Paleontologist: It is widely, but

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens5% picked this

   According to one dating technique, a few fossils of plants that lived on land are more than half

   Here is more evidence that there was life on land more than half a billion years ago. These land plants left fossils that are more than 0.5 billion years old.

   5%
2. B

   Strengthens11% picked this

   The severity of conditions in the primordial oceans would have made it difficult for life

   This offers some independent evidence that weighs against the idea that life began in the ocean.

   11%
3. C

   Strengthens35% picked this

   Research suggests that some portions of the 1.2-billion-year-old rocks were at one time submerged in water, though other

   This is a ridiculous mixed bag of an answer, but it does weakly affirm a necessary assumption of the argument: "it's possible that the rock where this carbon 14 was found was not underwater 1.2 billion years ago".

   35%
4. D

   Correct44% picked this

   The 1.2-billion-year-old rocks were formed from soil containing very small amounts of carbon 14 that entered the soil

   Why this is right

   This sounds like an Alternate Explanation for why there's carbon 14 on the rock, so this actually Weakens.

   Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   44%
5. E

   Strengthens5% picked this

   Uranium testing has been used to confirm that the age of the rocks is

   Another really weak strengthener, as it just adds more credibility to something we were already trusting (the "fact" that this was 1.2 billion year old rock). (C) and (E) are almost No Impact in my opinion, but they will still lose by comparison to (D), which actively weakens.

   5%