Text 1A tiny, unusual fossil in a piece of 99-million-year-old amber is of the extinct species Oculudentavis khaungraae. The O....
GMAT Craft and Structure : (Structure) Questions
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?
It is understandable because the fossil does look like it could be related to birds, even though O. khaungraae is probably a lizard.
It is confusing because it isn't clear what caused the researchers to think that O. khaungraae might be related to birds.
It is flawed because the researchers mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard.
It is reasonable because the O. khaungraae skull is about the same size as the skull of the second fossil but is shaped differently.
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 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." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: Scientists initially classified unusual fossils as bird-related based on skull appearance, but later detailed studies revealed they were actually lizards.
Argument Flow: Text 1 presents the initial discovery and bird-based interpretation. Text 2 introduces additional evidence that led to a revised understanding, showing how scientific conclusions can evolve with more comprehensive research while acknowledging why the initial assessment was reasonable.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
Now that we understand the passage, let me nail down exactly what the question wants from us.
What is being asked? We need to determine what the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say about the researchers' initial thought from Text 1.
What type of answer do we need? We need to find the response that best represents the Text 2 paleontologists' likely perspective on the Text 1 researchers' initial bird-related assessment.
Any limiting keywords? "Most likely" indicates we need the most probable response, and we are specifically looking at the cross-text relationship between the two groups' viewpoints.
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
Let me first think about what the right answer should tell us:
The Text 2 paleontologists discovered through detailed studies that the fossils were probably lizards, not birds. However, they explicitly acknowledge that "the skulls looked avian at first." This suggests they understand why the initial researchers reached their bird-related conclusion. The right answer should reflect this understanding - that the initial assessment was reasonable given the appearance, even though it turned out to be incorrect with more evidence.
So the right answer should show that the Text 2 paleontologists view the initial thought as understandable or reasonable given what was visible, while acknowledging the updated conclusion.
It is understandable because the fossil does look like it could be related to birds, even though O. khaungraae is probably a lizard.
- This perfectly matches the Text 2 paleontologists' perspective
- They acknowledge the fossil "does look like it could be related to birds" (matches "looked avian at first")
- They recognize the updated conclusion that "O. khaungraae is probably a lizard"
- The word "understandable" captures their acknowledgment of why the initial assessment made sense
It is confusing because it isn't clear what caused the researchers to think that O. khaungraae might be related to birds.
- Claims the paleontologists would find it "confusing" why researchers thought it was bird-related
- Text 1 clearly explains the bird-like features that led to this conclusion
- Text 2 paleontologists acknowledge these features "looked avian," so they would not find the reasoning unclear
It is flawed because the researchers mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard.
- States the researchers "mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard"
- This is backwards - the researchers initially thought it was bird-related, not lizard-related
- What trap this represents: Confusing which group reached which conclusion
It is reasonable because the O. khaungraae skull is about the same size as the skull of the second fossil but is shaped differently.
- Focuses on size and shape comparisons between the two fossils
- Neither text discusses size comparisons or different skull shapes between the fossils
- Misses the actual point about appearance-based reasoning