Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaCommand of Evidence: Textual

In marine ecosystems, the California sea hare (*Aplysia californica*) defends itself against predators such as spiny lobsters by secreting a sticky, purple ink containing the compound opaline. Marine biologist Dr. Elena Rossi hypothesized that opaline does not function as a physical barrier or a systemic toxin, but rather acts as a chemical disruptor that temporarily disables the predator's chemosensory organs, rendering them unable to locate food. Which finding from Rossi's study, if true, would most directly support her hypothesis?

  1. When exposed to opaline, lobsters failed to orient toward or search for the source of the shrimp juice scent, but they readily consumed food placed directly in contact with their mouthparts.Cevap
  2. B
    Opaline remained active in the water column for up to three hours after secretion, suggesting that it provides long-lasting protection in aquatic environments.
  3. C
    Lobsters that were exposed to ink that lacked opaline altogether were still unable to locate the food stimulus due to the physical cloudiness of the ink.
  4. D
    Lobsters exposed to opaline exhibited a persistent reduction in all physical movements, indicating that the compound acts as a systemic muscle relaxant.

Cevap

When exposed to opaline, lobsters failed to orient toward or search for the source of the shrimp juice scent, but they readily consumed food placed directly in contact with their mouthparts.
The finding that lobsters exposed to opaline failed to search for the shrimp juice scent, but ate food placed directly in contact with their mouthparts, supports the hypothesis. This result demonstrates that while their distance-sensing chemoreceptors were temporarily disabled (preventing them from locating the scent), they experienced neither physical blockage nor systemic toxicity (as they were still capable of normal ingestion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the primary hypothesis in the passage.
Dr. Rossi hypothesized that opaline acts specifically as a temporary chemosensory disruptor rather than as a physical barrier or a systemic toxin.
Understanding the precise claim is necessary to determine what kind of evidence would support it.
2
Evaluate what evidence would satisfy the hypothesis's requirements.
The supporting evidence must demonstrate that the lobster's chemoreceptors (sensory detection of odor) are disabled, while showing that the lobster is not physically blocked from eating or systemically poisoned.
This isolates the chemosensory disruption mechanism from the alternative mechanisms of physical barrier and systemic toxicity.
3
Select the option that matches these requirements.
The option stating that lobsters failed to sense the scent in the water but could eat food in direct contact shows sensory loss without motor impairment or physical blockage.
It directly demonstrates the sensory-specific nature of the disruption, confirming the hypothesis.

Anahtar Kavram

Command of Evidence: Textual
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Command of Evidence: Textual

Bu konudan daha fazla soru