Digital SATReading and Writing: Information and IdeasMedium
A paleontologist is studying fossilized footprints found in a prehistoric riverbed. The tracks show a bipedal creature with three prominent toes and a stride pattern indicating a relatively slow, deliberate gait. Further analysis reveals that the prints are consistently found alongside impressions of large, oval-shaped leaves, suggesting the creature frequented areas with specific vegetation. The paleontologist initially hypothesizes that the creature was an early omnivore that primarily grazed on these plants. Which of the following findings would most significantly weaken the paleontologist's hypothesis?
- AThe riverbed environment suggests a habitat prone to seasonal flooding, which could affect plant growth.
- BThe oval-shaped leaves are discovered to be highly toxic to most known herbivores.
- COther bipedal creatures from the same period are known to have had similar foot structures.
- DChemical analysis of fossilized droppings (coprolites) found near the footprints indicates a diet rich in small invertebrates.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. Chemical analysis of fossilized droppings (coprolites) found near the footprints indicates a diet rich in small invertebrates.
The hypothesis is that the creature was an 'early omnivore that primarily grazed on these plants.' Finding droppings rich in small invertebrates directly contradicts the 'primarily grazed on plants' part of the hypothesis, suggesting a more carnivorous or insectivorous diet.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This relates to the environment's stability, not directly to the creature's diet or omnivorous nature.
- B. While it suggests the creature might not have grazed on *these specific* plants, it doesn't rule out grazing on other plants or being an omnivore. It weakens the 'these plants' part, but not the 'primarily grazed' part as strongly as A.
- C. This concerns foot structure, not diet, and doesn't weaken the hypothesis about what the creature ate.
Weakening Evidence
Information that reduces the credibility or likelihood of a claim, argument, or hypothesis being true.
- Directly challenges a core assumption or conclusion.
- Can introduce alternative explanations.
- Must be relevant to the specific claim being made.
Memory trick: Hypothesis, Contradict, Undermine: Does it 'C'rack the foundation?