I personally thought (B) was unwarranted. The end of paragraph 1 states "Indus was long considered archaeologically uninteresting..."
Sooooo just because it was long considered uninteresting doesn't mean there wasn't sufficient evidence gathered back in the day to reach credible conclusions. Answer (B) is so strong. It is ONLY in recent years. Really? So you're telling me it was ONLY until recent that we gathered sufficient evidence to reach credible conclusions? None of the past archaeological finds didn't have any credible conclusions?
I understand that it's not explicitly stated in the passage that there were any credible conclusions made "long ago" and the last paragraph is establishing that Wheeler was wrong. But Wheeler can't be the only archaeologist of the LARGEST ANCIENT URBAN CIVILIZATION. Okay sorry for the rant but let me know if I made any unreasonable assumptions.