Geologists recently discovered marks

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak: "sometimes" / "precise"3% picked this

   It is sometimes difficult to estimate the precise age of a

   We could boost the plausibility of the worm hypothesis by making the sandstone not sound as old as 500 million years older than the beginning of multicellular animal life. But this answer is way too weakly worded to have any impact.

   3%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   Geological processes left a substantial variety of marks in sandstone more than half a billion years before the earliest

   This strengthens the argument by boosting the plausibility of the "geological processes made those marks in the sandstone" hypothesis.

   1%
3. C

   No Impact9% picked this

   There were some early life forms other than worms that are known to have left marks that are hard to distinguish from those

   These marks were made more than 500 million years before the earliest signs of animal life, so even if these "early life forms" were some of the first signs of animal life, they are still 500 million years after the marks were made.

   9%
4. D

   Correct79% picked this

   At the place where the sandstone was found, the only geological processes that are likely to mark sandstone in ways that resemble worm tracks

   Why this is right

   This hurts the plausibility of the "geological processes" hypothesis, since it's basically saying it wasn't possible. Only some kinds of processes could have made those marks, but those processes could not have occurred at the time the marks were made. This answer essentially refutes the author's hypothesis. It's odd to get a correct answer on Weaken that actually proves the author's conclusion is wrong, but so be it.

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

   79%
5. E

   No Impact8% picked this

   Most scientists knowledgeable about early animal life believe that worms are likely to have been among the earliest forms of multicellular animal life on

   Just like with (C), we don't care how early of an animal life form you were. These marks were made 500 million years prior to the earliest known animal life. It's possible that animals were around longer than we think, but 500 million years earlier than we think?! Also, this answer doesn't give us any reason to think that animal life started earlier than we currently think.

   8%