Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumCross-Text Connections: Relational Synthesis

Text 1
For decades, paleobotanists assumed that early angiosperms (flowering plants) coevolved in a mutually beneficial relationship with specialized insect pollinators during the Cretaceous period. According to this traditional view, the evolutionary emergence of complex flower structures directly catalyzed the rapid diversification of early bees and butterflies, as plants developed nectar guides and floral scents to attract specific insects, which in turn facilitated efficient pollination.

Text 2
In contrast, recent fossil evidence reveals that many specialized insect mouthparts suitable for flower feeding had already evolved millions of years before the first angiosperms appeared. Entomologist Dr. Kenji Sato argues that these early insects initially utilized these mouthpart structures to feed on gymnosperm secretions, suggesting that angiosperms did not initiate pollinator diversification but rather exploited existing insect adaptations that evolved earlier.

Based on the passages, how would Dr. Sato (the author of Text 2) most likely respond to the paleobotanists' view described in Text 1?

  1. A
    By claiming that angiosperms evolved complex structures to actively compete with gymnosperms for pollinators.
  2. By suggesting that specialized insect mouthparts had already developed to consume gymnosperm secretions prior to the emergence of angiosperms.Answer
  3. C
    By agreeing that angiosperms catalyzed insect diversification, but disputing the role of floral scents.
  4. D
    By suggesting that early bees and butterflies would have gone extinct without gymnosperm secretions.

Answer

The correct answer is that specialized insect mouthparts had already developed to consume gymnosperm secretions prior to the emergence of angiosperms.
The author of Text 2 describes fossil evidence showing that specialized insect mouthparts existed before angiosperms. Dr. Sato argues that these mouthparts were used to feed on gymnosperms, showing that these insects did not diversify because of angiosperms, but rather that angiosperms exploited existing insect adaptations. This directly challenges the claim in Text 1 that angiosperms catalyzed this diversification. Thus, the option indicating that specialized mouthparts had already developed to consume gymnosperm secretions is correct.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the primary claim from Text 1 that needs to be evaluated.
Text 1 claims that the emergence of complex flower structures in angiosperms directly catalyzed the diversification of early insect pollinators.
This establishes the perspective of the paleobotanists that Dr. Sato will respond to.
2
Analyze the counter-evidence presented by Dr. Sato in Text 2.
Text 2 states that specialized insect mouthparts evolved millions of years before angiosperms and were initially used to feed on gymnosperm secretions.
This provides the factual basis for Dr. Sato's argument that angiosperms did not initiate the evolutionary changes in these insects.
3
Synthesize how the evidence in Text 2 responds to the claim in Text 1.
Since the adaptations existed before angiosperms, Dr. Sato would argue that angiosperms exploited already existing insect adaptations rather than causing them to diversify.
This establishes the logical conflict between the two texts and identifies the correct relational synthesis.

Key Concept

Cross-Text Connections: Relational Synthesis
Estimated Time:1m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Cross-Text Connections: Relational Synthesis

More questions from this topic