Two paleontologists, Dr. Tyson and Dr. Rees

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite, if anything6% picked this

   The footprints showing human characteristics were clearly those of at least

   This would help Dr. Tyson's argument, if anything. He could say, "Hey, Dr. Rees. You are seeing this wrong by seeing one person walking funny but it's actually two people."

   6%
2. B

   Correct58% picked this

   Certain species of bears had feet very like human feet, except that the outside toe on each foot was the biggest toe and the

   Why this is right

   This argument has an Explain a Curious Fact pattern. Curious Fact... What are the footprints? Explanation... They are from hominids because of the squarish heel and big toe next to an adjacent toe. We expect the correct answer to either provide an alternate explanation for the Curious Fact or to weaken the plausibility of the Explanation. This could be an alternate explanation for the footprints. This species would still have the squarish heel since the only thing that would be different are the toes. It could also explain the cross-stepping manner that Dr. Rees brought up because the bears' footprints would look like you switched a human's left foot for his right and vice versa. This is a tough answer to come to without visualizing.

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

   58%
3. C

   Weaker Impact17% picked this

   Footprints shaped like a human’s that do not show a cross-stepping pattern exist at site M, which is a mile away from site G,

   We don't actually know that these other footprints are human. Are we allowed to assume that because one set of prints did not show the cross-stepping pattern and the other did that one set is human and the other isn't? No. This answer creates some doubt but doesn't have the same impact as B. When in doubt, go with the alternate explanation, which in this case is (B).

   17%
4. D

   Too weak16% picked this

   When the moist volcanic ash became sealed under additional layers of ash before hardening, some details of some

   We would not expect the footprint to be perfectly preserved since it is prehistoric. Additionally, that some details are missing doesn't really impact argument.

   16%
5. E

   No Impact2% picked this

   Most of the other footprints at site G were of animals

   We know that the footprints the argument is about have a heel and toes. We wouldn't argue that the footprints are actually hoof prints.

   2%