For question #24, I chose “I. Repeated attacks…” because in the passage, it says “some predators had attacked…” in the second para and the line in the third para where it says “…would have required more than three weeks.” and so I thought “some” can include at least one if not multiple predators and if the predator attacks within the three-week recovery period, the dinosaur is probably vulnerable. What is wrong with this line of thinking? Thanks!
“a single adversary” is the problem. This isn’t supported by pgh 2, and there is nothing about it in pgh 3. Where you’re going wrong is thinking to yourself “it could be true that given the 3 weeks, a single adversary could hurt the big fella”. “Could be” is wrong - we need “must be”. An inference should feel like common sense; silly to argue against.
1 Like