When the ancient fossils of a primitive land mammal were unearthed in New Zealand, they provided the first concrete e...

Arash on September 4, 2014

Plz Explain.

Why Doesn't C work?

1 Reply

Melody on October 1, 2014

The conclusion of the argument is that the discovery "falsifies the theory that New Zealand's rich and varied native bird population owes its existence to the lack of competition from mammals."

Why? Because before the ancient fossils of a primitive land mammal were unearthed, it was believed that no known native land mammals existed. However, the recent discovery has provided the first concrete evidence that the island country had once had indigenous land mammals.

Answer choice (C) states: "The site at which the primitive land mammal was unearthed also contains the fossils of primitive reptile and insect species."

This is irrelevant to the argument. Whether or not reptiles and insects exist has no bearing on the validity of whether New Zealand's rich and varied native bird population owes its existence to the lack of competition from mammals. So this answer does not weaken the argument.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.