Coelacanths and Lungfish IV

Welcome! You are encouraged to register with the site and login (for free). When you register, you support the site and your question history is saved.

     How aquatic vertebrates evolved into land vertebrates has been difficult for evolutionary biologists to study, in part because the shift from water to land appears to have occurred rapidly and has yielded a scarce fossil record. Prior to the advent of DNA sequencing, the primary guideposts in tracing the emergence of tetrapods have been morphological considerations, which have highlighted the coelacanth and the lungfish as species of interest.
     Coelacanths and lungfish are distinct from other fish in that they are lobe-finned species. Lobe-finned species, like ray-finned fishes such as tuna and trout, possess not cartilage but a bony skeleton, a key prerequisite for survival on land. Lobe-finned fish species are distinguished from ray-finned species by fins that are joined to a single bone and which thus have the potential to evolve into limbs. Coelacanths and lungfish are two of the only lobe-finned species that are not extinct, and since they have evolved minimally since the time of the appearance of tetrapods, they are sometimes referred to as "living fossils." In fact, the first live coelacanth was discovered more than 100 years after the species had been discovered in fossilized form.
     Whether the coelacanth in particular is rightly called a living fossil and whether it is the closest living relative of the original tetrapods are two questions that have been illuminated more recently by genetic analysis. The coelacanth's genome has recently been sequenced, and this analysis has led to the conclusion that the lungfish is the closer relative of tetrapods. Moreover, the coelacanth DNA has shown evolution over time--although at a rate much slower than that of most animals. Possibly, the fish's morphology and its environment deep in the Indian Ocean have created favorable conditions allowing a more slowly evolving species to have survived for the last 400 million years.

It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following is a true statement about the evolution of a species?

Review: Coelacanths and Lungfish IV


Explanation 

Since we are inferring, we will look for a statement that must be true. We aren't guaranteed such a statement will exist, but if it does, it will be objectively the best-inferable statement. We will also keep an eye out for answer choices that are important to the main ideas of the passage. Again, we aren't guaranteed such an answer choice, but they can be easier to evaluate. As it turns out, none of the answer choices are connected to the primary topic of the passage, which is the closest-relative question. They all seem to pertain to the portion of paragraph three in which it's established that c-fish are not living fossils. Choice (E) is tempting. But we aren't given evidence that lungfish aren't living fossils; only c-fish are discussed directly in paragraph three. Otherwise, we have statements about species survival and the rate of change; these all seem to focus on the statement at line 34 that, since c-fish have evolved slowly, "the environment... [has] created favorable conditions." Before turning back to the answer choices, we can ask ourselves, what must be true or what is assumed by this point? It's assuming a linkage between favorable conditions and the speed of evolution. Namely, harsher conditions induce faster evolution; favorable conditions allow slower evolution. Back to the answer choices. That's answer choice (D). Indeed, considering the contrary, if (D) isn't true, then the conclusion at line 34 is problematic, so (D) must be true by the argument.

The correct answer is (D).


If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.