Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 05 June 2026

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can cause skin cancer by damaging the DNA in our skin cells as well as cause premature skin aging and wrinkles. Sunscreen typically protects our skin from those harmful rays in two ways: by blocking UV light or by absorbing it (or both).

“Mineral” or “physical” sunscreens—formulations made with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—are thought to be UV blockers, although research shows they can also absorb UV light, too. They act as nanoparticle-size “mirrors” to reflect UV radiation and visible light, says David Fisher, a professor in the department of Dermatology at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital. That’s also why they tend to be pasty white in color.

“Chemical” sunscreens are primarily UV absorbers. “Chemical sunscreens are essentially utilizing molecules that can absorb different wavelengths within the UV portion of the spectrum,” Fisher explains. Then they convert the UV light into heat. These sunscreens are typically transparent, and don’t leave a white sheen on the skin, says Kerry Hanson, a research chemist at the University of California, Riverside.

SPF, or “sun protection factor” measures a sunscreen’s ability to protect you from burning. But here’s the rub—it specifically measures protection from UVB light, the part of the UV spectrum with a wavelength of between 280 and 315 nanometers. While UVB exposure has some benefits—it aids in the synthesis of Vitamin D, for instance—it can also cause sunburn, redness and inflammation, Fisher says.

For years, sunscreen manufacturers have prioritized products that protect against UVB. Scientists now believe that UVA—ultraviolet light with wavelengths between 315 and 400 nanometers—can raise the risk of skin cancer, too. That risk isn’t captured by a metric like SPF. If your sunscreen protects against UVB but not UVA, it may be protecting you from getting burnt but still putting you at risk from the sun’s harmful rays, Fisher says.

There is another way, however. Sunscreens labeled as “broad spectrum” in theory protect from both UVB and UVA light. But there isn’t an SPF-like measure for UVA in the U.S., which means it can be difficult to know how much UVA protection a “broad spectrum” sunscreen may provide, Fisher says.

Other regions of the world, including Asia and Europe, use a metric called UVA-PF, or “UVA protection factor” which does measure protection against UVA, say, with a rating scale such as PA+ to PA++++, explains AJ Addae, a cosmetic scientist and a PhD candidate at the University of California, Los Angeles—but UVA-PF is not something the U.S. Food and Drug administration, which oversees sunscreen, requires or regulates.In recent years, health advocates and consumer protection groups have raised some safety concerns about certain ingredients in some sunscreens. Spray-on sun protection can be flammable; others have been recalled for contamination with benzene, a carcinogen, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration notes. Research also suggests that some chemical sunscreen ingredients may damage marine life, such as coral reefs.

Q1. Which of the following options provides the closest synonym for the word "rub" as used in the phrase: "But here's the rub—it specifically measures protection from UVB light..."? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: In this context, "here's the rub" is an idiomatic expression meaning "here is the hidden problem, catch, or drawback." The author uses it to introduce a significant limitation of the SPF metric — that it only measures protection against UVB light, leaving out UVA. Option 3 ("catch") perfectly mirrors this meaning. Option 1 is the literal definition of rubbing but incorrect contextually. Option 2 is an antonym — a solution rather than a problem. Option 4 implies a structural basis, which does not fit the negative connotation of a limitation. Hence, option 3.Q2. Which of the following options best summarizes the central argument of the passage? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: Option 2 covers all the main pillars of the text — how sunscreens work, the limitation of the SPF metric (UVB only), the regulatory gap in the U.S. regarding UVA-PF standards, and the overall implication for consumer safety. Option 1 overstates the text by claiming the FDA contributed heavily to global cancer rates. Option 3 misstates the text regarding Vitamin D — the text says UVB aids Vitamin D, not that sunscreens completely eliminate it. Option 4 elevates a minor point about benzene recalls to a primary thesis. Hence, option 2.Q3. David Fisher argues that if a U.S. sunscreen protects against UVB but lacks clear UVA metrics, it "may be protecting you from getting burnt but still putting you at risk from the sun's harmful rays." Which of the following, if true, would most seriously WEAKEN Fisher's conclusion? Correct Option 1 … Explanation: Fisher's argument hinges on the premise that because the U.S. lacks a regulated UVA metric, consumers are unknowingly left unprotected from UVA rays. If option 1 is true — that U.S. sunscreens naturally block 95% of UVA rays as a byproduct of their standard formula — then consumers are not actually at high risk even without an explicit metric on the bottle, directly weakening his conclusion. Option 2 addresses future regulatory changes but doesn't change the current structural protection. Option 3 talks about mild irritation, which is irrelevant to the UVA cancer risk argument. Option 4 strengthens the general benefit of sunscreens rather than weakening Fisher's specific warning. Hence, option 1.Q4. Which of the following best describes the author's tone throughout the passage? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The author maintains a neutral, matter-of-fact perspective throughout, relying on explanations from experts, presenting scientific data about wavelengths, clarifying differences between chemical and mineral blockers, and outlining regulatory variations neutrally. Option 1 is incorrect because "dogmatic" implies asserting opinions as undeniable truths without evidence, which the author does not do. Option 3 is incorrect because the author is not sneering or dismissive of sunscreen or science. Option 4 implies high emotional intensity or poetic imagery, whereas the passage is straightforward explanatory science journalism. Hence, option 2.