PT9.S2.Q12 and PT10.S1.Q16

LawschoolhereIcome

PT 9, S2, Q12:
I was looking for an answer choice that said something along the lines of non-purebred dogs being just as expensive for reasons other than genetically determined abnormalities and thought B addressed that. Is A correct because it's stating that even if there are genetic abnormalities, it is not necessary to treat them through surgery and cost-intensive procedures because the overall health of the dogs is fine? What was wrong with my reasoning and why is B wrong?

PT 10, S1, Q16
Found this question difficult overall, still don't understand what I'm supposed to be looking for in the correct answer. Asteroid-collision with the Earth was the popular theory but new theory available so question stem is asking to weaken the asteroid-collision theory? If so, how does E weaken? #help

Claudia77

Regarding PT 9 S2 Q12, A is correct because of the reason you stated. Even if purebred dogs are more prone to genetically determined abnormalities than non-purebred dogs, that won't affect veterinary costs if such abnormalities are benign and don't need treatment.
B is wrong because even if purebred and non-purebred dogs are indeed both subject to the same diseases, this doesn't change the fact that purebred dogs are much more prone to said diseases than non-purebred dogs and will thus require more medical treatment.

For PT 10 S1 Q16, you want to be looking for an answer that sheds doubt on the asteroid impact theory. Answer choice E does just this. E states that the fossil record in Montana shows a diminution of dinosaur fossils underneath the layer of extraterrestrial dust. According to the asteroid impact theory, however, this layer of dust was laid down at the time of impact. But if the dust fell at the time of impact, why is there evidence of extinct dinosaurs below the dust? They would have had to have died prior to the impact+dust layer, which means that they presumably didn't die from the asteroid. The asteroid impact theory is thus rendered much weaker by this new evidence.