Questions 1-3 are based on the following passage:

    In nearly all human populations a majority of individuals can taste the artificially synthesized chemical phenylthiocarbonide (PTC). However, the percentage varies dramatically—from as low as 60 percent in India to as high as 95 percent in Africa. That this polymorphism is observed in non-human primates as well indicates a long evolutionary history which, although obviously not acting on PTC, might reflect evolutionary selection for taste discrimination of other, more significant bitter substances, such as certain toxic plants.
    A somewhat more puzzling human polymorphism is the genetic variability in earwax, or cerumen, which is observed in two varieties. Among European populations 90 percent of individuals have a sticky yellow variety rather than a dry, gray one, whereas in northern China these numbers are approximately the reverse. Perhaps like PTC variability, cerumen variability is an incidental expression of something more adaptively significant. Indeed, the observed relationship between cerumen and odorous bodily secretions, to which non-human primates and, to a lesser extent humans, pay attention suggests that during the course of human evolution genes affecting body secretions, including cerumen, came under selective influence.

Go to NEXT Question >

Question 2

Which of the following provides the most reasonable explanation for the assertion in the first paragraph that evolutionary history "obviously" did not act on PTC?
 

(A)	PTC is not a naturally occurring chemical but rather has been produced only recently by scientists.
(B)	Most humans lack sufficient taste sensitivity to discriminate between PTC and bitter chemicals occurring naturally.
(C)	Variability among humans respecting PTC discrimination, like variability respecting earwax, cannot be explained in terms of evolutionary adaptivity.
(D)	The sense of taste in humans is not as discriminating as that in non-human primates.
(E)	Unlike non-human primates, humans can discriminate intellectually between toxic and non-toxic bitter substances.

To review your response, use your browser's BACK button.

Analysis

The correct response is (A). In the first sentence the author points out that PTC is an artificially synthesized chemical; thus, PTC has clearly not existed long enough to play any part whatsoever in the evolution of taste discrimination among primates.

(B) is entirely unsupported by the passage, which provides no information comparing human sensitivity to the bitter taste of PTC with that of other bitter chemicals. In any case, as a response to the question (B) makes little sense.

(C) runs contrary to the passage, which in fact offers an evolutionary explanation for human variability with respect to both PTC discrimination and earwax type. In any case, as a response to the question (C) is nonsensical.

(D) provides an assertion that, although probably factual, finds no direct support in the passage. is consistent with common knowledge, but it does not respond to the question. Moreover, in the context of the portion of the passage that the question cites, (D) makes little sense as an explanation.

(E) provides a vague assertion about the role of "intellect" in discerning between toxic and non-toxic substances. Whether or not this assertion accords with fact, it is unsupported in the passage.