send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Read the passage below and answer the following questions. In nearly all human populations a majority of individuals can taste the artificially synthesized chemical phenyl-thiocarbonide (PTC). However, the percentage varies dramatically--from as low as 60% in India to as high as 95% in Africa. That this polymorphism is observed in non-human primates as well indicates a long evolutionary history which, although obviously not acting on PTC, might reflect evolutionary selection for taste discrimination of other, more significant bitter substances, such as certain toxic plants. A somewhat more puzzling human polymorphism is the genetic variability in earwax, or cerumen, which is observed in two varieties. Among European populations 90% of individuals have a sticky yellow variety rather than a dry, gray one, whereas in northern China these numbers are approximately the reverse. Perhaps like PTC variability, cerumen variability is an incidental expression of something more adaptively significant. Indeed, the observed relationship between cerumen and odorous bodily secretions, to which non-human primates and, to a lesser extent, humans pay attention, suggests that during the course of human evolution genes affecting body secretions, including cerumen, came under selective influence.
Which of the following provides the most reasonable explanation for the assertion in the first paragraph that evolutionary history "obviously" did not act on PTC?
PTC is not a naturally occurring chemical but rather has been produced only recently by scientists.
Most humans lack sufficient taste sensitivity to discriminate between PTC and bitter chemicals occurring naturally.
Variability among humans respecting PTC discrimination, like variability respecting earwax, cannot be explained in terms of evolutionary adaptivity.
Unlike non-human primates, humans can discriminate intellectually between toxic and non-toxic bitter substances.
- The passage mentions that PTC tasting has a long evolutionary history, which implies that PTC itself was not the subject of selection, but rather something similar and naturally occurring was.
- Option 1 highlights that PTC is artificially synthesized, so natural selection couldn't have specifically acted on it.
- Option 2 suggests insensitivity, but selection history discussed isn't about levels of sensitivity to PTC specifically.
- Option 3 contradicts the passage's suggestion of evolutionary relevance in taste discrimination.
- Option 4 introduces an irrelevant distinction between humans and primates regarding intellectual discrimination.
By: Munesh Kumari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses