Question

Which line from the text implies that scientists do not believe that dragons exist?

As I started my research, I discovered many skeptics. Scientists presented evidence to show why dragons could not—and did not—exist. They explained that it would be impossible for dragons to fly because they would be too big. They laughed at the idea of dragons breathing fire. They pointed out that no other animal has ever done this. They said that if dragons had lived, someone would have found remains somewhere in the world. No bones about it, there were plenty of logical explanations. It would have been easy for me to accept that the only place dragons ever existed was in the imaginations of those who believed.

A. They explained that it would be impossible for dragons to fly because they would be too big.
B. They laughed at the idea of dragons breathing fire.
C. They pointed out that no other animal has ever done this.
D. No bones about it, there were plenty of logical explanations.

Answer 1

Answer:

B. They laughed at the idea of dragon's breathing fire.

Explanation:

I took the exam. I had to RE-TAKE IT because option D. was wrong.

Answer 2

The answer to this question is option B, "They laughed at the idea of dragons breathing fire."

• This paragraph is talking about the existence of dragons and what evidence scientists provide to refute this claim.
• In the sentence in option A, scientists counter the point of a dragon's existence by providing scientific evidence on the contrary.
• In the sentence in option B, they simply laughed at the idea of a dragon breathing fire. Simply rejecting the outlandish claim as stupid. This made it clear that they do not believe that dragons exist.
• In sentence C, the scientists again provide logical, scientific arguments against a dragon's existence. But, they do not simply refute the existence of the beasts.
• Again, in sentence D, they do the same thing. Providing logical arguments and scientific evaluations to argue but not simply refute a dragon's existence.

#SPJ2