Passage Summary: Patterson thinks music started with bone flutes, but Garza notes that earlier wooden instruments would have simply rotted away, leaving no trace for us to find.

Reasoning: Garza points out that the archaeological record is biased because bone survives much longer than other materials like wood that might have been used for earlier instruments.

Analysis: Garza's response is a textbook example of challenging a conclusion by questioning the completeness of the evidence. He doesn't say Patterson is definitely wrong, but rather that the evidence Patterson relies on is skewed by the physical properties of the materials involved. By highlighting that wood decays while bone persists, Garza suggests that the 'earliest evidence' might just be the earliest *surviving* evidence. Look for an answer that describes this as pointing out a flaw in the evidence's representativeness.