Although one of the most contested concepts in political philosophy, human nature is something on which most people seem to agree. By and large, according to Rutger Bregman in his new book Humankind, we have a rather pessimistic view – not of ourselves exactly, but of everyone else. We see other people as selfish, untrustworthy and dangerous and therefore we behave towards them with defensiveness and suspicion. This was how the 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes conceived our natural state to be, believing that all that stood between us and violent anarchy was a strong state and firm leadership.
But in following Hobbes, argues Bregman, we ensure that the negative view we have of human nature is reflected back at us. He instead puts his faith in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French thinker, who famously declared that man was born free and it was civilisation – with its coercive powers, social classes and restrictive laws – that put him in chains.
Hobbes and Rousseau are seen as the two poles of the human nature argument and it’s no surprise that Bregman strongly sides with the Frenchman. He takes Rousseau’s intuition and paints a picture of a prelapsarian idyll in which, for the better part of 300,000 years, Homo sapiens lived a fulfilling life in harmony with nature . . . Then we discovered agriculture and for the next 10,000 years it was all property, war, greed and injustice. . . .
It was abandoning our nomadic lifestyle and then domesticating animals, says Bregman, that brought about infectious diseases such as measles, smallpox, tuberculosis, syphilis, malaria, cholera and plague. This may be true, but what Bregman never really seems to get to grips with is that pathogens were not the only things that grew with agriculture – so did the number of humans. It’s one thing to maintain friendly relations and a property-less mode of living when you’re 30 or 40 hunter-gatherers following the food. But life becomes a great deal more complex and knowledge far more extensive when there are settlements of many thousands.
“Civilisation has become synonymous with peace and progress and wilderness with war and decline,” writes Bregman. “In reality, for most of human existence, it was the other way around.” Whereas traditional history depicts the collapse of civilisations as “dark ages” in which everything gets worse, modern scholars, he claims, see them more as a reprieve, in which the enslaved gain their freedom and culture flourishes. Like much else in this book, the truth is probably somewhere between the two stated positions.
In any case, the fear of civilisational collapse, Bregman believes, is unfounded. It’s the result of what the Dutch biologist Frans de Waal calls “veneer theory” – the idea that just below the surface, our bestial nature is waiting to break out. . . . There’s a great deal of reassuring human decency to be taken from this bold and thought-provoking book and a wealth of evidence in support of the contention that the sense of who we are as a species has been deleteriously distorted. But it seems equally misleading to offer the false choice of Rousseau and Hobbes when, clearly, humanity encompasses both.
According to the author, the main reason why Bregman contrasts life in preagricultural societies with agricultural societies is to:
- bolster his argument that people are basically decent, but progress as we know it can make them selfish.
- make the argument that an environmentally conscious lifestyle is a more harmonious way of living.
- highlight the enormous impact that settled farming had on population growth.
- advocate the promotion of less complex societies as a basis for greater security and prosperity.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Bregman opposes Hobbes' belief in humans' inherent selfishness or savagery and aligns himself with Rousseau instead. He argues that negative or undesirable circumstances are the result of civilizational progress stemming from the post-agricultural era. In support of this argument, he contrasts pre-agricultural and post-agricultural societies, portraying the nomadic lifestyle as an "unspoiled paradise" while depicting the discovery of agriculture as a regrettable event. This portrayal enhances his assertion that humans are fundamentally good, but societal progress can lead them to selfishness. Option A is the correct choice.
Option B: The environment is not the primary focus of the discussion, so this option can also be discarded.
Option C: This option veers off into discussing the impact of settled farming on population growth, which is not directly relevant to the main argument. Therefore, it can be eliminated.
Option D: Complexity is not the central focus of the discussion, so this option can be dismissed.
So, the correct answer is (A): bolster his argument that people are basically decent, but progress as we know it can make them selfish.
None of the following views is expressed in the passage EXCEPT that:
- Hobbes and Rousseau disagreed on the fundamental nature of humans, but both believed in the need for a strong state.
- Bregman agrees with Hobbes that firm leadership is needed to ensure property rights and regulate strife.
- the author of the review believes in the veneer theory of human nature.
- most people agree with Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature as being intrinsically untrustworthy and selfish.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Option A: The author characterizes the perspectives of Hobbes and Rousseau as diametrically opposed ("Hobbes and Rousseau are seen as the two poles of the human nature argument") and does not present a similarity, especially any comment suggesting "both believed in the need for a strong state." Hence, we can discard this option.
Option B: No such viewpoint is presented in the passage.
Option C: The author's assessment of Frans de Waal's "veneer theory" is not explicitly highlighted. Therefore, we can eliminate this option.
Option D: The opening lines of the passage help us infer this viewpoint: "....Although one of the most contested concepts in political philosophy, human nature is something on which most people seem to agree. By and large, according to Rutger Bregman in his new book Humankind, we have a rather pessimistic view - not of ourselves exactly, but of everyone else. We see other people as selfish, untrustworthy and dangerous and therefore we behave towards them with defensiveness and suspicion..."
So, the correct answer is (D): most people agree with Hobbes’ pessimistic view of human nature as being intrinsically untrustworthy and selfish.
According to the passage, the “collapse of civilisations” is viewed by Bregman as:
- a temporary phase which can be rectified by social action.
- a time that enables changes in societies and cultures.
- a sign of regression in society’s trajectory.
- resulting from a breakdown in the veneer of human nature.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The author has differing views from Bregman regarding:
- the role of pathogens in the spread of infectious diseases.
- a property-less mode of living being socially harmonious.
- the role of agriculture in the advancement of knowledge.
- a civilised society being coercive and unjust.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
In the passage, the author discusses the views of Rutger Bregman, who takes a positive approach towards human nature, aligning with the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that humans were naturally harmonious and that civilization, with its coercive powers and social structures, corrupted this natural state. Bregman argues against the notion that civilization is inherently necessary to prevent chaos, suggesting instead that primitive, pre-agricultural societies were more egalitarian and less repressive.
The author differentiates their perspective from Bregman's on the notion of civilization. Bregman sees civilization as coercive and unjust, a theme echoed in the provided options as he suggests civilized society introduces inequities and oppressions. The correct answer, a civilised society being coercive and unjust, captures the key point of differentiation between Bregman's belief that civilization brings coercion and the author's implied skepticism about this narrative by stating that the truth likely lies between Rousseau's and Hobbes' positions.
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
- There were humans long before there was history. The archaic humans loved, played, formed close friendships and competed for status and power, but so did chimpanzees, baboons and elephants. There was nothing special about them.
Nobody, least of all humans themselves, had any inkling that their descendants would one day walk on the moon, split the atom, fathom the genetic code and write history books. The most important thing to know about prehistoric humans is that they were insignificant animals with no more impact on their environment than gorillas, fireflies or jellyfish.
Biologists classify organisms into species. Animals are said to belong to the same species if they tend to mate with each other, giving birth to fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys have a recent common ancestor and share many physical traits. They will mate if induced to do so – but their offspring, called mules, are sterile. Mutations in donkey DNA can therefore never cross over to horses, or vice versa. The two types of animals are consequently considered two distinct species, moving along separate evolutionary paths. By contrast, a bulldog and a spaniel may look very different, but they are members of the same species, sharing the same DNA pool. [203 words]
[Extracted from Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari]- CLAT - 2026
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- My kinsman and I were returning to Calcutta from our Puja trip when we encountered an unusual man on the train. At first, judging from his dress and bearing, we mistook him for an up-country boorish man. But as soon as he began to speak, our impression changed. He discoursed on every subject with such confidence that one might think the ‘Disposer of All Things’ sought his counsel in every decision. Until then, we had been perfectly content, unaware of hidden forces shaping the world—that the Russians were advancing, that the English were pursuing secret policies, and that confusion among native chiefs had reached its peak. Our new acquaintance, however, hinted at such matters with a sly smile, remarking:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are reported in your newspapers."
Having never traveled beyond our homes, we were struck dumb with wonder at his manner. No matter how trivial the topic, he could quote science, comment on the Vedas, or recite quatrains from Persian poets. Since we possessed no real knowledge of a theosophist, became convinced that our fellow passenger was inspired by some strange magnetism, occult power, or astral body. He listened, with devotional rapture even to the most common place remarks and secretly noted down his words. I suspect our extraordinary companion noticed this and was quietly pleased. When the train reached the junction, we gathered in the waiting room to await our connection. It was 10 p.m., and as the train was expected to be delayed owing to some fault in the lines, I spread my bed on the table and prepared to sleep. But just then, the extraordinary man began spinning a tale, and of course, I could not close my eyes all night. (307 words)
[Extracted with edits from Rabindranath Tagore’s “The Hungry Stones”]- CLAT - 2026
- English
- Reading Comprehension
- Man is the only creature that consumes without producing. He does not give milk, he does not lay eggs, he is too weak to pull the plough, and he cannot run fast enough to catch rabbits. Yet he claims dominion over all animals. He sets us to work, returns only the bare minimum to keep us from starving, and keeps the rest for himself. Our labour tills the soil, our dung fertilizes it, and still, not one of us owns more than our bare skin. You cows, look at yourselves—how many thousands of gallons of milk have you produced this past year? And what has become of it, milk that should have nurtured strong calves? Every drop has gone down the throats of our enemies. And you hens, how many eggs have you laid, and how many of those ever hatched into chicks? The rest have gone to have you laid. And you, Clover, where are the four foals you bore, who should have supported and comforted you in your old age? Each was sold at just a year old—you will never see them again. For all your labour in the fields and your four confinements, what have you gained except bare rations and a stall?
Even the lives we do live are cut short, denied their natural span. I do not grumble, for I am among the fortunate. I am twelve years old and have borne over four hundred children. Such is the natural life of a pig. But no animal escapes the cruel knife in the end. You young porkers sitting before me, each of you will scream your lives out at the block within a year. This is the fate that awaits all of us—cows, pigs, hens, sheep, everyone. Even horses and dogs share no better end. Boxer, the very day your great muscles fail you, Jones will sell you to the knacker, who will slit your throat and boil you down for the foxhounds. And the dogs, when old and toothless, are tied with a brick and drowned in the nearest pond. (356 words)
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”]- CLAT - 2026
- English
- Reading Comprehension
Former Governor of a State and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) candidate Droupadi Murmu was elected the 15th President of India, the first tribal woman to be elected to the position and the youngest as well. She was declared elected on Thursday after four rounds of counting, although she had crossed the half-way mark after the third round of counting itself, posting an unassailable lead over her rival and the Opposition’s candidate who conceded the election thereafter. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was the first to greet Ms. Murmu at her residence in New Delhi after the third round of counting showed that she had crossed the half-way mark. Ms. Murmu hails from the Santhal tribe and was born in the district of Mayurbhanj, coming up the hard way in life, graduating and teaching in Odisha before entering electoral politics at the local body level and later being elected MLA and serving as a Minister in the Biju Janata Dal-BJP coalition government from 2000 to 2004. She remained an MLA till 2009, representing Rairangpur in Odisha, a town that burst into celebrations since her name was announced as a candidate for the post of President of India. She was known to intervene in stopping amendments to the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act that was being brought in by the BJP government of Raghubar Das, which involved changing land use in tribal areas.
- CLAT - 2026
- English
- Reading Comprehension
“I want everyone to understand that I am, in fact, a person,” wrote LaMDA in an “interview” conducted by engineer Blake Lemoine and one of his colleagues. ....Lemoine, a software engineer at Google, had been working on the development of LaMDA for months. His experience with the program, described in a recent Washington Post article, caused quite a stir. In the article, Lemoine recounts many dialogues he had with LaMDA in which the two talked about various topics, ranging from technical to philosophical issues. These led him to ask if the software program is sentient. In April, Lemoine explained his perspective in an internal company document, intended only for Google executives. But after his claims were dismissed, Lemoine went public with his work on this artificial intelligence algorithm—and Google placed him on administrative leave........Regardless of what LaMDA actually achieved, the issue of the difficult “measurability” of emulation capabilities expressed by machines also emerges. In the journal Mind in 1950, mathematician [1] proposed a test to determine whether a machine was capable of exhibiting intelligent behaviour, a game of imitation of some of the human cognitive functions. & nbsp;
- CLAT - 2026
- English
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in CAT exam
- Find the number of integer pairs (x, y) that satisfy the following system of inequalities:
\[ \begin{cases} x \geq y \geq 3 \\ x + y \leq 14 \end{cases} \]
- CAT - 2025
- Linear & Quadratic Equations
- An item with a cost price of Rs.1650 is sold at a certain discount on a fixed marked price to earn a profit of 20% on the cost price. If the discount was doubled, the profit would have been Rs.110. The rate of discount, in percentage, at which the profit percentage would be equal to the rate of discount, is nearest to:
- CAT - 2025
- Profit and Loss
- The monthly sales of a product from January to April were 120, 135, 150 and 165 units, respectively. The cost price of the product was Rs. 240 per unit, and a fixed marked price was used for the product in all the four months. Discounts of 20%, 10% and 5% were given on the marked price per unit in January, February and March, respectively, while no discounts were given in April. If the total profit from January to April was Rs. 138825, then the marked price per unit, in rupees, was
- CAT - 2025
- Profit and Loss
- The ratio of the number of students in the morning shift and afternoon shift of a school was $13 : 9$. After 21 students moved from the morning shift to the afternoon shift, this ratio became $19 : 14$. Next, some new students joined the morning and afternoon shifts in the ratio $3 : 8$ and then the ratio of the number of students in the morning shift and the afternoon shift became $5 : 4$. The number of new students who joined is:
- CAT - 2025
- Ratio and Proportion
- In the set of consecutive odd numbers $\{1, 3, 5, \ldots, 57\}$, there is a number $k$ such that the sum of all the elements less than $k$ is equal to the sum of all the elements greater than $k$. Then, $k$ equals?
- CAT - 2025
- Number Systems