The ancient reptile Thrinaxodon

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match14% picked this

   It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that insulation regulating body temperature would be of little

   This correctly labels our claim a premise, but incorrectly says it's there to support "insulation would be of little use to a cold-blooded animal". That last claim isn't the conclusion. "Thrina was probably warm-blooded" is the main conclusion". We can also convince ourselves that "insulation regulating body temp would be of little use to a cold-blooded animal" is not a conclusion at all, because no support is offered. If we asked, "Why would insulation be of little use to a cold-blooded animal?", the support would sound like, "Because ... cold-blooded animals don't heat themselves internally. They lie on a rock and absorb solar radiation. Insulation is only useful if you have an internal heat source and want to keep heat from escaping."

   14%
2. B

   Correct75% picked this

   It is a premise offered in support of the main conclusion drawn

   Why this is right

   Every claim in this paragraph, other than 'Thrina was probably warm-blooded', was a premise offered in support of the main conclusion. Even if we thought the second sentence qualified as some sort of Intermediate Conclusion, an Intermediate Conclusion is still a premise. We can call an Intermediate Conclusion "a supported premise" and call regular ol' premises "unsupported premises".

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

   75%
3. C

   Unsupported4% picked this

   It is a conclusion for which the claim that Thrinaxodon had skull features suggesting that it had sensory

   This answer is testing us on whether it's fair to call this 2nd sentence a(n Intermediate) conclusion. It's tempting to think that the 2nd sentence could be an intermediate conclusion because it uses the Opinion Indicator "clearly", which is frequently used to signify conclusions. But if we subject either claim in this 2nd sentence to the Support Test, we'll see that there wasn't any support provided. "If T had whiskers, then it clearly also had hair on other parts of its body" why should we believe that? why can't something that have whiskers but otherwise be hairless? Support for this would sound like, "There isn't any animal we know of that has whiskers without also having other body hair. Whiskers only evolve in species that have body hair." We definitely don't have any claims like that. "The other body hair on T would have served as insulation that regulated body temperature" why should we believe that? why does body hair have to serve as insulation? couldn't it be for camouflage or for giving young members of the species something cuddly to snuggle with? Support for this would sound like, "Camouflage can be achieved more easily by means of scales or skin coloration. Animals evolve body hair in habitats with cold outdoor temperatures, where survival requires insulating body heat." We don't have any claims like that.

   4%
4. D

   Opposite: show is false1% picked this

   It is a statement of a hypothesis that the argument attempts to

   The argument definitely isn't trying to show that this 2nd sentence is false. It's one of the author's supporting ideas.

   1%
5. E

   Opposite: not used to support6% picked this

   It is offered as an explanation of the phenomenon described by the argument's main conclusion, but it is not itself used to

   We're looking for an answer that says this was part of the Support, and this answer says it wasn't used to provide support. The conclusion was that Thrina was probably warm-blooded, which is principally supported by combining the ideas that "Thrina had body hair that served as insulation" (our claim) and that "such insultation would be of little use to a cold-blooded animal".

   6%