Which of the following, if found correct, would most pertain to the relative tenability of the two hypotheses?

While this choice discusses the decline of meat-eating animals, it does not provide insight into the specific causes of megafauna extinction. A parallel decline does not directly indicate whether human hunting or environmental changes were responsible, making it less relevant to the hypotheses in question.

This option focuses on human dietary changes rather than the decline of megafauna. While it may highlight shifts in human behavior, it does not address the direct impacts of plant distribution changes or human hunting on the megafauna themselves, thus diminishing its relevance to the hypotheses.

This choice pertains to human distribution and does not provide evidence concerning the megafauna's decline. The distribution of human populations does not clarify whether their hunting practices significantly affected megafauna extinction or if environmental changes played a larger role.

This statement suggests resilience in megafauna to climate change, which counters the idea that warming alone led to their extinction. If they could indeed adapt to the warmer climate, it weakens the argument for environmental change as the primary factor in their decline.