Comprehension

Time and again, whenever a population of [Mexican tetra fish] was swept into a cave and survived long enough for natural selection to have its way, the caves adapted. ”But it’s not that they have been losing their vision,” as one of the authors of the study explains. ”Studies have found that cave-dwelling fish can detect lower levels of amino acids than surface fish can. They have also more tastebuds and a higher density of sensitive cells alongside their bodies that let them sense water pressure and flow . . .” 
Killing the processes that support the formation of the eye is quite literally what happens. Just like non-cave-dwelling members of the species, all cavefish embryos start making eyes. But after a few hours, cells in the developing eye get tiny until the entire structure has disappeared. (Developmental biologist Melody Riddle thinks this apparent inefficiency may be unavoidable: ”The development of the brain and the eye are completely intertwined—so when eyes disappear, it impacts the entire biology of the animal. It’s hard to tell exactly how they happen together,” she says. That means the last step in survival for eye-less animals may be to start making an eye and then get rid of it. . . .
It’s easy to see why cavefish would be at a disadvantage if they were to maintain excessive tissues they aren’t using. Since relatively little lives or grows in their caves, the fish are likely surviving on a meager diet of mostly bat feces and organic waste that washes in during the rainy season. Researchers keeping cavefish in labs have discovered that cavefish are exquisitely adapted to absorbing and using nutrients. . . .
Cells can be toxic for tissues, [evolutionary physiologist Nicolas] Rohner explains, so they are stored in fat cells. ”But when these cells get too big, they can burst, which is why we often see chronic inflammation in humans and other animals that have stored a lot of fat in their tissues.” Yet a 2020 study by Riddle, Rohner and their colleagues revealed that even very well-fed cavefish had fewer signs of inflammation in their fat tissues than surface fish do. Even in their sparse cave conditions, wild cavefish can sometimes get very fat, says Riddle. This is presumably because, whenever food piles up in the cave, the fish eat as much of it as possible, since there might not be enough for a long time to come. Intriguingly, Riddle says, their fat is usually bright yellow, because of high levels of carotenoids, the substance in the carrots that your grandmother used to tell you were good for your...eyes. ”The first thing that came to our mind, of course, was that they were accumulating these compounds because they don’t have eyes,” says Riddle. In this species, such ideas can be tested: Scientists can cross surface fish (with eyes) and cavefish (without eyes) and look at what their offspring are like. When that’s done, Riddle says, researchers see no link between eye presence or size and the accumulation of carotenoids. Some eyeless cavefish had fat that was completely white, indicating lower carotenoid levels. Instead, Riddle thinks these carotenoids may be another adaptation to suppress inflammation, which might be important in the wild, as cavefish are likely eating whenever food arrives.

Question: 1

All of the following statements from the passage describe adaptation in Mexican tetra cavefish EXCEPT:

Show Hint

Adaptations often help organisms survive in their specific environments, like cavefish evolving to thrive on minimal resources while maintaining health through unique biological processes.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
  • Since relatively little lives or grows in their caves, the fish are likely surviving on a meager diet of mostly bat feces and organic waste that washes in during the rainy season.
  • Even in their sparse cave conditions, wild cavefish can sometimes get very fat, says Riddle.
  • It’s easy to see why cavefish would be at a disadvantage if they were to maintain excessive tissues they aren’t using.
  • But when these cells get too big, they can burst, which is why we often see chronic inflammation in humans and other animals that have stored a lot of fat in their tissues.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: Three of these lines describe how the *Mexican tetra cavefish* specifically have adapted to cave life; the EXCEPT line states a general biological fact about animals at large. Ask of each: "Is this about cavefish adaptation, or a universal rule?"

Step 1 \(-\) What counts as adaptation here: The passage's adaptations are traits the cavefish evolved for their harsh, food-poor cave \(-\) losing eyes, sensing amino acids, absorbing nutrients efficiently, getting fat when food arrives, and resisting inflammation. Anything tied to the cavefish's own survival qualifies.

Step 2 \(-\) Check the supporting options:

Option 1 \(-\) surviving on "bat feces and organic waste" describes the cavefish's adapted, meager diet. This describes their adaptation.

Option 2 \(-\) "wild cavefish can sometimes get very fat" in sparse conditions is their feast-when-you-can fat-storage adaptation. This describes their adaptation.

Option 3 \(-\) being "at a disadvantage if they were to maintain excessive tissues they aren't using" explains the evolutionary logic behind shedding the eyes \(-\) an adaptation rationale. This describes their adaptation.

Step 3 \(-\) Spot the exception: Option 4 \(-\) "when these cells get too big, they can burst, which is why we often see chronic inflammation in humans and other animals" \(-\) is Rohner's general statement about fat cells in humans and animals broadly. It is the universal mechanism, not a cavefish-specific adaptation. In fact the cavefish's special trait is that they show LESS inflammation, the opposite of this generic rule.

Answer: Option 4.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

Approach: Adaptation sentences should describe something that helps the cavefish survive their specific conditions. Test each option for a stated survival benefit tied to the cave environment.

Option (1) explains what the fish eat to survive scarce cave food, a direct survival strategy. Option (2) shows the fish gorging when food does appear, again a strategy for surviving unpredictable food supply. Option (3) explains why shedding unused tissue like eyes is advantageous when resources are scarce, a rationale for a beneficial trait.

Option (4) states only that fat cells bursting causes inflammation in "humans and other animals." No survival benefit for the cavefish is attached to this sentence at all, it is simply a background biological mechanism, and the passage goes on to say cavefish actually resist this problem better than most animals. A sentence with no stated adaptive benefit, describing a general risk rather than a cavefish coping strategy, cannot itself be describing the adaptation.

Answer: Option (4).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

On the basis of the information in the passage, what is the most likely function of carotenoids in Mexican tetra cavefish?

Show Hint

Carotenoids in animals can serve various functions, such as controlling inflammation and giving color to tissues, as seen in Mexican tetra cavefish.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
  • To act as a substitute for eyes.
  • To control inflammation from the bursting of fat cells.
  • To render bright yellow colour to the cavefish.
  • To help the fat cells store nutrients.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: The question wants the *most likely function* of carotenoids as the passage finally settles it \(-\) not the first guess the scientists made. Track the passage's own arc: it raises a hypothesis, tests it, rejects it, and lands on a different conclusion. Pick the conclusion, not the discarded guess.

Step 1 \(-\) Follow the reasoning chain: The cavefish's fat is bright yellow from carotenoids. The scientists' *first* thought was that the fish accumulate carotenoids "because they don't have eyes" (since carotenoids are linked to eyes). That is the hypothesis under test, not the answer.

Step 2 \(-\) Use the experiment's result: Crossing eyed surface fish with eyeless cavefish showed "no link between eye presence or size and the accumulation of carotenoids" \(-\) some eyeless fish even had white (low-carotenoid) fat. So the eye-substitute idea is rejected.

Step 3 \(-\) Land on the passage's conclusion: Riddle then proposes the carotenoids "may be another adaptation to suppress inflammation," important because cavefish gorge whenever food arrives. So the most likely function is controlling inflammation tied to heavy fat storage \(-\) Option 2.

Eliminate the rest: Option 1 (substitute for eyes) is exactly the hypothesis the experiment disproved. Option 3 (gives yellow colour) is a side-effect, not a function. Option 4 (help fat cells store nutrients) is never claimed in the passage.

Answer: Option 2.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

Approach: Check each option directly against what the passage explicitly states or denies, rather than tracking the story's timeline.

Option (1), carotenoids substituting for eyes, is directly ruled out by the passage's own experiment: crossing eyed and eyeless fish showed "no link between eye presence or size and the accumulation of carotenoids." A denied idea cannot be the answer.

Option (3), giving the fat its yellow colour, is only ever mentioned as a visible side-effect of carotenoids being present, the passage never calls colouration a function or purpose, only a description of appearance.

Option (4), helping fat cells store nutrients, is never mentioned anywhere in the passage in connection with carotenoids, so it has no textual support at all.

Option (2) is the only claim the passage positively asserts as the likely purpose, carotenoids "may be another adaptation to suppress inflammation," tied to the fish overeating whenever food appears.

Answer: Option (2).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

Which one of the following results for the cross between surface fish (with eyes) and cavefish (without eyes) would invalidate Riddle’s inference from the experiment?

Show Hint

In genetic experiments, the presence or absence of certain traits in offspring can provide evidence for or against a hypothesis about those traits.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
  • Some offspring with eyes had white fat.
  • Only eyeless offspring had yellow fat.
  • Some offspring with eyes had yellow fat.
  • Some eyeless offspring had white fat.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: This is a logic question dressed as RC. Riddle's final inference is that carotenoids are NOT linked to eyelessness (the eye-substitute idea failed). To invalidate that inference, we need a result that would REVIVE the eye link \(-\) i.e. show carotenoids track perfectly with the absence of eyes. Find the option that re-creates a clean eyes-no-carotenoid / no-eyes-carotenoid pattern.

Step 1 \(-\) State Riddle's inference precisely: The cross showed "no link between eye presence or size and the accumulation of carotenoids" \(-\) carotenoid (yellow fat) levels are independent of having eyes. So eyed fish can have yellow fat, and eyeless fish can have white fat.

Step 2 \(-\) Decide what would break it: The inference is broken if yellow fat appears strictly when eyes are absent and never when eyes are present \(-\) that would restore a tight eyeless \(\to\) carotenoid link, exactly what Riddle denied.

Step 3 \(-\) Test the options:

Option 1 \(-\) some eyed offspring had white fat \(-\) consistent with "no link," does not break it.

Option 3 \(-\) some eyed offspring had yellow fat \(-\) shows carotenoids even WITH eyes, which actually supports "no link."

Option 4 \(-\) some eyeless offspring had white fat \(-\) the passage itself reports this; fully consistent with "no link."

Option 2 \(-\) "Only eyeless offspring had yellow fat" \(-\) means yellow fat occurs if and only if eyes are absent. That is a perfect eyeless-to-carotenoid correlation, which would prove the link Riddle rejected and INVALIDATE her inference.

Answer: Option 2.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

Approach: An invalidating result must clash with what the passage has already reported from the actual cross, not just repeat it. Compare each option with the passage's own reported findings.

The passage already tells us the cross produced "no link" and specifically that "some eyeless cavefish had fat that was completely white." That is precisely option (4), so option (4) is not new evidence, it is a fact already on the record, and a fact already consistent with Riddle's conclusion cannot undo that conclusion.

Option (1) (eyed offspring with white fat) and option (3) (eyed offspring with yellow fat) both describe eyed fish showing either fat colour, exactly the mixed, unpredictable pattern "no link" predicts, so neither creates a contradiction either.

Option (2) is different in kind, it says yellow fat occurs only when eyes are absent, a strict, exceptionless rule linking carotenoids to eyelessness. This is the one statement that could not coexist with "no link between eye presence or size and the accumulation of carotenoids," so it is the only option that would actually overturn Riddle's inference.

Answer: Option (2).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

Which one of the following best explains why the “apparent inefficiency” is “unavoidable”?

Show Hint

In adaptation, some inefficiencies may be unavoidable due to biological constraints and the need for compensatory adaptations.
Updated On: Jul 4, 2026
  • The lack of light in the caves kills the eye cells in the developing Mexican tetra cavefish embryo.
  • The inefficiency resulting from eyelessness is compensated by enhancements like more tastebuds in Mexican tetra cavefish.
  • The caves have poor and inconsistent availability of food and nutrition for Mexican tetra cavefish.
  • Mexican tetra cavefish are similar to non-cave-dwelling variants in their early stages of development.
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Approach Solution - 1

Approach: Go back to the exact spot where "apparent inefficiency" and "unavoidable" appear. Riddle calls it inefficient that cavefish "start making an eye and then get rid of it." The question asks WHY that wasteful detour cannot be avoided \(-\) so we need the reason the fish are forced to begin building eyes at all.

Step 1 \(-\) Locate the claim: "Just like non-cave-dwelling members of the species, all cavefish embryos start making eyes," then the eye shrinks away. Riddle adds that brain and eye development are "completely intertwined," so the eye-building step cannot simply be skipped.

Step 2 \(-\) Identify the cause of inefficiency: The waste \(-\) building an eye only to dismantle it \(-\) is unavoidable precisely because cavefish embryos develop just like their eyed, non-cave relatives in the early stages. Their shared developmental programme forces them to start the eye before it can be removed.

Step 3 \(-\) Test the options:

Option 1 \(-\) lack of light killing eye cells \(-\) the passage never attributes eye loss to darkness directly; it is about the developmental programme, not light. Out of scope.

Option 2 \(-\) tastebud enhancements \(-\) these are compensations for losing vision, not the reason the eye-then-discard detour is forced. Doesn't explain unavoidability.

Option 3 \(-\) poor food availability \(-\) explains why excess tissue is costly, but not why the eye must be started and then scrapped. Wrong link.

Option 4 \(-\) cavefish "are similar to non-cave-dwelling variants in their early stages of development" \(-\) this is exactly why they must begin forming eyes like their relatives, making the build-then-destroy step unavoidable.

Answer: Option 4.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Show Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

Approach Solution -2

Approach: Rather than testing every option, build directly from the passage's own reasoning and see which option matches it.

Riddle links two facts: brain and eye development are "completely intertwined," and every cavefish embryo, like its sighted relatives, "start[s] making eyes." Put together, this means the instructions for building an eye are wired into the same early developmental programme that builds the brain, a programme cavefish still share with non-cave fish. Because that early shared programme cannot be skipped without disrupting brain development too, the fish have no choice but to begin forming an eye before later dismantling it.

The only option that states this shared-programme fact directly is option (4), cavefish resembling non-cave-dwelling relatives early in development. The other options describe unrelated cave conditions (darkness), later compensations (extra tastebuds), or the cost of keeping tissue (scarce food), none of which explain why the fish are compelled to start building an eye in the first place.

Answer: Option (4).
Was this answer helpful?
0
0