Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
In this task you need to indicate the plausibility of reasoning for the pronoun coreference relations. Each of the provided inputs contains a sentence with a target pronoun and a sentence that justifies which noun phrase the pronoun refers to. Correct reasons do not need to use all the knowledge from the sentence. The resolution of the pronoun coreference relations typically involve one or multiple following knowledge types about commonsense: First: 'Property', the knowledge about property of objects (e.g., ice is cold). Second: 'Object', the knowledge about objects (e.g., cats have ears). Third: 'Eventuality', the knowledge about eventuality (e.g., 'wake up' happens before 'open eyes'). Forth: 'Spatial', the knowledge about spatial position (e.g., object at the back can be blocked). Fifth: 'Quantity', the knowledge about numbers (e.g., 2 is smaller than 10). Sixth: all other knowledge if above ones are not suitable. You should answer 'Correct' if the reasoning made sense, otherwise, you should answer 'Wrong'.
Example: Sentence: The city councilmen refused the demonstrators a permit because they feared violence. 
 Reason: The 'they' refers to the city councilmen because city councilmen are administrative so they are more likely to fear. 
 Question: Is the above reasoning correct or wrong? 
Output: Correct.
This is a correct reason since the pronoun in the sentence is descibed as ones who fear violence and the city councilmen are attached with this property.

New input case for you: Sentence: Archaeologists have concluded that humans lived in Laputa 20,000 years ago. They hunted for deer on the river banks.
 Reason: The 'They' refers to prehistoric humans because there's a connection between the Laputa people and Prehistoric humans. 
 Question: Is the above reasoning correct or wrong? 
Output:
Wrong