Q16 - Researcher: Dinosaurs lack turbinates

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Dinosaurs are awesome.

The author starts with a fact about dinosaurs. She then pivots to what "some paleobiologists" believe, so I'm expecting her to disagree with them. She does in the next statement ("however" pivot), bringing up a premise about Australia and Alaska. The last statement (the one being asked about) explains why the Australia/Alaska information is relevant.

Answer Anticipation:
I'm expecting the answer to be phrased in a complicated and abstract manner. However, it's definitely a premise, and it's definitely a part of the author's argument and not the counterpoint. Even if you couldn't follow the details of the argument, the structure has this piece of information in the author's section, and it's not a conclusion.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If you didn't understand the content of the argument, you might have been tempted to pick this, not understanding the relevance of the last statement. However, since the last statement is in the section of the argument where the author is making her point, so it can't be a counterexample.

(B) Wow, this answer is much clearer than I was expecting. I'd probably think this was too straightforward to be correct, so I'd defer, but it is a part of the author's argument, and it is a premise, so this answer looks correct.

(C) No one contends that dinosaurs have turbinates - that's introduced as a background fact.

(D) The last statement doesn't have support, so it can't be a conclusion. Additionally, this argument follows the common argument pattern (Counterpoint → Conclusion/author's opinion of counterpoint → Support), so this answer should have been an easier elimination.

(E) Another tempting answer if you were a bit lost in the content. If the last statement is an intermediate conclusion, then the preceding statement would need to serve as support for it. However, that statement is about dinosaurs and temperatures, so it doesn't support a statement about warm-blooded animals - this last statement must be a premise that adds on to the preceding statement.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Complicated content. However, noticing it's a premise in the author's argument narrows it down a bit. Also, don't be afraid of an answer that's basic - they may be trying to trap you by using basic language to make you think the answer is wrong!

#officialexplanation

[LukeM22]

Quick question about the stimulus itself (as opposed to the entire question); I ask this question because I've noticed a similar type of stimulus in ID the disagreement questinos:

1) "According to some paleobiologists, this implies that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded": do we infer the paleobiologists "argument/claim" as:

a) Paleobiologists believe dinosaurs are cold-blooded

b) Paleobiologists believe that lacking turbinates can allow one to necessarily conclude cold-bloodedness

While I realize that B implies A, I just bring this up because if it is B, it is possible to attack the paleobiologists argument without actually stating an opinion on whether or not dinosaurs are cold blooded.

[ohthatpatrick]

It looks like it could potentially go either way, until we read the author's evidence.

Saying the P's are mistaken, with nothing else to go on, would leave us wondering whether the author was debating the claim "All dinos were cold blooded" or whether the author was debating that "lack of turbinates implies cold blooded".

As we can see from the evidence that follows, in this case the author was objecting to the claim, not to the logic.