Ornithologist: the curvature of the claws of the modern tree-dwelling

C is the right answer.



Argument by Ornithologist
Conclusion: Archeopteryx was probably a tree-dwelling bird.
Premise: The curvature of the claws of the modern tree-dwelling birds enables them to perch in trees. The claws of Archeopteryx, the earliest known birdlike creature, show similar curvature that must have enabled the creature to perch on tree limbs.

Argument by Paleontologist
Conclusion: No, the ability to perch in trees is not good evidence that Archeopteryx was a tree-dwelling bird.
Premise: Chickens also spend time perched in trees, yet chickens are primarily ground-dwelling.

The conclusion of the Ornithologist that the Archeopteryx was probably a tree-dwelling bird is based on the premise that modern tree-dwelling birds have have curvature claws similar to those of the Archeopteryx and that since the these curvature claws enable modern tree-dwelling birds to perch in trees, the Archeopteryx was perhaps a tree-dwelling bird. What if there is another bird that has the curvature claws yet this bird is not tree dwelling although they could spend some time in trees? This would certainly weaken the argument of the Ornithologist. The paleontologist cited an example of the chicken, which is a type of bird that spends its time perched in trees, although the chicken is predominatly ground-dwellng. With this evidence, the Paleontologist concludes that the conclusion of the Ornithologist is not properly drawn. So how did the Paleontologist oppose the argument made by the Ornithologist? He cites a parallel example that is contrary to the conclusion of the Ornithologist. From the answer choices, option C states that the Paleontologist uses a parallel case to illustrate a weakness in the Ornithologist's argument. This is in line with the reasoning above, hence C is the right answer.


The Paleontologist did not question the qualifications of the Ornithologist. A is thus incorrect.


The Paleontologist did not deny the truth of the claims the Ornithologist makes in support of the hypothesis. The claim the Ornithologist made in support of the hypothesis is not what the Paleontologist has an issue with but the Paleontologist rather have an issue with the conclusion that the Ornithologist drew from the claim. By citing an example of a bird species that has the same curvature claws similar to those of the tree-dwelling birds yet this bird is ground dwelling although it is capable of dwelling in trees, the Paleonthologist calls into question the conclusion/hypthesis made by the Ornitologist. B is thus incorrect.


This is correct per the reasoning above.


Incorrect since the Paleonthologist did not show that the hypothesis contradicts one of the pieces of evidence used to support it. The Paleonthologist only showed that the hypothesis of the Ornitologist is not water-tight since there not all birds with curvature claws are tree dwelling. D is incorrect.


Incorrect. The evidence provided by the Paleonthologist rather opposes the conclusion drawn by the Ornitologist.