PrepTest 148

Incorrect. This argument is specifically about dinosaur tracks found in mud flats, and how dinosaur bones aren't also found there, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Scavengers that ate dinosaur carcasses likely "hunted" in mud flats, so it makes sense that dinosaur bones and dried mud dinosaur tracks aren't found in the same location.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is almost a Paradox question—why aren't dinosaur bones found in the same place as dinosaur tracks? The stimulus provides an answer, but it doesn't explain it—scavengers frequented the mud flats where the dried mud footprints are found. In order for this to work as an explanation, the scavengers have to do something that would move either the tracks or the bones. The former doesn't make much sense (how would you move a footprint in dried mud?), but the latter does—the scavengers might grab the dinosaur carcass and bring it somewhere else to eat, thus explaining why the bones are found in different locations from the footprints.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches our anticipation, explaining how the scavengers could move the dinosaur carcass and thus cause the bones to be found in a different location than the footprints. This strengthens the argument that it's "not surprising" the bones and footprints are found in different locations because of the practices of scavengers.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument offers an explanation for a phenomenon without explaining how it works, any answer that explains the mechanism by which the explanation results in the phenomenon will strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. The relative number of bones found to tracks doesn't help to strengthen an argument about the location of those bones, especially since the argument is based on scavenger practices.

Incorrect. This argument is about tracks and fossils being found in different locations, so other types of fossils are out of scope.

Incorrect. Without connecting the time it takes to mineralize to anything else—prevalence, longevity, durability—and especially without connecting it to location, this answer is out of scope.