Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in

Question

Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in warm-blooded species that minimize water loss during breathing. According to some paleobiologists, this implies that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. These paleobiologists must be mistaken, however, for fossil records show that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska, where temperatures drop below freezing.  Only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the researcher's argument by the claim that only warm-blooded animals could survive temperatures below freezing?

(A) It is presented as a potential counterexample to the argument's main conclusion.
(B) It is a premise offered in support of the argument's main conclusion.
(C) It is presented as counterevidence to the paleobiologists' assertion that dinosaurs lack turbinates.
(D) It is the argument's main conclusion.
(E) It is an intermediate conclusion for which the claim that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska is offered as support.

Saurabhminocha · Answer

B imo
Argument's main conclusion is that paleobiologists are wrong in saying dinosaurs were cold blooded. Fossil records are evidence and the bold statement is used as a basis for that conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

Abhishek009 · Answer

Must be (B)

manasveek · Answer

Conclusion of argument is : These paleobiologists must be mistaken.

After Process of elimination, I kept both B and C.

but C says, ' counterevidence  to the paleobiologists' assertion'.

it is not counterevidence as Paleobiologists do not give any evidence in 1st place.
They just declare because of some fact, dinosaurs must be cold blooded.

Only researcher gave us the evidence of finding some species in Alaska and Australia . 
So Final sentence wont serve as a Counter-evidence.
Thus B is winner.

ccdl2 · Answer

Thanks for answering B&C for me. There is no other place with a clear explanation for C.

SALAKSHYA · Answer

I marked B, But i couldn't find any wrong with Option E. Can someone please explain why E is wrong.
Is it due to the word intermediate conclusion? but to me the bold face represent inference from the evidence that fossil records show that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska.

Marcab · Answer

Here is the question:

Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in warm-blooded species that minimize water loss during breathing. According to some paleobiologists, this implies that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. These paleobiologists must be mistaken, however, for fossil records show that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska, where temperatures drop below freezing.  Only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures.
 
Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the researcher's argument by the claim that only warm-blooded animals could survive temperatures below freezing?

(A) It is presented as a potential counterexample to the argument's main conclusion.
(B) It is a premise offered in support of the argument's main conclusion.
(C) It is presented as counterevidence to the paleobiologists' assertion that dinosaurs lack turbinates.
(D) It is the argument's main conclusion.
(E) It is an intermediate conclusion for which the claim that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska is offered as support.

Try to understand logically the below sequence:
Fact 1:Dinosaurs lack turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in warm-blooded species that minimize water loss during breathing.
Fact 2: According to some paleobiologists, this implies that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded.
 These paleobiologists must be mistaken   Who are mistaken?  The paleobiologists who believe that all the dinos were cold-blooded.  Why they are mistaken?  They are mistaken because dinos lack "turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in warm-blooded species that minimize water loss during breathing".
Fact 3: For fossil records show that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska, where temperatures drop below freezing.
Fact 4: Only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures.

If you analyse that the statemement "Paleobiologists must be mistaken" acts as the main conclusion and the Fact 3 and Fact 4 merely supporting this conclusion.

The answer choice E states that the last line of the argument (Only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures.) is an intermediate conclusion for which the claim that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska is offered as support.

Firstly, there is nothing like an intermediate conclusion in this argument. The first half is a set of facts and the second half is merely supporting the main conclusion. 
Hence choice E is wrong.
Tried my bit to help you in eliminating E, not sure if I was successful.
Do let me know if the doubt still persists.

An78w · Answer

I think the answer should be E. 
The main conclusion of the argument is that the paleobiologists (who believe that all the dinos were cold-blooded) must be mistaken. 
To support this, the premise that is given is that 'fossil records show that some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska, where temperatures drop below freezing'.
From this premise,  a conclusion has been drawn that those dinosaurs couldn't have lived in Australia & Alaska if they were cold blooded  .

This conclusion is then acting as an intermediate conclusion for the main conclusion that all dinos were cold blooded.

Pranavsawant · Answer

The bigger problem with C is that the statement " Only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures." is in itself not counterevidence. When you combine it with the existence of dinosaurs in Straya or Alaska could you say that it's a direct counter. But that statement in itself is not counterevidence. Gotta be very dogmatic with such boldface questions. The statement in itself is a premise used to support the conclusion that the paleos are wrong. Hence, B

glagad · Answer

I feel E is wrong because - "some dinosaur species lived in Australia and Alaska" - is not a claim but an evidence, which when combined with the BF statement, adds support to the main conclusion.

I feel BF statement is indeeed IC of the argument, because
a- It supports main conclusion
b - Its a claim and not a fact.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

The structure of the argument:

Paleobiologists’ reasoning:

Dinosaurs lack turbinates. 
 Turbinates are present in warm-blooded species to minimize water loss. 
 Therefore, all dinosaurs were cold-blooded.

Researcher’s objection:

Fossil records show some dinosaurs lived in Australia and Alaska where temperatures drop below freezing. 
 Only warm-blooded animals could survive such temperatures. 
 Therefore, the paleobiologists must be mistaken.

The statement  “Only warm-blooded animals could survive temperatures below freezing”  is a general biological principle used to connect the fossil evidence (dinosaurs in cold climates) to the conclusion that they must have been warm-blooded, thus contradicting the paleobiologists.

That means it’s a premise offered in support of the main conclusion (“These paleobiologists must be mistaken”).

(A)  No, it supports the main conclusion, it doesn’t counter it.

(B)   This is correct

(C)  No, the researcher doesn’t dispute that dinosaurs lack turbinates.

(D)  No, the main conclusion is that the paleobiologists are mistaken.

(E)   No, it’s the other way around: the cold-climate dinosaur fact supports the need for warm-bloodedness, and the warm-bloodedness principle plus that fact supports the main conclusion.

Answer: B

Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates-nasal cavity bone structures in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards