最新的PRAXIS Pre-Professional Skills Test (PPST) II - PRAXIS2免費考試真題
The fossil remain of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more
than two centuries. How such large creatures, which weighed in some cases as much as a piloted
hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly
what these creatures were-reptiles or birds-are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls,
pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their wings suggests that they did not evolve into the
class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like
membrane. The other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, In birds the second finger is the
principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the pterosaur walked or remained
stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape
along side of the animal's body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not
surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject to aerodynamic constraints. Both the
pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds,
however, these bones are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned
that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded because flying implies a high internal temperature.
Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the
body to reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and
relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched
themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or even by rising into light winds from the crests
of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet
resembled a bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The
second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not have landed in trees without
damaging their wings. The birds calls for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such
waves however, might have been too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
According to the passage, the five writers objects to the scientific method primarily because they think it
than two centuries. How such large creatures, which weighed in some cases as much as a piloted
hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly
what these creatures were-reptiles or birds-are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls,
pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their wings suggests that they did not evolve into the
class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like
membrane. The other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, In birds the second finger is the
principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the pterosaur walked or remained
stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape
along side of the animal's body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not
surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject to aerodynamic constraints. Both the
pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds,
however, these bones are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned
that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded because flying implies a high internal temperature.
Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the
body to reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and
relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced that his reasoning was correct.
Efforts to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched
themselves by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or even by rising into light winds from the crests
of waves. Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet
resembled a bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The
second hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not have landed in trees without
damaging their wings. The birds calls for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such
waves however, might have been too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
According to the passage, the five writers objects to the scientific method primarily because they think it
正確答案: A
In your first job, older colleagues automatically think you're still wet with the ears and seldom take you
seriously.
seriously.
正確答案: E
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate
of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a
stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect
it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically
in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The author's attitude toward "Most economists in the United States" can best be described as
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate
of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a
stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect
it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically
in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The author's attitude toward "Most economists in the United States" can best be described as
正確答案: E
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate
of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a
stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect
it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically
in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate
of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it
has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a
stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect
it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically
in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
正確答案: E
Those examples of poetic justice that occur in medieval and Elizabethan literature, and that seem so
satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-century scholars to "find" further examples. In
fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the
injustices inflicted on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a
tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates. Any misdoing is enough to
subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's
Duchess of Malfi, who defined her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who
disobeyed her father.
Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice
of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of disobedience that men could, and did, commit with
virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their
tragic heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying
Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not criticize, much less rebel against the
prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's
oppression. Thus, efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend
to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on reader's sympathies. Similarly, to
assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she
loved and to bear their children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound
the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely those examples of social
injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his
heroin so heroically lead the resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to
imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and
prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the
evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety
and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common sense and compassion of readers who are
uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other
literature, can best be judged.
It can be interred from the passage that the author most probably thinks that giving the disenfranchised" '
a piece of action'" is
satisfying, have encouraged a whole school of twentieth-century scholars to "find" further examples. In
fact, these scholars have merely forced victimized character into a moral framework by which the
injustices inflicted on them are, somehow or other, justified. Such scholars deny that the sufferers in a
tragedy are innocent; they blame the victims themselves for their tragic fates. Any misdoing is enough to
subject a character to critical whips. Thus, there are long essays about the misdemeanors of Webster's
Duchess of Malfi, who defined her brothers, and he behavior of Shakespeare's Desdemona, who
disobeyed her father.
Yet it should be remembered that the Renaissance writer Matteo Bandello strongly protests the injustice
of the severe penalties issued to women for acts of disobedience that men could, and did, commit with
virtual impunity. And Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Webster often enlist their readers on the side of their
tragic heroines by describing injustices so cruel that readers cannot but join in protest. By portraying
Griselda, in the Clerk's Tale, as a meek, gentle victim who does not criticize, much less rebel against the
prosecutor, her husband Waltter, Chaucer incites readers to espouse Griselda's cause against Walter's
oppression. Thus, efforts to supply historical and theological rationalization for Walter's persecutions tend
to turn Chaucer's fable upside down, to deny its most obvious effect on reader's sympathies. Similarly, to
assert that Webster's Duchess deserved torture and death because she chose to marry the man she
loved and to bear their children is, in effect to join forces with her tyrannical brothers, and so to confound
the operation of poetic justice, of which readers should approve, with precisely those examples of social
injustice that Webster does everything in his power to make readers condemn. Indeed. Webster has his
heroin so heroically lead the resistance to tyranny that she may well in spire members of the audience to
imaginatively join forces with her against the cruelty and hypocritical morality of her brothers.
Thus Chaucer and Webster, in their different ways, attack injustice, argue on behalf of the victims, and
prosecute the persecutors. Their readers serve them as a court of appeal that remains free to rule, as the
evidence requires, and as common humanity requires, in favor of the innocent and injured parties. For, to
paraphrase the noted eighteenth-century scholar, Samuel Johnson, despite all the refinements of subtlety
and the dogmatism of learning, it is by the common sense and compassion of readers who are
uncorrupted by the characters and situations in mereval and Dlizabetahn literature, as in any other
literature, can best be judged.
It can be interred from the passage that the author most probably thinks that giving the disenfranchised" '
a piece of action'" is
正確答案: A
Mary goes to the other end of the city to meet her grandmother two to three times a week. On her way the
following stops are made according to her mode of transport. The buses stop at L, M, N and O, in that
order. Express trains stop at N only Early local trains stop at P, Q, N, and R only, in that order Late local
trains stop at P, Q, and R only, in that order On her way back to her house the routes are reversed The
buses stop at O, N, M, and L, in that order Express trains stop at N only Early local trains stop at R, N, Q,
and P only, in that order Late local trains stop at R, Q, and P only, in that order The bus station is next to
the train station near her house, at N, and near her grandmother's house When she returns home the
early local train stops plying. How many routes can she take to get back home?
following stops are made according to her mode of transport. The buses stop at L, M, N and O, in that
order. Express trains stop at N only Early local trains stop at P, Q, N, and R only, in that order Late local
trains stop at P, Q, and R only, in that order On her way back to her house the routes are reversed The
buses stop at O, N, M, and L, in that order Express trains stop at N only Early local trains stop at R, N, Q,
and P only, in that order Late local trains stop at R, Q, and P only, in that order The bus station is next to
the train station near her house, at N, and near her grandmother's house When she returns home the
early local train stops plying. How many routes can she take to get back home?
正確答案: A
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate
of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that
it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a
stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect
it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically
in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The passage provides Information that would answer which of the following questions about price-fixing?
I. What are some of the ways in which prices can be fixed?
II. For what products is price-fixing likely to be more profitable than the operation of the free market?
III. Is price-fixing more common in socialist industrialized societies or in non socialist industrialized
societies?
seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market.
A price that is determined by the seller or for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate
of consumers seems pernicious, accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price fixing (the
determination of prices by the seller) as both "normal" and having a valuable economic function. In fact,
price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an
effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that requires, Modern industrial planning
requires and rewards great size. Hence a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for
the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus
avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of
free-markets economic theories. But each large firms will also act with full consideration of the needs that
it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus
avoid significant price cutting, because price cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a
stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect
it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.
More over those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the
most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non socialist countries
other than the United States. These economies employ intentional price-fixing usually in an overt fashion.
Formal price fixing by cartel and informal price fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry
are common place. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about
price fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically
in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.
Socialist industry also works within a frame work of controlled prices. In early 1970's, the Soviet Union
began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution
has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to
the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by free market over which they
exercise little influenced than are capitalist firms.
The passage provides Information that would answer which of the following questions about price-fixing?
I. What are some of the ways in which prices can be fixed?
II. For what products is price-fixing likely to be more profitable than the operation of the free market?
III. Is price-fixing more common in socialist industrialized societies or in non socialist industrialized
societies?
正確答案: B
VANE : WIOND DIRECTION :;
正確答案: A
Apparao Galleries is conducting an exhibition cum sale of textiles woven by the weavers of Maheshwar
and designed by Mira Sagar. Deep colours such as red, burgundy, midnight blue, pinks, etc have been
used. The exhibition will be on for five days next week, from 8 a.m. to 9
and designed by Mira Sagar. Deep colours such as red, burgundy, midnight blue, pinks, etc have been
used. The exhibition will be on for five days next week, from 8 a.m. to 9
正確答案: A
The fossil remains of the first flying vertebrates, the pterosaurs, have intrigued paleontologists for more
than two centuries. How such large creatures, which weighed in some cases as much as a piloted
hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly
what these creatures were-reptiles or birds-are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls,
pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their wings suggests that they did not evolve into the
class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like
membrane. The other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, In birds the second finger is the
principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the pterosaur walked or remained
stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape
along side of the animal's body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not
surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject to aerodynamic constraints. Both the
pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds,
however, these bones are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned
that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded because flying implies a high internal temperature.
Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the
body to reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and
relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced that his reasoning was correct. Efforts
to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves
by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves.
Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second
hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not have landed in trees without damaging
their wings. The birds calls for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however,
might have been too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
It can be inferred that Intuition Is Important to the five writers primarily because It provides them with
than two centuries. How such large creatures, which weighed in some cases as much as a piloted
hangglider and had wingspans from 8 to 12 meters, solved the problems of powered flight, and exactly
what these creatures were-reptiles or birds-are among the questions scientist have puzzled over.
Perhaps the least controversial assertion about the pterosaurs is that they were reptiles. Their skulls,
pelvises, and hind feet are reptilian. The anatomy of their wings suggests that they did not evolve into the
class of birds. In pterosaurs a greatly elongated fourth finger of each forelimb supported a wing like
membrane. The other fingers were short and reptilian, with sharp claws, In birds the second finger is the
principle strut of the wing, which consists primarily of features. If the pterosaur walked or remained
stationary, the fourth finger, and with it the wing, could only turn upward in an extended inverted V-shape
along side of the animal's body.
The pterosaurs resembled both birds and bats in their overall structure and proportions. This is not
surprising because the design of any flying vertebrate is subject to aerodynamic constraints. Both the
pterosaurs and the birds have hollow bones, a feature that represents a saving in weight. In the birds,
however, these bones are reinforced more massively by internal struts.
Although scales typically cover reptiles, the pterosaurs probably had hairy coats. T.H. Huxley reasoned
that flying vertebrates must have been warm blooded because flying implies a high internal temperature.
Huxley speculated that a coat of hair would insulate against loss of body heat and might streamline the
body to reduce drag in flight. The recent discovery of a pterosaur specimen covered in long, dense, and
relatively thick hairlike fossil material was the first clear evidenced that his reasoning was correct. Efforts
to explain how the pterosaurs became air-borne have led to suggestions that they launched themselves
by jumping from cliffs, by dropping from trees, or even by rising into light winds from the crests of waves.
Each hypothesis has its difficulties. The first wrongly assumes that the pterosaur's hind feet resembled a
bat's and could served as hooks by which the animal could bang in preparation for flight. The second
hypothesis seems unlikely because large pterosaurs could not have landed in trees without damaging
their wings. The birds calls for high waves to channels updrafts. The wind that made such waves however,
might have been too strong for the pterosaurs to control their flight once airborne.
It can be inferred that Intuition Is Important to the five writers primarily because It provides them with
正確答案: D