Recently, a team of scientists digging through a tar pit unearthed a jawbone fossil.

Ok. A fact. They have found something


Initially, the team hypothesized that the jawbone came from a young gomphothere, a now extinct distant relative of the elephant, since the teeth were those of a juvenile.

The scientists thought that the jawbone came from a young animal, a cousin of the elephant and they belonged to a juvenile animal


The gomphothere, however, is known for its large molars, and the teeth on the jawbone would not allow enough room for the molars of an adult gomphothere to fit. Based on this evidence, the scientists conclude that the jawbone fossil provides evidence of a distinct species closely related to the gomphothere.

This is the key sentence to weaken: actually, what it says is that the molars didn't fit in the jawbone. because they must come from an adult animal, not a juvenile

Which of the following, if true, would best provide evidence showing that the conclusion above is possibly flawed?

A. The manner in which teeth grow provides sufficient evidence for the accurate classification of a bygone species.

How the teeth grow is irrelevant

B. In order for the molars of an adult gomphothere to emerge, several juvenile teeth are first forced out of the gums to accommodate the molars.

This is the answer: before we do have the young teeth but then maybe they fall apart to leave space for the molars. So the jawbone is that of a gomphothere.

C. The molars of an adult mastodon, a close relative of the gomphothere, are similar in size to those of an adult gomphothere.


How are the molar of a mastodon is irrelevant

D. Many fossils exist that have yet to be conclusively attributed to any one species.


I do not know what this sentence means but is too general. Say to me nothing

E. The juvenile jawbone of a species related to a gomphothere is longer than the juvenile jawbone of a gomphothere.

This comparison is irrelevant.

The answer is B

Hope this helps.

Regards