@Mohit,


In Argument scientiests say that a fish can either be shark or eel so it is already given in the argument that fish cannot be both shark and eel. So E can be eliminated.

I thought I was the odd person to pick (D)

A new species of fish has just been discovered living in great numbers in the waters off Papua New Guinea. The fish exhibits some characteristics belonging to sharks, such as a cartilaginous skeleton. However, the fish also exhibits characteristics belonging to eels, such as a long, snake-like body. Because of the habitat where it was found and its obviously eel-like body, almost all scientists believe that the fish is an eel. But the cartilaginous skeleton puzzles them, since no known eel possesses one. So scientists are still unsure as to the fish's precise classification, but they agreed immediately that the most logical classification would be as either a shark or an eel.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which of the following?

A. To be placed into a certain classification, a fish must possess all the characteristics of that classification. - We dont know this because the argument has no information.

B. Physical characteristics, such as skeletons, are scientists' primary means of classifying new species. - out of scope

C. Some fish with cartilaginous skeletons are not sharks. - out of scope. This looks tempting though because the author has used familiar words from the argument

D. The waters off Papua New Guinea are generally hospitable to eels. - argument says "Because of the habitat where it was found and its obviously eel-like body, almost all scientists believe that the fish is an eel" - correct

E. A fish cannot be both a shark and an eel. - Scientists agreed that the most logical classification would be either a shark or an eel but it has not be proved yet. So we cannot say that a fish cannot be both a shark and an eel