Solution
We need to find what evidence made the author rule out convergent evolution as an explanation. Let us trace through the passage to see how this argument unfolds.
First,we need to understand what convergent evolution means -> two separate populations independently evolve the same trait by coincidence. If this happened, the Irish and Pyrenean snails would look similar but have different genetic backgrounds.
From passage: "the underlying genetic similarities between the two groups rules that out"
This tells me the snails from both places have similar genetics, which rules out convergent evolution. But there's more detail later.
From passage: "Moreover, if they'd gradually spread across the continent, there would be some genetic variation within the white-lipped type... That variation doesn't exist"
This is key -> the lack of genetic variation between Irish and Pyrenean snails suggests they were moved quickly (by humans) rather than evolving separately over time.
π Option 1 -> scope-error -> talks about absence of similarities with Britain/other Europe, but the convergent evolution argument is specifically about Ireland vs Pyrenees similarity, not dissimilarity with other places
π’ Option 2 -> correct -> captures the key evidence - no genetic variation between Ireland and Pyrenees snails means they didn't evolve separately (which convergent evolution would require)
π΄ Option 3 -> context-shift -> this IS convergent evolution itself, not what rules it out. Student confusion here: this describes the theory, not the evidence against it
π Option 4 -> partial-truth -> mentions they found a distinct lineage but doesn't explain why this rules out convergent evolution specifically
The tricky part here is Option 3 - students might think "coincidental evolution" is the answer, but that's actually describing convergent evolution, not the evidence against it.
More from this set:
Question 23