Hi Sonal,

I can certainly see where this question might have been confusing without the context of "sustain." Sustain has two major uses. It can mean "to suffer or undergo," especially an injury, or it can mean "to strengthen and support." (for instance, to sustain life.) Here, however, the context tells us "sustain damage." So, it wouldn't make very much sense to say "strengthen or support" damage. The sentence means "to suffer or undergo" damage.

That said, if you do find that the context of a word is what's holding you back - process of elimination is definitely your friend here! If you can determine that all four of the answers with meaning that were clear to you are definitive wrong, you may have been able to get by on this question (though the context will be helpful moving forward)!

I hope this helps!
_________________

A)No info from argument supports the effectiveness would have been effective
B)We don't know if they really used their tails to strike
C)Again we don't know if they really used the tail to ward off-->> We can't say tail is used as a waynot the only means
D)were at much greater risk of being killed The risk of getting killed can't be estimated as : let's say Lizard has more predators than dinosaur ? Who knows who are at risk ? it may have other defences

E) if used to ward off predators Now that's the if case: but there's a catch which might make you skip this option: sustain=defend and also sustain=suffer. In this context its Suffer. So since all other answer's are far from OA:E. This option is best among all and is a cakewalk.

Pls. HIT KUDOS
(need few kudos for needs )
_________________

Two choices come close, B and E.
In B, although duckbills used their tails to ward of predators and also the tails were more delicate, therefore it might imply that the tails might get damaged from the impact. But the usage of "frequently damaged" cannot be implied. How do we know the rate at which predators attacked duckbill? Also were there other parts of the body which duck-billed used to ward of the predators, because it knew that its tail is damage prone. So this is a weak choice.

In E however there is a direct comparison between tails of duckbills and monitor lizards. Duckbills tails would be more likely to sustain damage that monitor lizard because it was more delicate.

The answer is E.

In inference questions, we can eliminate any answer that could be false to arrive at the answer that is directly supported by the given information.

A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators. <- we don't know how much more fierce duckbill predators are as compared to the predators of monitor lizards, so there is nothing here that guarantees that duckbills would, or would even be capable of, warding off predators with their tails, even if the construction of their tails is similar to the monitor lizard's. We can eliminate.

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact. <- Again, while it is likely that if the duckbill's tail is more fragile, *if* it did strike a predator it might be more likely to sustain damage - but there's nothing in the stimulus that definitively tells us they used their tails for this purpose and "frequently" damaged their tailbones.

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators. <- Again... this could be true, or could be false. We don't have anything that definitively tells us that duckbills had other means of warding off predators. Because this is not guaranteed by the stimulus, we can eliminate it!

D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are. <- I'd be suspicious of this language right off the bat. We don't *know* without a shadow of a doubt that duckbills were at much greater risk. They might be, but they could also be in a position where they have fewer predators or other means of protecting themselves. Because this information is not provided to us, this answer could certainly be false and thus is not an inference.

E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact. <- This sounds a lot like the qualifier I addressed earlier with (B)! While we don't know that the duckbill uses its tail for the same purposes the monitor lizard does, *if* the duckbill did use its tail to ward off predators, because its tail is more fragile and its predators larger, it would have been more likely to sustain damage from the impact. Bingo - we've found our answer!

With inference questions, if we can reason through a way an answer could be false within the parameters of the stimulus (given information) we can use process of elimination to identify the answer that must be true!

I hope this helps!
_________________

VeritasPrepHailey

Hi Hailey,

I would like to know what sustains means in the context of the sentence. Does it mean more likely to suffer or does it mean more likely to handle the impact well ? I think I got this question incorrect becayse I was not able to understand the meaning of the word sustain in the case.

Thank You
Sonal

Tried my hand on this one. Here's how i did it.

As its an inference question four options would be false or one would be true among five.
A - WRONG. A comparison of who whips the tail faster might still be true but we are not sure whether duckbill's tail will be effective at warding off it's predators. We can't be certain since monitor lizard's tail can also be equally effective.
B - WRONG. The word 'delicate' might make some to opt for this but it doesn't mean that the tail will damage. True that sometimes it may but whether it happens 'frequently', we are not sure.
C - WRONG. This is the easiest to get rid off. Again we are not sure if the tail is the only means for duckbills to ward off predators.
D - WRONG. Initially, this looks promising but that comparison of risk of getting killed spoils the option. This suffers from the similar errors as option A does.
E - CORRECT. The option balances out the comparison between the two. If both try to ward off their predators, it the tail of duckbill which is likely to get damaged sine its more delicate than monitor's.

Answer E.
_________________

Only one word to focus on "delicate" ..which means easily broken .

Duckbill dinosaurs, like today's monitor lizards, had particularly long tails, which they could whip at considerable speed. Monitor lizards use their tails to strike predators. However, although duckbill tails were otherwise very similar to those of monitor lizards, the duckbill's tailbones were proportionately much thinner and thus more delicate. Moreover, to ward off their proportionately much larger predators, duckbills would have had to whip their tails considerably faster than monitor lizards do.

The information given, if accurate, provides the strongest support for which of the following hypotheses?

The Arguments says :
-Duckbill dinosaurs and monitor Lizard both have long tail
-Monitor Lizard uses it tail to strike its predators
-Both have tails that are similar, except that Duckbill dinosaurs has thinner and delicate bone in its tail.
-Duckbill dinosaurs have to whip faster than monitor lizards do, to keep away his predator.

We need to infer based on this information given in the argument. Cannot do pre-thinking in this case so using POE


A. If duckbills whipped their tails faster than monitor lizards do, the duckbill's tail would have been effective at warding off the duckbills' fiercest predators.
- Already argument says that Duckbill dinosaurs have to whip their tail faster than monitor lizards do . This is already given in the argument. Nothing is mentioned about how it will be effective to ward off fiercest predator if it whips faster.
so this option is out of scope as it talks about things beyond the scope of information given.Hence Eliminate A

B. Duckbills used their tails to strike predators, and their tailbones were frequently damaged from the impact.
- As given Duckbill dinosaurs have to whip their tail faster than monitor Lizard to ward off their predator. Also is given that their bones in tail were thinner and delicate. But how can we infer that were they frequently damaged. May be their thinner and delicate bone helped they whip faster and made them more flexible. so we cannot just think of one definite inference based on given information as multiple possibilities are there. For inference question we need something definite. So eliminate B

C. Using their tails was not the only means duckbills had for warding off predators.
- This is clearly out of scope, argument does not discuss other means to ward off predators . Eliminate C

D. Duckbills were at much greater risk of being killed by a predator than monitor lizards are.
- This too is clearly out of scope as there is no comparison being made about who is at more risk of being killed by predators. Eliminate D

E. The tails of duckbills, if used to ward off predators, would have been more likely than the tails of monitor lizards to sustain damage from the impact.

-Correct
- It is given that Duckbill dinosaurs have thinner and delicate tail than monitor lizard, so" if "used to ward off predators we can infer that it might get damage.

Ans choice E

Hope it helps!