Q12 - Some biologists believe that

[wj097]

I could not find the conclusion with in the statement though getting the correct answer for this q doesn't require it after all.

Nevertheless, what would be the conclusion?

Thx

[tommywallach]

Hey Wjo,

Conclusions should always be opinions, so look for the sign of something opinionated. In this case: "Other biologists rightly reject this suggestion..."

See the clue? That word "rightly" signals the opinion of the author.

Conclusion: The capacity for flight DID NOT first develop in marine reptiles.

Premise: Bats have no scales and nonmarine reptiles also have scales.

(A) Perfect.
(B) Land-dwelling stuff comes later.
(C) Tree-dwelling stuff comes later.
(D) See (C)
(E) It doesn't corroborate that. It is that!

Hope that makes sense!

-t

[csunnerberg13]

I'm just wondering what role the rest of the paragraph plays in the argument - From "Those who believe that flight first developed..." to the end. It wasn't necessary to figure this question out but it doesn't seem like background info either

[foralexpark]

I agree with you.

The first half of the stimulus talks about:
a) marines reptiles w/ scales
b) non-marine animals (bats) and reptiles

2nd half talks about:
c) tree-dwelling reptiles
d) land-dwelling reptiles

To further our discussion, both a & b are part of neither c or d.

also, first half talks about CAPACITY for flight whereas the latter half talks about actual FLIGHT

[tommywallach]

Hey Guys,

Great add-on discussion here. Indeed, my description of the CORE broke down this argument into the part that's relevant for choosing the answer, so I left out the last two sentences. However, you could make a good case that the other two sentences are still premises, because they take the argument even further from the possibility that flight developed in marine reptiles (because the argument is now between the land-dwelling and the tree-dwelling proponents, both of whom would agree that flight didn't come from marine reptiles).

Hope that helps!

-t