In question 7, why is option d incorrect? It says in the beginning of the paragraph that the fossil was discovered in 1994. And later it says that the fossil luckily includes hind legs. So can’t it be inferred that the fossils found before did not have hind legs?
Let us try to weight-in each choice:
(A) Fossil legs of early whales are a rare find.
- The paragraph does not mention that fossil legs of early whales are a rare find. So, we cannot confirm this option from the given paragraph.
(B) The legs provided important information about the evolution of cetaceans.
- This is correct. The paragraph discusses how the structure of the hind legs provides insight into how Ambulocetus natans moved both on land and in water, indicating a link between life on land and at sea.
(C) The discovery allowed scientists to reconstruct a complete skeleton of the whale.
- The paragraph does not mention anything about reconstructing a complete skeleton of the whale. So, this option cannot be confirmed from the given paragraph.
(D) Until that time, only the front legs of early whales had been discovered.
- The paragraph does not provide information that only front legs of early whales had been discovered before this. So, this option cannot be confirmed from the given paragraph.
Therefore, Option (D) is not necessarily incorrect, but it’s not the best answer. The text does not provide information that only front legs of early whales had been discovered before this. The term “luckily” is used more in the context of how valuable the information from the hind legs was for understanding cetacean evolution, rather than implying that hind legs had never been found before. Therefore, while your inference isn’t wrong, it’s not the strongest answer based on the information given in the text.
Hi
I do not know how A is supposed to be eliminated. There is conclusive evidence stating A is correct:
- (Paragraph 3 - Line 1) – “…archaeocyte, an extinct group of ancestors of modern cetaceans.” - Archaeocyte is an extinct ancestor of modern cetaceans.
- (Paragraph 4 - Line 4) – “Many incomplete skeletons were found but they included, for the first time in an archaeoctye, a complete hind leg that features a foot with three tiny toes” - Complete hind leg fossils were rare for archaeocytes.
The sentence itself: “The fossil luckily includes a good portion of the hind legs”
From these two evidences - I can cleary make a case that there was a serious lack of fossilized legs.
Also, I understand that C makes sense but why would it be “lucky” for the fossil to show that Ambulocetans natans moved both on land and in water? I know I’m crossing the borders of paragraph, but both Pakicetus and Basilosaurus also provided significant information in the same way.
I will eliminate A based on :
The text doesn’t explicitly state that finding fossil legs of early whales is rare, but it does detail the functional insights provided by the hind legs of Ambulocetus natans, like its locomotion and habitat.
The focus following the “luckily” statement is more on the valuable evolutionary information derived from the hind legs rather than the infrequency of such finds.
While there is mention of the significance of finding hind legs in the context of Basilosaurus, it is not sufficiently generalized across early whale fossils to substantiate a claim of overall rarity.
That makes sense.Thank you.
Would you suggest a scope that is limited to the same paragraph when searching for evidences in author’s purpose question type?