Q12 - Shark teeth are among the

[schwingrocker]

Is D wrong because it gives us a reason why teeth are among the most common vertebrate fossils but does not give us a reason why fossilized shark skeletons are relatively uncommon?

[sumukh09]

I would argue D) doesn't even give us a reason why shark teeth are commonly fossilized. Losing teeth doesn't necessarily mean the teeth are more likely to be fossilized. Also, the use of the weak quantifier "some" is another reason to be wary of this answer choice. But that's almost besides the point since this answer choice doesn't really help resolve the discrepancy as it provides no reconciliation of the two pieces of information in the stimulus. Also, we're not really concerned with "sharks alive today," the sharks mentioned in the stimulus are probably sharks from a while back given that they're talking about fossilization, and "today's" sharks might not share the same characteristics as sharks back in the day.

[tzyc]

I think what confuses me is...skeleton is a part of bone isn't it??
Or do we just accept it as it's true as St/Weaken questions??

Thank you

[rinagoldfield]

Hi TZ!

Here’s the paradox:

How come there are so many shark teeth fossils, and not many shark skeleton fossils?

(A) resolves the paradox. (Per your question, TZ: a skeleton is the armature that supports an organism; it needn’t be made of bone.) (A) tells us why shark skeletons might not have fossilized even when many shark teeth have.

(B) doesn’t explain why few shark skeletons have fossilized.

(C) is tempting, but wrong. It implies that maybe there’s mixup about shark teeth fossils, and that they aren’t as common as we think. But the statement that shark teeth fossils are common is a given. We’re not looking to undermine the premise here.

(D) is also tempting"”but note that it specifically identifies sharks living today as its subject. Irrelevant! The question talks about old shark fossils.

(E) explains the expected rather than the unexpected.

[VendelaG465]

Is E wrong because its stating that the teeth/skeletons are both common which is going against the argument all together?

[ohthatpatrick]

We're not reading an argument here. This is a Paradox question, which we tend to call 'Explain/Resolve' (or, previously, 'Explain a Result').

You're trying to explain this surprising fact.

Shark TEETH are super common as fossils, but shark SKELETONS are very rare as fossils.

There must be something different about teeth vs. skeletons that would explain that asymmetry.
(E) would not help to explain that asymmetry, because it gives us symmetry.

If (E) had said, "The physical/chemical process involved in fossilizing teeth are much more common than those involved in fossilizing skeletons", it would have been a correct answer.