Paleontologists recently excavated two

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite: not evidence7% picked this

   It helps establish the scientific importance of the argument's overall conclusion, but is not offered as

   The claim that "the predator was following the grazing dino and matching its stride" is definitely evidence for the conclusion that "the predatory dino was chasing the grazing dino and attacked afterwards". We could also reject this answer since it doesn't establish any "scientific importance".

   7%
2. B

   Opposite: rejected2% picked this

   It is a hypothesis that is rejected in favor of the hypothesis stated in the

   Our author definitely isn't rejecting this idea; it's part of how she arrives at her conclusion!

   2%
3. C

   Correct81% picked this

   It provides the basis for an analogy used in support of the

   Why this is right

   This acknowledges, in a complicated way, that this claim was part of the author's support. Since the second to last sentence talks about modern predators (they match stride before striking) in order to then lead into a conclusion about extinct dino predators (this dino predator was matching stride before striking), we can say that the argument employs an analogy. The modern predator example is saying: match stride comes right before attack The claim they're asking us provides the basis that the dino predator was matching stride, so that we can use the analogy to get to the conclusion that the dino predator's footprints were right before they attacked the grazing dino.

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

   81%
4. D

   Out of Scope: possible objection2% picked this

   It is presented to counteract a possible objection to the argument's

   There aren't any hints of possible objections being discussed in this paragraph. It's just a linear, "here are these tracks, and this is our interpretation" type of argument.

   2%
5. E

   Wrong Role8% picked this

   It is the overall conclusion of

   The main conclusion is the final sentence. The claim we're being asked about "the predator was following the grazing dino and had matched its stride" combines with "modern predators match stride when chasing, right before they pounce" in order to support the final sentence: the predator was chasing, right before it pounced.

   8%