hard · Gre Verbal

Passage: The discovery of soft tissue in certain dinosaur fossils was initially met with disbelief, since organic material was assumed to degrade within, at most, a few hundred thousand years. Rather than concluding that the fossils were far younger than their geological context implied—a claim seized upon by some outside the field—paleontologists asked instead whether the assumption about degradation might be incomplete. Subsequent work identified plausible preservation mechanisms: iron liberated from decaying blood cells, they proposed, could cross-link proteins into a more durable form, and a fossil sealed from oxygen and microbes might escape the usual pathways of decay. The episode illustrates a recurring pattern in science, in which an anomalous observation is more fruitfully treated as a gap in a background assumption than as an overthrow of a well-supported framework. With which of the following statements would the author most likely agree? (A) The presence of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils shows that the fossils are much younger than previously believed. (B) A surprising observation should generally be taken as grounds to discard the broader theory it appears to contradict. (C) An unexpected finding is often better explained by revising a secondary assumption than by abandoning a well-established framework. (D) The assumption that organic tissue degrades within a few hundred thousand years has been shown to be entirely correct. (E) Paleontologists should have accepted the claim, made by some outside the field, that the fossils were recent.

1. The presence of well-preserved soft tissue in dinosaur fossils shows that the fossils are much younger than previously believed.
2. A surprising observation should quite generally be taken as sufficient grounds to discard the broader theory it appears to contradict.
3. An unexpected finding is often better explained by revising a secondary assumption than by abandoning a well-established framework.
4. The assumption that fragile organic tissue inevitably degrades within a few hundred thousand years has now been shown to be entirely correct.
5. Paleontologists should have accepted the sensational claim, made by some outside the field, that the fossils were recent.

Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →