two hypotheses and some evidence on the human origins debate

[san2612]

The passage
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modern humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modern human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modern specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modern Australians showed affinities to archaic Homo from Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues , as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.

Question:
1. All of the following are true except
(a) three methods of gathering evidence are mentioned in the passage
I've found only two methods of gathering evidence: fossil and skull evidence . So I think A is not true and the others (B, C, D) is true
(b) the multi-regional model goes back further in history.
(c) the Out of Africa model has had more support from scholars
(d) DNA studies offer one of the best ways in future to provide clear evidence.
but (d) is the answer.

 

[shroob]

The passage
There are two main hypotheses when it comes to explaining the emergence of modern humans. The ‘Out of Africa’ theory holds that homo sapiens burst onto the scene as a new species around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa and subsequently replaced archaic humans such as the Neandertals. The other model, known as multi-regional evolution or regional continuity, posits far more ancient and diverse roots for our kind. Proponents of this view believe that homo sapiens arose in Africa some 2 million years ago and evolved as a single species spread across the Old World, with populations in different regions linked through genetic and cultural exchange.
Of these two models, Out of Africa, which was originally developed based on fossil evidence, and supported by much genetic research, has been favored by the majority of evolution scholars. The vast majority of these genetic studies have focused on DNA from living populations, and although some small progress has been made in recovering DNA from Neandertal that appears to support multi-regionalism, the chance of recovering nuclear DNA from early human fossils is quite slim at present. Fossils thus remain very much a part of the human origins debate.
Another means of gathering theoretical evidence is through bones. Examinations of early modern human skulls from Central Europe and Australia dated to between 20,000 and 30,000 years old have suggested that both groups apparently exhibit traits seen in their Middle Eastern and African predecessors. But the early modern specimens from Central Europe also display Neandertal traits, and the early modern Australians showed affinities to archaic Homo from Indonesia. Meanwhile, the debate among paleoanthropologists continues , as supporters of the two hypotheses challenge the evidence and conclusions of each other.

Question:
1. All of the following are true except
(a) three methods of gathering evidence are mentioned in the passage
I've found only two methods of gathering evidence: fossil and skull evidence . So I think A is not true and the others (B, C, D) is true
(b) the multi-regional model goes back further in history.
(c) the Out of Africa model has had more support from scholars
(d) DNA studies offer one of the best ways in future to provide clear evidence.
but (d) is the answer.

Not a teacher only a native.

I found 3 methods of gathering evidence (I made this bold in the text so that you know where to find them).
1) Fossil
2) Bone
3) DNA

EDIT: I didn't read the whole passage or questions, just skimmed through answer the first question.