This is not what the question is talking about but it's very cool:


33 comments

Scientist: A small group of islands near Australia is inhabited by several species of iguana; closely related species also exist in the Americas, but nowhere else. The islands in question formed long after the fragmentation of Gondwana, the ancient supercontinent that included present-day South America and Australia. Thus, these species’ progenitors must have rafted on floating debris across the Pacific Ocean from the Americas.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The scientist hypothesizes that the iguanas’ ancestors reached the islands near Australia by rafting from the Americas. As support, he points out that the only closely related species that currently exist are located in the Americas. He also notes that the islands first formed in isolation, away from any land masses, which implies that species could only exist there now if their ancestors had somehow arrived from elsewhere.

Notable Assumptions
The scientist assumes that the closely related species in the Americas have the same ancestor as the island iguanas. He further assumes that this common ancestor has only ever lived in the Americas and nowhere else.

A
A number of animal species that inhabit the islands are not found in the Americas.
The argument is only concerned with the origins of the iguana species. The potential origins of any other species are irrelevant.
B
Genetic analysis indicates that the iguana species on the islands are different in several respects from those found in the Americas.
The scientist doesn’t suggest or assume that the island iguanas are the same species as the American ones. His argument is that they merely share the same ancestor, and that this ancestor rafted from America to the islands. They may have evolved differently since that ancestor.
C
Documented cases of iguanas rafting long distances between land masses are uncommon.
That documented cases are uncommon does not mean that this situation was impossible or even unlikely at the time.
D
Fossils of iguana species closely related to those that inhabit the islands have been found in Australia.
This suggests that the island iguanas’ ancestor may have arrived from Australia, rather than from the Americas.
E
The lineages of numerous plant and animal species found in Australia or in South America date back to a period prior to the fragmentation of Gondwana.
The argument is only concerned with the origins of the island’s iguana species. The potential origins of other species in other locations are irrelevant.

Extracurricular

This is not what the question is talking about but it's very cool:


36 comments

Scientists once believed that the oversized head, long hind legs, and tiny forelimbs that characterized Tyrannosaurus rex developed in order to accommodate the great size and weight of this prehistoric predator. However, this belief must now be abandoned. The nearly complete skeleton of an earlier dinosaur has recently been discovered. This specimen had the characteristic T. rex features but was one-fifth the size and one-hundredth the weight.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that the belief T. rex developed certain features to accommodate its great size must be abandoned. This is because an earlier dinosaur skeleton has been discovered with the same features but of a far smaller size and weight.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that the skeleton in question is that of an adult dinosaur. The author also assumes that the dinosaur in question didn’t develop a large head, long hind legs, and tiny forelimbs for some other reason than to accommodate its size. The author therefore believes such adaptations can only arise in response to size.

A
Was the ratio of the head size of the recently discovered dinosaur to its body size the same as that for T. rex?

Even if the skeleton in question had a smaller or larger head relative to its body than T. rex, the skeleton still exhibits T. rex features. Such features were thought to be adaptations to great size, but the skeleton is far smaller than T. rex.

B
At what stage in its life did the recently discovered dinosaur die?

If the skeleton is a dinosaur who died in its infancy, then perhaps that dinosaur was simply a young precursor to T. rex who could’ve grown to a great size. This would undermine the author’s argument that certain T. rex features couldn’t have been size adaptations.

C
Was T. rex the largest and heaviest prehistoric predator?

We don’t care if T. rex was the absolute biggest prehistoric predator, which has nothing to do with whether certain features were size adaptations. There could’ve been larger predators with different adaptations.

D
Was the species to which the recently discovered dinosaur belonged related to T. rex?

Even if that species was indeed related to T. rex, the skeleton is a much smaller dinosaur. For all we know, T. rex relatives could be small dinosaurs while nonetheless being relatives.

E
Did the recently discovered dinosaur prey on species as large as those that T. rex preyed on?

Irrelevant. The features in question weren’t, according to traditional theory, adaptations for predation. They were adaptations for size.


51 comments