A plausible explanation of the

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Impact6% picked this

   One of the various schools of paleontology adheres to an explanation for the disappearance of the dinosaurs that is significantly

   This just tells us that an Alternate Explanation exists, but it doesn't give us any reason to prefer that explanation over this one. There's a difference between an answer choice providing the grounds for an alternate explanation (i.e. "There is strong evidence of a microbial infection that is known to kill present day reptiles around the same time as the dinosaurs' disappearance") and saying that someone else has an alternate explanation (i.e. "Eddie thinks that a microbial infection killed them). To put that another way ... being given a fact that could lead us to an alternate explanation is more powerful than just being told that someone has an opinion that involves an alternate explanation.

   6%
2. B

   Correct74% picked this

   Various species of animals from the same era as the dinosaurs and similar to them in physiology and habitat did not become

   Why this is right

   This badly weakens the plausibility of the comet theory, because the comet theory involves a global change to the environment. All around the earth the climate has cooled and is enshrouded in dust. So if those changes were enough to kill off the dinosaurs, then presumably they would have also been enough to kill off animals from the same era with similar physiology and habitat.

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

   74%
3. C

   No Impact14% picked this

   It cannot be determined from a study of dinosaur skeletons whether the animals died from the effects

   This means that skeletons do not provide evidence in favor of the theory, but that doesn't mean it's evidence against the theory. An absence of evidence is not evidence that something is wrong. (that's the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw in a nutshell)

   14%
4. D

   Weaker Impact4% picked this

   Many other animal species from the era of the dinosaurs did not become extinct at the same

   This is not as good as (B) because these other animals might be very different from dinosaurs. If hermit crabs in Hawaii didn't die off, that's not necessarily counterevidence. Dinosaurs are 1,000 times bigger. They don't live in Hawaii. They're reptiles, not crustaceans. (B) is better because it's saying that animals that had a similar habitat and similar physiology were not killed off.

   4%
5. E

   No Impact2% picked this

   The consequences for vegetation and animals of a comet colliding with Earth are

   The fact that we don't fully understand X doesn't suggest that X isn't true. Much like (C), this answer is saying "we lack certain knowledge / evidence", but that doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for vegetation and animals when a comet collides with Earth. Also, to say something isn't fully understood is a very weak knock on it. We might feel like we have a 95% understanding of genetics. We don't fully understand it, but we understand it a lot!

   2%