- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat May 14, 2016 12:33 pm
#24813
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
Dr. Libokov proposes a hypothesis for why the tuatara survive near New Zealand and not elsewhere: New Zealand and its nearby islands, unlike elsewhere, have no native land mammals to prey upon the tuatara, allowing it to survive. This suggests that wherever land mammals go, the existing tuatara there die. Dr. Santos states that on New Zealand's nearby islands with non-native recently-introduced land mammals, the tuatara are either extinct or approaching extinction.
This question asks us to identify the relationship between Dr. Santos' argument and that of Dr. Libokov. The facts Dr. Santos cites supports Dr. Libokov's argument. The recent introduction of land mammals on certain islands near New Zealand has led to the extinction of the tuatara there, even though the tuatara survived quite well before the land mammals' introduction. The evidence about New Zealand's nearby islands support the contention that wherever the land mammals go, the tuatara there die out.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not contradict Libokov's argument or otherwise undermine it. Santos is supporting Libokov.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not merely support Libokov's argument without adding anything, he also contributes new evidence in support of it.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not contradict any of Libokov's assertions. Santos' contentions that the tuatara thrive now only on a few islands near New Zealand, and the effects of introducing land mammals on other islands are not incompatible with what Libokov said.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not offer a hypothesis of his own.
Answer choice (E): This the correct answer choice; it is also our pre-phrase.
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
Dr. Libokov proposes a hypothesis for why the tuatara survive near New Zealand and not elsewhere: New Zealand and its nearby islands, unlike elsewhere, have no native land mammals to prey upon the tuatara, allowing it to survive. This suggests that wherever land mammals go, the existing tuatara there die. Dr. Santos states that on New Zealand's nearby islands with non-native recently-introduced land mammals, the tuatara are either extinct or approaching extinction.
This question asks us to identify the relationship between Dr. Santos' argument and that of Dr. Libokov. The facts Dr. Santos cites supports Dr. Libokov's argument. The recent introduction of land mammals on certain islands near New Zealand has led to the extinction of the tuatara there, even though the tuatara survived quite well before the land mammals' introduction. The evidence about New Zealand's nearby islands support the contention that wherever the land mammals go, the tuatara there die out.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not contradict Libokov's argument or otherwise undermine it. Santos is supporting Libokov.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not merely support Libokov's argument without adding anything, he also contributes new evidence in support of it.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not contradict any of Libokov's assertions. Santos' contentions that the tuatara thrive now only on a few islands near New Zealand, and the effects of introducing land mammals on other islands are not incompatible with what Libokov said.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because Santos does not offer a hypothesis of his own.
Answer choice (E): This the correct answer choice; it is also our pre-phrase.