<span>
<span>Archaeologists discovered evidence of travel between Asia and the Americas before the arrival of early humans from Siberia.
</span><em>This statement suggests that the early humans do not come from the Siberian region but from Asia. In terms of human geography, history, culture and language, Siberia belongs to Russia. And Russia belongs to both Asia and Europe. Therefore, Siberia partly belongs to Asia and partly Europe. </em>
</span><em>In reality, archaeologists did discover evidence of travel when the indigenous people of the Americas found distant genetic links common with people of Australia and Papua New Guinea with the small groups of people in the Amazonian region of South America. </em><span>
</span>
Having discovered signs of green landscapes and bodies of water is a useless evidence. It could have been there since the beginning of time. Those landscapes could be a natural landform. Therefore, this evidence would just to point to no one has ever inhabited Americas at this moment of time.
Deer and rabbits are present in Siberia, therefore, this would just point to this region evidently.
Barren lands and infertile soil would mean no one had ever settled in this place. If there was, it wouldn’t have been barren and infertile.
Because they were intolerant and wanted foreigners to be automatically integrated
The correct option is A.
There are two basic sources which an author can draw from when writing an article. The first one is primary source and this refers to an account of an event or history by a person who actually witness the event or the person who experience the event directly. The second one is secondary source and it refers to those accounts of events that are drawn from primary sources.
Thus, a journal account about civil war by a civil war soldier who experienced the war is considered a primary source.
The name given to Gorbachev's policy of political openness was called "glasnost."
