Q9

[ottoman]

I understand the answer choice B is supported in the passage (line35~39).

I cannot eliminate E because I thought their carnivorousness contributes to their evolutionary success. They become carnivorous when they do not have sufficient food to eat. Is that a big assumption to make that sufficient food contributes to their evolutionary success?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

I don’t think it’s too big a leap to say that “something that gets you food when you would otherwise starve” is something that “contributes to your evolutionary success”.

However, the leap you seem to have introduced is that the tadpoles only became carnivorous because they didn’t have enough food to eat. Where did you get that?

Lines 32-35 simply say that these omnivorous tadpoles mainly feed on organic debris but occasionally eat another tadpole or a shrimp. This event triggers the move to carnivorousness.

There’s nothing in those lines that justifies that “they became carnivores only because they didn’t have enough to eat”.

So that’s the main problem with your justification for (E).

== other answers ===

(A) Almost. We know, because they nip and release siblings, that they have the ability to recognize whether something is their kin, but not necessarily whether something is a carnivore.

(B) “Only upon” is incredibly strong and can’t be justified.

(C) Correct answer, justified by lines 35-38.

(D) It’s not their carnivorousness that relates to inclusive fitness theory. Rather, it’s the fact that they seem to discriminate between eating their kin and eating non-kin members of their species.

[ottoman]

Thank you Patrick!