Biologists have long debated the primary function of the zebra's stripes. Early researchers confidently asserted that the pattern served as camouflage against predators in the tall savanna grass. Modern field studies, however, present a compelling case for a different mechanism. The data strongly indicate that the striking black-and-white pattern functions primarily to deter biting flies, which are known to avoid landing on striped surfaces. While other secondary benefits cannot be entirely ruled out, the fly-deterrence hypothesis currently offers the most robust explanation for this evolutionary adaptation.
Which one of the following most accurately describes the author's degree of commitment to the fly-deterrence hypothesis?
- Firm endorsement of the hypothesis as the most well-supported explanation, while conceding that stripes might still serve other minor purposes.Cevap
- BAbsolute certainty that the fly-deterrence hypothesis is the only valid scientific explanation for zebra stripes.
- CNeutral detachment, presenting the hypothesis simply as one of several equally unproven theories.
- DObjective reporting of modern researchers' views, carefully avoiding any personal endorsement of the hypothesis.
- EUnqualified and dogmatic assertion, mirroring the unyielding certainty of the early researchers mentioned in the text.
Cevap
Firm endorsement of the hypothesis as the most well-supported explanation, while conceding that stripes might still serve other minor purposes.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes two aspects of the passage. First, the author's use of phrases like 'compelling case', 'strongly indicate', and 'most robust explanation' demonstrates a firm endorsement of the fly-deterrence hypothesis. Second, the explicit caveat that 'other secondary benefits cannot be entirely ruled out' proves the author is carefully conceding that stripes might have other, minor purposes.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Evaluating the Degree of Commitment or Certainty
Tahmini Süre:1m 0s