Bunuel
Dolphins can swim at high speeds and achieve high acceleration in the water. In 1936, Sir James Gray calculated the force dolphins should be able to exert based on their physiology.
He concluded that the propulsive force they were able to exert was not enough to explain how fast they swim and accelerate. In the 2000s, experimenters used special computer-enhanced measurements of the water in which dolphins were swimming. Through mathematical modeling, they were able to measure the force dolphins exert with their tails. As it turns out, dolphins exert considerably more force with their tails than Sir James Gray or anybody else ever expected.
Therefore, the force exerted by their tails easily explains how fast they swim and accelerate.In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) This first is a piece of evidence supporting the main conclusion; the second is the main conclusion.
(B) The first is a false conclusion based on an incorrect premise; the second is the revised conclusion drawn from the corrected premise.
(C) The first is an opinion the author seeks to refute; the second is the opinion the author supports.
(D) The first is a prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.
(E) The first is a generally held assumption; the second is a conclusion that violates that assumption.
In 1936, a calculation was done by Sir James Gray on the force exerted by dolphins based on their physiology. The FIRST BF statement
BF1 - the propulsive force that dolphins generated was not sufficient to explain the reasons for their speed. After nearly 7 decades, with advanced technology and equipments they found out that -
BF2 - dolphins exert more force with their tails than ever expected by Sir James Gray. So, it’s clear that both BF1 and BF2 do not contradict each other. And BF2 were upgraded findings compared to BF1.
Let’s see the options and eliminate one by one.
(C) The first is an opinion the author seeks to
refute; the second is the opinion the author supports.
BF1 is not an opinion. But, it is a conclusion based on some scientific research. Moreover, both BF stmts do not contradict. Hence, eliminating option C.
(D) The first is a
prediction that, if accurate, would provide support for the main conclusion of the argument; the second is the main conclusion.
Prediction is made based on a belief or forecast on future events. As per the question stem,
calculations were done and it’s concluded - so eliminating option D
(E) The first is a generally held
assumption; the second is a conclusion that violates that assumption.
There is no assumption made, so out of scope.
let’s see the other two options
(A) This first is a piece of evidence supporting the main conclusion; the second is the main conclusion.
The second BF2 is a new finding.
(B)
The first is a false conclusion based on an incorrect premise; the second is the revised conclusion drawn from the corrected premise.This is the correct answer.
Option B