MrudulaL
GMATNinja can you pls explain why option C is incorrect
The author concludes that the asteroid "was probably not responsible for most [dinosaur] extinctions" at the time of its impact.
He/she reaches this conclusion by saying that "there is little evidence that such a strike could have a
worldwide effect" -- so, even if the asteroid killed off a bunch of dinosaurs in the immediate area of the impact, how can we say that it was responsible for dinos dying in other areas of the globe?
The question asks us to weaken the argument. Here's (C):
Quote:
(C) Fossils have been discovered of a number of dinosaurs that clearly died as a result of the asteroid impact that produced the Chicxulub crater.
The author thinks it's totally reasonable that the asteroid killed off dinosaurs
near the impact site. He/she just doesn't think that we can blame the asteroid for "most" of the dino deaths, because there's no evidence that the asteroid would kill off dinos
far away from the impact.
(C) tells us that "
a number of dinosaurs that clearly died as a result of the asteroid impact" -- but it doesn't tell us
where these dinosaurs are. If they were close to the impact area, then (C) would not impact the author's argument at all. If they were really far away, then (C) would provide a nice counterpoint to the argument. But again, we just don't know where the fossils were found.
Because (C) doesn't tell us the location of the fossils, it doesn't weaken the argument.
(C) is out.
Here's (E):
Quote:
(E) During the period immediately before the asteroid that produced the Chicxulub crater struck, most of the world’s dinosaurs lived in or near the region of the asteroid’s impending impact.
Bingo. The author doesn't think we can say that "most" of the dinosaurs died because of the asteroid. But what if most of the dinos lived really close to the impact zone? That would kill the author's reasoning.
(D) is the correct answer.
I hope that helps!