16Hit 1600
Information and IdeasHardInference about soft-bodied fossils

Information and Ideas practice question

Shells and bones fossilize readily; soft tissue almost never does. At a handful of sites such as the Burgess Shale, though, rapid burial in fine mud preserved impressions of entirely soft creatures — and at those sites, soft-bodied animals outnumber shelled ones by a wide margin. Paleontologists treat such sites as invaluable because they suggest that ____

Which choice most logically completes the text?

  1. A. the ordinary fossil record greatly understates how much of ancient life had no hard parts.Correct
  2. B. soft-bodied animals were rare during most of Earth's history.
  3. C. paleontologists have little interest in sites like the Burgess Shale.
  4. D. hard-shelled animals evolved before soft-bodied ones.

Answer: A. the ordinary fossil record greatly understates how much of ancient life had no hard parts.

If soft-bodied creatures dominate wherever conditions preserved them, their near-absence elsewhere reflects what fossilizes, not what lived — so the ordinary record understates them.

Why the other answers are wrong

B. soft-bodied animals were rare during most of Earth's history.
The exceptional sites show the opposite: where preservation allows, soft-bodied animals are the majority.
C. paleontologists have little interest in sites like the Burgess Shale.
The text calls such sites invaluable, which signals strong interest.
D. hard-shelled animals evolved before soft-bodied ones.
The text says nothing about which body type evolved first.

More Information and Ideas questions

Not affiliated with the College Board. SAT is a trademark of the College Board.