Unsupported. We see that his estimates of the crush-resistant strength of the Calvaria major pits came from test results, but the author doesn’t say that these test results yielded highly accurate estimates. Also, P3 doesn’t specify that these test results came from Temple’s research on birds from Mauritius specifically. Remember, for this question, we are looking for something that the author states about Temple’s research on birds from Mauritius.

Unsupported. We see that Temple estimated the abrasive force generated by the dodo’s gizzard from studies of other birds. However, direct proof was unattainable, so we don’t know the actual abrasive force generated by the dodo’s gizzard. Because of this, there is not support for the claim that modern birds’ gizzards exert roughly the same amount of abrasive force as the dodos’ gizzards did––the author says that Temple made estimates, but we don’t know if these estimates were accurate.

Unsupported. The author doesn’t provide any judgement on how comprehensive or precise Temple’s research on the birds of Mauritius was.

Unsupported. We know that Temple’s investigation of Calvaria major was a sidelight to his research on the endangered birds of Mauritius; the author doesn’t say that his research on the birds of Mauritus was inspired by observations of the Calvaria major pits.