PT109.S4.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22

PASSAGE 4

Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that birds are not descendants of dinosaurs called dromeosaurs. Why? Because the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered date much further back in history than the oldest known dromeosaur fossils.

The author assumes that the fact the earlier bird fossils are older than the earlier dromeosaur fossils proves that birds originated before dromeosaurs did.

The author assumes that there do not exist undiscovered dromeosaur fossils that are older than the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered.

The author doesn’t deny the idea that there’s an evolutionary relationship between birds and dromeosaurs. For example, the author could believe that dromeosaurs evolved from birds, or that they each evolved from a common ancestor.

Not necessary, because the author might believe there are no common ancestors between birds and dromeosaurs. All that the author is committed to about the relationship between the two is that birds did not evolve from dromeosaurs.

Too extreme to be necessary. The author doesn’t have to assume that our knowledge of the fossils is “complete.” The author just needs to assume that our knowledge of the fossils tells us that birds originated before dromeosaurs. Whether we’re missing a tooth from a skeleton or whether we’re missing some more recent fossils doesn’t affect the reasoning.

Necessary, because if known fossils do NOT indicate the relative dates of origin, then what we know about bird and dromeosaur fossils doesn’t support a conclusion that birds couldn’t have evolved from dromeosaurs. After all, dromeosaurs could have originated before birds, so birds still could have evolved from them.

Not necessary, because the author could agree that dromeosaurs are actually very similar to birds. That similarity may be due to dromeosaurs evolving from birds, or they both evolved from a common ancestor, or to pure coincidence.

PrepTest 109 - Section 4 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action