The distance that animals travel each day and the size of the groups in which they live are highly correlated with th...

Irina on September 19, 2019

@farnoushsalimian,

The argument tells that the distance that animals travel each day and the size of the groups in which they live are highly correlated with their diets. And diet itself depends in large part on the sizes and shapes of animal's teeth and faces. We can infer that distance / size of groups depends on sizes and shapes of animal's teeth and faces.

The question then asks us the statements provide the most support for which of the following.

(A) says animals that eat meat ravel in small groups and across relatively small ranges compared to animals that eat plants. The issue with (A) is that the argument never specifies how distance traveled/ size of the groups are correlated with the diet, does the argument ever tell us that plant-based diets correlate with a large group size? Or that carnivore diet correlate with small range? No, as far as we know, it could be the opposite. The argument never gives us any specifics, hence (A) is an unwarranted inference.

(E) says information about the size and shape of an extinct animal's teeth and face can establish whether that animal is likely to have been a herd animal. The passage tells us that size/ shape of the animal's teeth/ face can tell us about the animal's diet, and the diet can tell us about the size of groups and the distance traveled. We can thus conclude that by looking at the size and shape of extinct animal's teeth, one can establish whether an animal is a herbivore or a carnivore, i.e. diet, and from diet, we can establish whether an animal lived in a large group (herd animal). (E) is a proper inference from the facts in the stimulus, and is, therefore, correct.

Let me know if you have any further questions.