Question 36·Hard·Command of Evidence
Estimates of Tyrannosaurid Bite Force
| Study | Year | Estimation method | Approximate bite force (newtons) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost et al. | 2019 | muscular and skeletal modeling | 35,000–63,000 |
| Gignac and Erickson | 2017 | tooth-bone interaction analysis | 8,000–34,000 |
| Meers | 2002 | body-mass scaling | 183,000–235,000 |
| Bates and Falkingham | 2012 | muscular and skeletal modeling | 35,000–57,000 |
The largest tyrannosaurids—the family of carnivorous dinosaurs that includes Tarbosaurus, Albertosaurus, and, most famously, Tyrannosaurus rex—are thought to have had the strongest bites of any land animals in Earth’s history. Determining the bite force of extinct animals can be difficult, however, and paleontologists Paul Barrett and Emily Rayfield have suggested that an estimate of dinosaur bite force may be significantly influenced by the methodology used in generating that estimate.
Which choice best describes data from the table that support Barrett and Rayfield’s suggestion?
For SAT data-support questions like this, first restate the author’s claim in your own words (here: “method type strongly affects the estimate”). Then scan the chart or table specifically looking for patterns that relate to that claim—often by grouping rows with the same category (such as method) and comparing their numbers. Once you see the pattern, test each answer choice by asking, “Does this summarize the relevant pattern and directly support the claim, or does it just restate isolated facts?” Eliminate choices that are factually wrong or that don’t clearly connect the data to the claim, and select the one that captures the key comparison most directly.
Hints
Focus on the claim to be supported
Barrett and Rayfield are not just talking about bite force; they are talking about how the method used to estimate it may strongly affect the result. Keep that idea in mind.
Use the table’s structure
Compare the estimation method column to the approximate bite force column. What happens when two studies use the same method? What happens when they use different methods?
Filter answer choices by relevance
Eliminate any option that only restates information about one study or that doesn’t clearly connect method and differences in estimates. Ask: does this choice actually show that methodology matters a lot?
Step-by-step Explanation
Restate what the question is really asking
Barrett and Rayfield say that methodology (the estimation method) may significantly influence the bite-force estimate. So the supporting data must show a clear relationship between the estimation method column and the approximate bite force column, not just restate numbers.
Look for patterns by estimation method
Group the studies by method:
-
Muscular and skeletal modeling (Cost et al., Bates and Falkingham):
- Cost et al.: 35,000–63,000 newtons
- Bates and Falkingham: 35,000–57,000 newtons These two ranges are very similar.
-
Body-mass scaling (Meers):
- Meers: 183,000–235,000 newtons — extremely high compared with the others.
-
Tooth-bone interaction analysis (Gignac and Erickson):
- Gignac and Erickson: 8,000–34,000 newtons — much lower than the muscular/skeletal modeling studies and far from Meers’s values.
This pattern shows that using the same method produces similar estimates, while different methods give very different estimates.
Test each answer choice against that pattern
Now compare that pattern to what each answer claims:
- One choice just repeats the numbers for a single study without comparing methods.
- One choice gets the relative sizes of the estimates wrong (mixes up which is highest/lowest).
- One choice points out a difference between two studies using the same method, which does not support the idea that method is the main influence.
- One choice describes that the two muscular-and-skeletal-modeling studies agree closely, while the studies using other methods are far from any other estimate — which matches the pattern you found.
Choose the statement that best matches the data-pattern
The only option that correctly captures the idea that same method → similar estimates and different methods → widely different estimates is:
“The bite force estimates produced by Bates and Falkingham and by Cost et al. were similar to each other, while the estimates produced by Meers and by Gignac and Erickson each differed substantially from any other estimate.”
This directly supports Barrett and Rayfield’s suggestion that the methodology can significantly influence the estimated dinosaur bite force.