Question

Difficulty: HardDistinguishing Claims from Evidence

Passage

For decades, evolutionary biologists debated whether flight or echolocation developed first in the evolutionary history of bats (Chiroptera). The discovery of *Onychonycteris finneyi*, a primitive fossil bat dating back fifty-two million years, provided key insights. The fossil possesses well-developed wings and a skeletal structure indicative of strong flight capabilities, yet its cochlea is small and lacks the specialized features seen in modern echolocating bats. Researchers argue that flight preceded the ability to echolocate, suggesting that ancestral bats first evolved as aerial insectivores relying on vision and olfaction. Opponents of this flight-first hypothesis claim that the fossil’s skull structure is too damaged to definitively rule out proto-echolocation, arguing instead that both traits must have evolved concurrently due to the high metabolic cost of flight without sensory tracking. However, micro-CT scans of the fossil's basicranium reveal no expansion of the auditory chambers, supporting the assertion that *Onychonycteris* could not process high-frequency signals. Consequently, the prevailing consensus suggests that flight served as the evolutionary precursor to echolocation, allowing these mammals to first inhabit the night skies before refining their sensory apparatus.

Question

Read the passage above, then match each claim made by the researchers or their opponents on the left with the specific evidence or reasoning used in the text to support that claim on the right.

  • Ancestral bats developed flight capabilities prior to evolving echolocation.A ancient fossil specimen exhibiting fully developed wings but small, unspecialized ear structures.
  • Flight and echolocation must have evolved concurrently rather than sequentially.The high metabolic cost associated with flying without a precise system for sensory tracking.
  • The fossil bat species *Onychonycteris finneyi* lacked the capacity to detect high-frequency signals.Micro-CT scan data showing that the fossil's basicranium has unexpanded auditory chambers.

Answer

The claim that flight preceded echolocation matches the evidence of a fossil showing developed wings but unspecialized ear bones. The claim that flight and echolocation must have evolved concurrently matches the reasoning regarding the high metabolic costs of flying without sensory tracking. The claim that the fossil bat could not process high-frequency signals matches the micro-CT scans showing unexpanded auditory chambers.
The correct matches align each specific claim in the passage with its direct observational or logical support. The evolutionary priority of flight over echolocation is supported by the fossil's physical combination of flight-ready wings and unspecialized ear bones. The argument for concurrent evolution is supported by the metabolic cost of untracked flight. The assertion that the bat could not hear high-frequency signals is supported by the basicranium scans showing unexpanded chambers.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the primary claims presented in the text.
The passage outlines three distinct claims: (1) that flight preceded echolocation, (2) that flight and echolocation evolved concurrently, and (3) that the fossil species was unable to process high-frequency signals.
This establishes the targets that require supporting evidence from the text.
2
Scan the text for the specific scientific evidence or arguments used to support the first claim.
The claim that flight preceded echolocation is supported by the physical anatomy of the *Onychonycteris finneyi* fossil, which has developed wings but small, unspecialized ear bones.
Connecting the claim to its observational support distinguishes it from other findings.
3
Scan the text for the specific support associated with the concurrent evolution claim.
The claim of concurrent evolution is supported by opponents' reasoning regarding the high metabolic cost of flying without sensory tracking.
Connecting the opponents' claim to their theoretical support helps differentiate it from biological observations.
4
Scan the text for the specific support associated with the auditory capacity claim.
The claim that the fossil species could not process high-frequency signals is supported by micro-CT scans of the fossil's basicranium showing no expansion of the auditory chambers.
This links the final claim to its corresponding empirical data.

Key Concept

Distinguishing Claims from Evidence
Rate this question