing that a once-prominent theory has been decisively refuted by subsequent fossil discoveries
D. Proposing a novel synthesis that reconciles seemingly incompatible paleoanthropological positions
E. Demonstrating that morphological analysis provides a more reliable basis for taxonomic classification than does cranial capacity measurement



The passage most strongly suggests that proponents of the pathology hypothesis would be forced to concede which of the following if the Liang Bua evidence continues to accumulate as described?

A. The wrist and foot morphologies of the Flores specimens are more diagnostically significant than cranial capacity in resolving taxonomic questions.
B. The repeated appearance of a rare developmental disorder across a span of tens of thousands of years within a single location constitutes a statistical anomaly that their framework cannot readily accommodate.
C. Homo erectus possessed a greater degree of morphological diversity than the current fossil record indicates.
D. The fully modern human skull from the same region was misidentified and should be reclassified.
E. Microcephaly and Laron syndrome produce skeletal effects that are indistinguishable from those of archaic hominin lineages.



The author mentions the "fully modern human skull from the same region" primarily in order to

A. provide context for why the pathology hypothesis initially appeared to be a viable alternative to the new-species interpretation
B. suggest that the Flores material may be more morphologically diverse than proponents of Homo floresiensis have acknowledged
C. identify the specific evidence that ultimately led to the refutation of the pathology hypothesis
D. illustrate the kind of congenital variation that the pathology hypothesis invokes to explain the diminutive Flores specimens
E. concede that the geographic distribution of microcephalic individuals is wider than previously documented