Question

Difficulty: Very hardShared Details and Specific Information

The following passages were adapted from articles discussing the history of geological science.

Passage A
In the early twentieth century, the notion that Earth’s continents were fixed and immovable was a foundational tenet of geology, deeply embedded in the scientific consensus of the era. Thus, when meteorologist Alfred Wegener proposed the theory of continental drift in 1912, he was met with fierce, nearly universal resistance. To support his radical claim, Wegener marshaled an impressive array of empirical evidence: identical fossil distributions of the prehistoric reptile *Mesosaurus* found exclusively along the distinct coastlines of South America and Africa, as well as matching geological formations and glacial striations separated by the vast Atlantic Ocean. However, despite the elegance of his observational data, his hypothesis suffered from what was considered a fatal physical flaw. Wegener suggested that centrifugal force derived from Earth’s rotation caused the continents to literally plow through the rigid oceanic crust. Physicists and geologists quickly demonstrated mathematically that these rotational forces were vastly insufficient to move continents, leading the broader scientific community to dismiss his theory entirely. The prevailing consensus stubbornly remained that speculative sunken land bridges, rather than drifting landmasses, accounted for the peculiar transoceanic fossil similarities. For decades, continental drift was marginalized, treated by academia as a cautionary tale of unbridled speculation outpacing physical constraints. Prominent critics argued that allowing such a mechanically unsound theory to gain traction would undermine the rigorous, quantitative standards that geology was striving to establish as a modern science. Consequently, Wegener's meticulous cataloging of biological and geological correlations was largely ignored in favor of physically plausible, albeit ad hoc, explanations.

Passage B
The dramatic transition from the widespread rejection of continental drift to the universal acceptance of plate tectonics elegantly illustrates how new technological capabilities can override entrenched theoretical dogma. While early proponents of moving landmasses relied heavily on paleontological and climatological anomalies to build their case, it was ultimately the advent of advanced sonar mapping and sophisticated radiometric dating post-World War II that catalyzed a true scientific paradigm shift. By the 1960s, oceanographers discovering magnetic striping on the ocean floor provided the definitive physical mechanism that earlier theorists had conspicuously lacked: seafloor spreading driven by immense thermal convection currents within the Earth's mantle. Interestingly, while the original proponents of drift were routinely ridiculed by their contemporaries for lacking a viable physical mechanism to explain continental motion, their core observational data regarding matching fossil records across disparate oceans was remarkably accurate and forward-thinking. Today, modern plate tectonic theory not only vindicates the fundamental, once-heretical assertion that continents move, but it also provides a robust, comprehensive geophysical framework. By modeling rigid lithospheric plates gliding over a ductile asthenosphere, contemporary geology seamlessly integrates the historical biological evidence with continuously measurable tectonic forces, transforming an isolated hypothesis into a unifying scientific principle. Furthermore, modern satellite measurements can now track tectonic plate movements down to the millimeter per year, offering real-time confirmation of what early theorists could only deduce from ancient rocks. The vindication of continental movement serves as a powerful reminder that observational data should not be hastily discarded merely because the theoretical apparatus of the time cannot yet accommodate it.

Based on the passages, classify each of the following factual details according to whether it is explicitly affirmed in Passage A only, Passage B only, both passages, or neither passage.

  • The initial hypothesis of moving landmasses was rejected because it lacked a driving mechanism deemed physically plausible by contemporaries.Affirmed in Both Passages
  • Prior to tectonic theory, the scientific establishment attributed transatlantic biological correlations to terrestrial pathways that are now submerged.Affirmed in Passage A only
  • Modern analytical tools revealed that the original paleontological evidence cited by early continental drift theorists was fundamentally flawed.Affirmed in Neither Passage
  • Contemporary scientific frameworks successfully synthesize historical paleontological anomalies with currently measurable lithospheric movements.Affirmed in Passage B only

Answer

The correct classifications are: The detail about the rejected driving mechanism is affirmed in Both Passages. The detail about submerged terrestrial pathways is affirmed in Passage A only. The detail about flawed paleontological evidence is affirmed in Neither Passage. The detail about contemporary frameworks synthesizing data is affirmed in Passage B only.
Each statement must be rigorously cross-referenced against the text of both passages. A detail is only 'shared' if it is explicitly affirmed by both authors, whereas it belongs to a single passage if the other author omits it or only tangentially relates to the concept without explicitly stating it.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the first detail regarding the rejection of early theories due to a lack of a plausible driving mechanism.
Passage A attributes the rejection to the 'fatal physical flaw' of insufficient centrifugal forces. Passage B notes theorists were 'ridiculed... for lacking a viable physical mechanism.'
This establishes that the detail is shared by both authors.
2
Analyze the second detail concerning the attribution of biological correlations to submerged terrestrial pathways.
Passage A explicitly mentions 'sunken land bridges' accounting for fossil similarities. Passage B mentions 'entrenched theoretical dogma' but never identifies land bridges.
This confirms the detail is unique to Passage A.
3
Evaluate the third detail claiming early paleontological evidence was flawed.
Passage A praises Wegener's 'meticulous cataloging,' and Passage B calls the observational data 'remarkably accurate.'
Because both authors validate rather than critique the early evidence, this detail is found in neither passage.
4
Examine the fourth detail about contemporary frameworks synthesizing historical anomalies with measurable movements.
Passage B states modern plate tectonic theory 'integrates the historical biological evidence with continuously measurable tectonic forces.' Passage A does not discuss modern tectonic frameworks.
This demonstrates the detail is exclusive to Passage B.

Key Concept

Shared Details and Specific Information
Rate this question