Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 07 November 2026

The French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was 65 when his great treatise on the transformation of life was published. With Philosophie zoologique (1809), translated a century later as Zoological Philosophy, Lamarck intended to establish an entirely new science, one built on the idea that all living beings are constantly transforming themselves, from the tiniest microbes to the most complex mammals, gaining new forms and new abilities. It wasn’t the bodily structures of organisms that determined their ways of life, Lamarck said, but just the opposite: their ways of life in response to their circumstances gave rise to their changing bodily forms. ‘Can there be any consideration in natural history more important,’ he demanded, ‘or deserving of greater attention, than the one I have just set forth?’

But if you’ve heard anything at all about Lamarck, it’s probably how wrong he was about one animal in particular, the giraffe, and how this giraffe fiasco epitomises his wrongness about everything. Lamarck suggested that, by stretching to reach leaves in high tree branches, giraffes slightly elongated their necks, creating tiny changes that were then handed down to their offspring, accumulating over many generations to produce the long necks we see today. Around the turn of the 20th century, Lamarck’s giraffe idea became a laughing stock when biologists roundly rejected the notion that bodily changes undergone in the course of an individual lifetime could be inherited in the next generation.

It wasn’t only his ideas about long-necked mammals that came under attack. Lamarck’s interest in giraffes was just a passing mention in the midst of his voluminous writings, which set out a revolutionary, field-founding theory: organisms, he claimed, transform themselves and, in doing so, they remake the world. That idea has drawn scorn for more than two centuries.

Though Lamarck is often overlooked, his science was foundational to modern biology and informed the theory of evolution that Charles Darwin later developed. Darwin followed Lamarck in believing in the agency of living beings to transform themselves and their environment. But most people don’t know about Lamarck’s influence on Darwin because, around the turn of the 20th century, Darwin’s followers expurgated every trace of Lamarckism from their neo-Darwinist version of evolution, rendering living beings the objects of random variation and outside forces. For the neo-Darwinists, living things played no direct role in the evolutionary process. Evolution happened through random genetic variation and external environmental pressures. For Darwin’s followers, organisms were just as passive as they had been for the creationists, who saw them as products of divine will.

Throughout the history of modern biology, most powerful figures in science and politics have ridiculed and repressed Lamarck’s radical idea that organisms have agency in the evolutionary process. In mainstream biology today, a neo-Darwinian view of living things as passive still largely dominates, though research in several areas has been challenging its reign.

Q1. The author's attitude towards the historical treatment of Lamarck's scientific contributions can best be described as: Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The author argues that Lamarck's scientific legacy has been unfairly reduced to his incorrect explanation of giraffes' long necks, overshadowing his broader contributions to evolutionary thought. Expressions such as "laughing stock," "expurgated every trace," and "ridiculed and repressed" indicate the author's criticism of the historical marginalisation of Lamarck's ideas. Option 1 is incorrect because the author does not dismiss Lamarck's central evolutionary framework as scientifically untenable. Option 3 is incorrect because the passage is not neutral; it explicitly challenges the dominant historical narrative. Option 4 is incorrect because the author appears receptive to Lamarck's emphasis on organismal agency rather than sceptical of it. Hence, option 2.Q2. All of the following statements are supported by the passage EXCEPT: Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The passage explicitly states that neo-Darwinists removed Lamarckian influences from their interpretation of evolution and portrayed organisms as passive recipients of random genetic variation and environmental pressures. Therefore, the claim that they preserved Lamarck's conception of organismal agency directly contradicts the passage. Option 1 is supported, as Lamarck believed that organisms' ways of life, shaped by their circumstances, influenced their bodily forms. Option 2 is supported, as the passage explicitly identifies Lamarck's influence on Darwin's understanding of organismal agency. Option 3 is not supported, as neo-Darwinists rejected the active evolutionary role that Lamarck attributed to organisms. Option 4 is supported, as the author argues that the giraffe example overshadowed Lamarck's larger scientific contributions. Hence, option 3.Q3. The author's comparison of neo-Darwinists with creationists most strongly suggests that: Correct Option 1 … Explanation: The author draws a specific parallel between neo-Darwinists and creationists: both portray organisms as passive. However, their explanations differ substantially. Creationists attribute organisms' existence to divine will, whereas neo-Darwinists explain evolutionary change through random genetic variation and external environmental pressures. The comparison concerns the role assigned to organisms, not the equivalence of the two theories. Option 1 correctly identifies the shared assumption of organismal passivity while preserving the distinction between the two explanatory frameworks. Option 2 is incorrect because neo-Darwinism accepts evolution through natural processes, unlike the creationist account described in the passage. Option 3 is incorrect because random genetic variation is explicitly central to the neo-Darwinian framework presented. Option 4 is incorrect because the passage attributes divine creation, not environmental selection, to the creationist explanation. Hence, option 1.Q4. Which of the following findings, if established by subsequent scientific research, would most strongly support the author's challenge to the dominant neo-Darwinian conception of evolution? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The author's central challenge to neo-Darwinism concerns the passive role assigned to organisms in evolutionary change. Option 3 provides evidence that organisms' activities can contribute to conditions producing heritable changes, thereby supporting the possibility that living beings participate actively in evolutionary processes. Importantly, this finding would support the author's broader argument about organismal agency without necessarily validating Lamarck's specific explanation of giraffe necks. Option 1 is incorrect because it reinforces the conventional neo-Darwinian explanation involving genetic variation and natural selection. Option 2 is incorrect because environmental modification alone does not demonstrate an active role in evolutionary change. Option 4 is incorrect because it strengthens the conventional emphasis on genetic mutations occurring independently of organismal behaviour. Hence, option 3.