Explanation
Correct answer: A.
Choice A is the best answer because it reflects what the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say about what the researchers in Text 1 initially thought. Text 1 focuses on the discovery of a strange fossil consisting of the skull of the extinct species Oculudentavis khaungraae. According to Text 1, the fossil has features that appear to be avian, or related to birds, which led researchers to initially think that the fossil might be a very small avian dinosaur. Text 2 begins by noting the discovery of a second fossil similar to the one discussed in Text 1, then explains that based on detailed studies of both fossils, paleontologists think that the two creatures were probably unusual lizards, even though the skulls appeared avian at first. This suggests that the paleontologists in Text 2 recognize that the fossils do indeed look like they could be related to birds. For this reason, the paleontologists in Text 2 would most likely say that the initial thought of the researchers in Text 1—that the fossil was avian—is understandable, even if the fossil is probably not avian but rather is from a lizard.
Why the other choices are wrong
Choice B
Choice B is incorrect because Text 2 indicates that the fossils initially looked avian, so the paleontologists described in Text 2 wouldn’t be confused by the researchers in Text 1 initially thinking that O. khaungraae might be related to birds. The paleontologists would find that initial thought understandable, not confusing.
Choice C
Choice C is incorrect because Text 1 never mentions lizards, so it wouldn’t make sense for the paleontologists in Text 2 to say that the researchers in Text 1 mistakenly assumed that O. khaungraae must be a lizard.
Choice D
Choice D is incorrect. Although the paleontologists in Text 2 might agree that the initial thought of the researchers in Text 1 was reasonable, nothing in Text 2 suggests that the two skulls were shaped differently.