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

shunhe on August 4, 2020

Hi @fable,

Thanks for the question! So (A) tells us that the hypothesis is supposed to be “logically inconsistent” with the conclusion advanced by the argument. And (C) tells us that the hypothesis is just undermined (possibly, because of “attempts”) by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence. And that’s what happens here, because the argument isn’t saying “this hypothesis is definitely wrong because of a logical contradiction.” It’s saying, “Oh, well your inference is too hasty, you’re jumping to conclusions too quickly. And that’s because you’re leaving out this piece of evidence (the evidence is insufficient): the fact that if T. Rex’s prey was even larger than T. Rex, it probably would’ve been even slower.”

A logical inconsistency would have to be like if the hypothesis said “X” and the argument said “actually, ~X.” So like if the hypothesis was “it’s raining” and the conclusion advanced by the conclusion was “it’s not raining.” But that’s not what happens here, and that’s why (A) is wrong and (C) is right.

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