It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow that it could only have been...

Ava on June 10 at 04:26PM

Sufficiency of evidence

Can someone explain the correct answer here? I struggled with the “sufficiency of evidence” clause in it. I would have thought that the passage would have had to say something along the lines of “there’s not enough proof for this claim” but all we get is instead that the claim is “hasty.”

1 Reply

Shunhe on June 14 at 02:32AM

Hi @shafieiava,

Thanks for the question! So think back to what the author is saying. There’s a claim that the T. Rex’s size made it so slow it could’ve only scavenged, not hunted. But the author is saying this is overly hasty, and that at least some of T. Rex’s prey was probably even slower than T. Rex. “Overly hasty” here means what, exactly? That the author’s opponents didn’t consider all available evidence, that they’re missing something, and so they were hasty in their conclusions. And so this is why the author tries to undermine the hypothesis by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence. She’s saying, hey, look, you missed this one fact. The author thinks the claim isn’t fully supported, which can be paraphrased as thinking that the evidence for the claim is lacking, or insufficient.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.