Bunuel wrote:
Paleobiologists frequently turn to studying organisms that are believed to have evolved very little since the prehistoric era, such as the platypus and the crocodile, to learn about prehistoric life. Such animals are often called “living fossils”. However, this strategy is flawed; any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution since the prehistoric era.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the criticism made above of the paleobiologists’ strategy?
A. Many paleobiologists who study contemporary “living fossils” do not extrapolate information about prehistoric organisms from what they learn through their studies.
B. Most prehistoric organisms either went extinct or evolved into radically different forms.
C. All paleobiologists study one or the other kind of modern organism.
D. All “living fossils” continue to share important features with prehistoric organisms, features absent in other, contemporary organisms.
E. Even those organisms that have evolved very little since the prehistoric era are essentially different from the prehistoric organisms.
Explanation:
Mind-map: “Living fossils” are organisms that are believed to have evolved very little since prehistoric era -> paleobiologists study “living fossils” to learn about prehistoric life -> any organism alive today has had a significant impact of evolution -> paleobiologists’ strategy is flawed (conclusion)
Missing-link: Between any organism alive today having had a significant impact of evolution and the conclusion that paleobiologists’ strategy is flawed
Expectation from the correct answer choice: To suggest that paleobiologists’ strategy to study “living fossils” may be useful to learn about prehistoric life
A. Trap. The argument is concerned with whether paleobiologists studying “living fossils” can actually learn about prehistoric life; so,
whether many paleobiologists draw any interference from their studies is just additional information and does not weaken the argument. Further, “many paleobiologists” refers to only a part of all paleobiologists and is thus
limited in scope. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.
B. This answer choice, suggesting what happened to prehistoric organisms,
provides no information about the strategy of studying “living fossils” to learn about prehistoric life; so, this answer choice is
just a statement of fact and has no bearing on the argument. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.
C. This answer choice, suggesting what paleobiologists do,
provides no information about the strategy of studying “living fossils” to learn about prehistoric life; so, this answer choice is
just additional information and has no bearing on the argument. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.
D. Correct. This answer choice, suggesting that “living fossils” do share important features with prehistoric organisms, when such features are absent in other, contemporary organisms, indicates that
such features are peculiar, common characteristics of both “living fossils” today and prehistoric organisms and that
paleobiologists studying “living fossils” can actually learn about prehistoric life; hence, this answer choice indicates that the paleobiologists’ strategy is not flawed, thus weakening the conclusion. Because this answer choice weakens the conclusion, this answer choice is correct.
E. Trap. This answer choice, by suggesting that even “very little” evolution makes today’s organisms “essentially different” from the prehistoric organisms, indicates that
paleobiologists studying “living fossils” may not actually learn about prehistoric life, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, the conclusion. Because this answer choice does not weaken the conclusion, this answer choice is incorrect.
D is the best choice.
_________________