Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumCross-Text Connections: Perspective Comparison

Text 1
Many paleontologists have traditionally posited that sauropod dinosaurs swallowed stones (gastroliths) primarily to aid in grinding tough plant matter in their digestive tracts, analogous to modern gizzard-bearing birds. Proponents of this gastric-mill hypothesis point to polished stones found in close association with sauropod rib cages as evidence that these giants relied on mechanical breakdown to process their enormous fiber intake.

Text 2
Wings and colleagues analyzed the distribution and texture of stones associated with sauropod fossils and compared them to those of modern ostriches. They found that the relative mass of suspected gastroliths in sauropods was less than 0.1% of their body mass, whereas in ostriches, it constitutes roughly 1%. The researchers also noted that many sauropod stones lack the intensive surface wear characteristic of avian gizzard stones. Consequently, they argue that these stones were likely ingested accidentally or served a non-digestive role, such as buoyancy control or mineral absorption.

Based on the texts, how would Wings and colleagues (Text 2) most likely characterize the gastric-mill hypothesis discussed in Text 1?

  1. A
    As a plausible theory that is nonetheless limited by its focus on modern ostrich biology.
  2. B
    As a premise that fails to account for the enormous amount of fiber sauropods consumed.
  3. As an explanation that is unsupported by the physical characteristics and relative mass of the stones found with sauropod fossils.Answer
  4. D
    As a concept that correctly identifies buoyancy control as the primary function of gastroliths.

Answer

The correct answer is that the gastric-mill hypothesis is unsupported by the physical characteristics and relative mass of the stones found with sauropod fossils.
The correct answer is supported by Text 2, which provides physical and quantitative evidence—namely, that the stones are a fraction of the mass of bird gizzard stones and lack typical grinding wear—to argue that the gastric-mill hypothesis in Text 1 is unsupported by the fossil record.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the core assertion of the gastric-mill hypothesis in Text 1.
The hypothesis posits that sauropods swallowed stones to mechanically grind plant matter in their digestive tracts.
Defining the premise of the hypothesis is necessary to evaluate the response of the authors of Text 2.
2
Analyze the findings presented by Wings and colleagues in Text 2.
They found that the relative mass of sauropod stones was much smaller than that of ostriches (less than 0.1% vs. 1%) and that the stones lacked the wear typical of gizzard stones.
This physical evidence forms the basis of their critique of the gastric-mill hypothesis.
3
Synthesize the relationship between the two texts to determine the perspective of the authors of Text 2.
Because the physical evidence (wear and mass) does not align with stones used for digestion, the authors of Text 2 would characterize the hypothesis as unsupported by the evidence.
This step directly answers the prompt's question about perspective comparison.

Key Concept

Cross-Text Connections: Perspective Comparison
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Cross-Text Connections: Perspective Comparison

More questions from this topic