Conodonts, the spiky phosphatic remains (bones and teeth composed of c

So what the heck is up with Question #2?

Indeed, the formatting for this particular passage makes it very tough for us to tell where one paragraph begins and the other ends. (Bunuel, any idea how to fix the formatting? You're the best technical wizard in the GMAT Club family. )

Anyway, a closer look at the 2018 OG reveals that:

• Paragraph 1 ends with the words, "development of the vertebrate skeleton."
• Paragraph 2 ends with the words, "the earliest vertebrates were predators."
• Paragraph 3 begins with the words, "The stiffening notochord."

Here's paragraph 2 (P2) in full:


This clarification might resolve a lot of doubts about the passage and question #2. But let's break it down to eliminate any lingering confusion.


OK, so why did the author write this paragraph?

P1 has already told us that the 1981 discovery -- of conodont remains along with conodont fossils -- has had important implications for hypotheses about the vertebrate skeleton.

In P2, the author then presents two opposing hypotheses about the vertebrate skeleton: The traditional view that it was a defensive development and an opposing view that the skeletal adaptations were part of a predatory evolution. The author offer some details for each side's hypothesis, but the point of the paragraph is to show us these two sides.

Let's see which answer choices line up with our understanding:


Nope! P2 doesn't outline the significance of this discovery in any way. The reason that the author writes P2 is to tell us about opposing hypotheses, not get further into the details of the 1981 discovery. Eliminate (A).


(B) is very tempting, but when you read closely, two thoughts should come to mind:

• Is the author writing P2 to contrast two views?
• Are the views being contrasted "the traditional view of development of the vertebrate skeleton" and "a view derived from the 1981 discovery"?

You could argue that yes, the author is contrasting two hypotheses. And one of those hypotheses is the traditional view of how and why the vertebrate skeleton developed. We are close to keeping this answer choice.

But when you refer back to the passage, was the second view (of early vertebrates as predators) "derived from the 1981 discovery"? Not quite. The second paragraph doesn't create a link between the view of predatory evolution and the 1981 discovery of conodont remains. The second paragraph doesn't even mention conodonts. That's why we eliminate (B) -- or at the very least, avoid falling in love with (B) right away.


The author didn't write the second paragraph in order to contrast the characteristics of these two groups. Eliminate (C).


Choice (D) tempts us by identifying a thing that the author did in P2. But this choice doesn't tell us the reason why the author wrote P2. Because (D) is not answering the question we were asked, we can eliminate it without hesitation.


Here we are! Choice (E) does seem similar to Choice (B), but it doesn't make the mistake of naming the wrong sides of this debate. Instead, (E) matches exactly what we know: The author wrote the paragraph in order to present two opposing hypotheses.

This answers the question directly, doesn't add any erroneous wrinkles, and doesn't get stuck on narrow details that miss the purpose of the paragraph. That's why (E) is distinct from (B) and (D). That's also why (E) is the best available choice.

I hope this explanation turned your "conodon'ts" into "can dos"! Please forgive my humor, it's an evolutionary defense mechanism against eye-burning GMAT passages. And I'm practicing my terrible "dad jokes" for when my daughter is old enough to understand them and roll her eyes at me...