The ancient reptile Thrinaxodon, an ancestor of mammals, had skull features suggesting that it had sensory whiskers. ...

Andrew on October 6, 2022

Why is the statement in the question stem not a subsidiary conclusion?

From the evidence of whiskers which I understand is a premise, it seems like they conclude that this animal must've had fur. From that, the author then concludes this animal its warm-blooded. How do I know that it's a premise and not a subsidiary conclusion? This is the reasoning that led me to answer choice C.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil on October 19, 2022


This all hinges on the word if. The statement in question is not saying that since the animal had whiskers, it must also have had hair. Rather, it is setting up a conditional rule that if w ->h. That conditional is not supported by anything,