Question

eliminate the choices that you know are wrong and narrow it down. once youve eliminated all the choices you know are wrong, go ahead and guess one of the remaining choices—theres no penalty for guessing.

try it!
can you use any of the top tips above on these two examples? try it yourself first, then click show explanation to see how we do it!

example

text 1
a tiny, unusual fossil in a piece of 99 - million - year - old amber is of the extinct species oculudentavis khaungraae. the o. khaungraae fossil consists of a rounded skull with a thin snout and a large eye socket. because these features look like they are avian, or related to birds, researchers initially thought that the fossil might be the smallest avian dinosaur ever found.

text 2
paleontologists were excited to discover a second small fossil that is similar to the strange o. khaungraae fossil but has part of the lower body along with a birdlike skull. detailed studies of both fossils revealed several traits that are found in lizards but not in dinosaurs or birds. therefore, paleontologists think the two creatures were probably unusual lizards, even though the skulls looked avian at first.

based on the texts, what would the paleontologists in text 2 most likely say about the researchers initial thought in text 1?

choose 1 answer:
a it is understandable because the fossil does look like it could be related to birds, even though o. khaungraae is probably a lizard.
b it is confusing because it isnt clear what caused the researchers to think that o. khaungraae might be related to birds.
c it is flawed because the researchers mistakenly assumed that o. khaungraae must be a lizard.
d it is reasonable because the o. khaungraae skull is about the same size as the skull of the second fossil but is shaped differently.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Option A: Text 2 says the fossil (O. khaungraae) is probably a lizard but its skull looks avian. So the initial thought (it might be an avian dinosaur) is understandable because the skull did look bird - related. This matches the reasoning.
• Option B: Text 1 clearly states the reason (skull features look avian) so it's not confusing. Eliminate B.
• Option C: The researchers in Text 1 didn't assume it was a lizard; they thought it was an avian dinosaur. So C is incorrect.
• Option D: Text 2's conclusion is about the creature being a lizard, not about skull size/shape comparison for the initial thought. Eliminate D.

Answer:

A. It is understandable because the fossil does look like it could be related to birds, even though O. khaungraae is probably a lizard.