Comprehension

Certain variants of key behavioural genes, “risk allele” make people more vulnerable to certain mood, psychiatric, or personality disorders. An allele is any of the variants of a gene that takes more than one form. A risk allele, then, is simply a gene variant that increases your likelihood of developing a problem. 
Researchers have identified a dozen-odd gene variants that can increase a person’s susceptibility to depression, anxiety and antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviours, and other problems — if, and only if, the person carrying the variant suffers a traumatic or stressful childhood or faces particularly trying experiences later in life. This hypothesis, often called the “stress diathesis” or “genetic vulnerability” model, has come to saturate psychiatry and behavioural science.
Recently, however, an alternate hypothesis has emerged from this one and is turning it inside out. This new model suggests that it’s a mistake to understand these “risk” genes only as liabilities. According to this new thinking, these “bad genes” can create dysfunctions in unfavourable contexts — but they can also enhance function in favourable contexts. The genetic sensitivities to negative experience that the vulnerability hypothesis has identified, it follows, are just the downside of a bigger phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.
This hypothesis has been anticipated by Swedish folk wisdom which has long spoken of “dandelion” children. These dandelion children — equivalent to our “normal” or “healthy” children, with “resilient” genes — do pretty well almost anywhere, whether raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or well-tended garden. There are also “orchid” children, who will wilt if ignored or maltreated but bloom spectacularly with greenhouse care. According to this orchid hypothesis, risk becomes possibility; vulnerability becomes plasticity and responsiveness. Gene variants generally considered misfortunes can instead now be understood as highly leveraged evolutionary bets, with both high risks and high potential rewards.
In this view, having both dandelion and orchid kids greatly raises a family’s (and a species’) chance of succeeding, over time and in any given environment. The behavioural diversity provided by these two different types of temperament also supplies precisely what a smart, strong species needs if it is to spread across and dominate a changing world. The many dandelions in a population provide an underlying stability. The less-numerous orchids, meanwhile, may falter in some environments but can excel in those that suit them. And even when they lead troubled early lives, some of the resulting heightened responses to adversity that can be problematic in everyday life — increased novelty-seeking, restlessness of attention, elevated risk-taking, or aggression — can prove advantageous in certain challenging situations: wars, social strife of many kinds, and migrations to new environments. Together, the steady dandelions and the mercurial orchids offer an adaptive flexibility that neither can provide alone. Together, they open a path to otherwise unreachable individual and collective achievements.

Question: 1

The passage suggests ‘orchids’:

Show Hint

Remember: In psychological metaphors, ‘dandelions’ represent resilience in any environment, while ‘orchids’ flourish only under special, protected conditions.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • are insufficient in number.
  • are limited to greenhouses.
  • end up weaker as compared to dandelions.
  • thrive in anaesthetised conditions.
  • are always too delicate to survive.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The metaphor of ‘orchids’ in psychology and biology suggests that orchids are highly sensitive species which require carefully controlled or "anaesthetised" conditions to grow well.
They do not flourish in harsh or natural competitive environments like dandelions do, but in protected, nurtured conditions they thrive and can even surpass others.
- Option A: Insufficient in number – not suggested.
- Option B: Limited to greenhouses – too restrictive, not supported.
- Option C: Weaker than dandelions – misleading; orchids are not inherently weaker, they just need specific conditions.
- Option D: Correct, as they thrive only when carefully supported.
- Option E: Too extreme; they are not "always too delicate to survive."
\[ \boxed{\text{Orchids thrive in anaesthetised conditions.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Which of the following statements correctly echoes the author’s view?

Show Hint

When evaluating such questions, avoid extreme or absolute statements; the author usually emphasizes nuance and balance between nature and nurture.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • Persons carrying risk allele end up being self-destructive and antisocial.
  • Orchids possess humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success.
  • With a bad environment and poor parenting, all children will have a normal life.
  • Children born with genetic vulnerability need not necessarily be sociopaths.
  • Genes not only make you sensitive to disorders, but are also responsible for failures of societies.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Analyze the author’s stance.
The passage suggests that genetic vulnerability (such as carrying risk alleles) does not always doom individuals. Environmental influences, upbringing, and resilience play crucial roles in outcomes.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
(A) Incorrect — too absolute, implies all risk allele carriers are destructive. ✗
(B) Incorrect — irrelevant; orchids are unrelated metaphor here. ✗
(C) Incorrect — contradicts logic; bad environment + poor parenting cannot ensure a normal life. ✗
(D) Correct — aligns with the view: vulnerability does not guarantee antisocial outcomes. ✓
(E) Incorrect — overgeneralizes by blaming genes for societal failures. ✗
Step 3: Conclusion.
The author emphasizes that genetic predispositions do not determine destiny; hence, the correct answer is: \[ \boxed{\text{Children born with genetic vulnerability need not necessarily be sociopaths.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

The word ‘diathesis’ means:

Show Hint

Remember: “Diathesis” = predisposition or tendency (often medical). Example: “hemorrhagic diathesis” means a tendency to bleed easily.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • susceptible disease
  • two – prolonged hypothesis
  • connected with two kidneys
  • missing part of the body
  • living in two different environments
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

The word diathesis comes from Greek, meaning “a disposition” or “a condition.” In medical terminology, it refers to a {predisposition or susceptibility} to a certain disease, disorder, or abnormal condition.
It does not mean a hypothesis (so option B is wrong).
It is not related to kidneys (option C is wrong).
It does not refer to missing a body part (option D is wrong).
Nor does it describe living in two environments (option E is wrong). Thus, the best definition is: \[ \boxed{\text{susceptible disease / predisposition to disease}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

Mr.\ Good and Mr.\ Evil were batch-mates during college. Five years after graduating, Mr.\ Evil was put behind bars for financial fraud while Mr.\ Good was running a successful NGO, working for orphans. Mr.\ Good was raised in a protective environment while Mr.\ Evil was a self-made man. Based on the above information, which of the following statements is definitely correct?

Show Hint

When a question asks what is {definitely} correct about personality types from sparse biographical facts, avoid strong labels. If multiple causal explanations remain plausible, choose the option that withholds classification.
Updated On: Aug 30, 2025
  • It can be concluded that Mr.\ Evil is a ‘dandelion,’ but nothing can be concluded about Mr.\ Good.
  • It can be concluded that Mr.\ Evil is an ‘orchid’, but nothing can be concluded about Mr.\ Good.
  • It can be concluded that Mr.\ Good is a ‘dandelion’, but nothing can be concluded about Mr.\ Evil.
  • It can be concluded that both Mr.\ Good and Mr.\ Evil are ‘orchid’.
  • It is not possible to conclude about ‘children typology’ of the two batch mates.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: What the labels mean (context).
In the “orchid–dandelion” metaphor, {orchids} are highly sensitive to environment (can flourish or flounder depending on conditions) while {dandelions} are relatively resilient across contexts. The prompt gives no explicit behavioral test or longitudinal evidence to classify either person.
Step 2: Why none of the specific classifications follow.
The facts given—(i) different upbringings ({protective} vs.\ {self-made}) and (ii) divergent outcomes (NGO success vs.\ fraud and jail)—do not logically imply inherent sensitivity or resilience types. Outcomes can be driven by myriad factors (values, opportunities, peer influence, chance events), not solely orchid/dandelion traits.
Step 3: Eliminate options.
(A), (B), (C), (D) assert definite typologies for at least one person, which are {unsupported}. Only (E) correctly states that no definite typology conclusion can be drawn from the information provided.
\[ \boxed{\text{No definitive typology conclusion is possible} \;\Rightarrow\; \text{Option (E).}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in XAT exam

View More Questions