Experts have differed about where the genus Varanus (monitor lizards) originated. Because most existing species live in Australia, early researchers concluded that Varanus originated in Australia and subsequently island hopped westward along the Indo-Australian archipelago. Herpetologist Robert Mertens later argued that Varanus probably originated in the archipelago. Chromosomal analysis has since supported Mertens’ contention, and in addition, geologic evidence points to a collision between the archipelago and the Australian landmass after Varanus evolved—a fact that could account for the genus’ present distribution.
A related puzzle for scientists is the present distribution of Varanus’ largest surviving species, the Komodo dragon. These carnivores live only on four small islands in the archipelago where, scientists note, the prey base is too small to support mammalian carnivores. But the Komodo dragon has recently been shown to manage body temperature much more efficiently than do mammalian carnivores, enabling it to survive on about a tenth of the food energy required by a mammalian carnivore of comparable size.
It can be inferred that which of the following is true of the “geologic evidence” ?
A) It was first noted by Mertens as evidence in favor of his theory about the origins of Varanus.
B) It cannot rule out either one of the theories about the origins of Varanus discussed in the passage.
C) It accounts for the present distribution of the Komodo dragon.
D) It has led to renewed interest in the debate over the origins of Varanus.
E) It confirms the conclusions reached by early researchers concerning the origins of Varanus.
To answer this question, I have effectively eliminated every answer except for choice A. In other words, I chose A because the passages states “that Chromosomal analysis has since supported Mertens’ contention, and in addition, geologic evidence points to a collision between the archipelago and the Australian landmass after Varanus evolved—a fact that could account for the genus’ present distribution”. When I rephrase the sentence, I wrote that DNA evidence and geologic collision supported Merten’s hypothesis. I am not sure where I went wrong here and would love some advice.