This argument presents us with ambiguous evidence: based on their size and shape, these structures could be melanosomes or bacteria. We want to support the paleontologist's view that they are melanosomes, so we need some new evidence for this view. It might be a reason to suspect that the structures ARE melanosomes, or a reason to think that they are NOT bacteria.
(E) does the latter--it gives us a reason to believe that the structures are not bacteria, so it supports the paleontologist's theory.
(C) and (D) don't do anything to change our situation. (C) just says that there are other feathers with the same kind of structure, but it gives us no further guidance on what the structures are--melanosomes or bacteria--so we're in the same situation as before. (D) supports the idea that such structures *could* be bacteria, but we already knew that. In any case, if this were new information, it would WEAKEN the argument by suggesting that perhaps these structures are also bacteria, not melanosomes.
...
(E) does the latter--it gives us a reason to believe that the structures are not bacteria, so it supports the paleontologist's theory.
(C) and (D) don't do anything to change our situation. (C) just says that there are other feathers with the same kind of structure, but it gives us no further guidance on what the structures are--melanosomes or bacteria--so we're in the same situation as before. (D) supports the idea that such structures *could* be bacteria, but we already knew that. In any case, if this were new information, it would WEAKEN the argument by suggesting that perhaps these structures are also bacteria, not melanosomes.
...
Statistics : Posted by DmitryFarber • on 23 Mar 2024, 09:19 • Replies 7 • Views 1740



.jpg)



