Comprehension

This uidity and situational dependence is uniquely human. In other species, in-group/outgroup distinctions re ect degrees of biological relatedness, or what evolutionary biologists call “kin selection.” Rodents distinguish between a sibling, a cousin, and a stranger by smell—xed, genetically determined pheromonal signatures—and adapt their cooperation accordingly. Those murderous groups of chimps are largely made up of brothers or cousins who grew up together and predominantly harm outsiders. Humans are plenty capable of kin-selective violence themselves, yet human group mentality is often utterly independent of such instinctual familial bonds. Most modern human societies rely instead on cultural kin selection, a process allowing people to feel closely related to what are, in a biological sense, total strangers. Often, this requires a highly active process of inculcation, with its attendant rituals and vocabularies. Consider military drills producing “bands of brothers,” unrelated college freshmen becoming sorority “sisters,” or the bygone value of welcoming immigrants into “the American family.” This malleable, rather than genetically xed, path of identity formation also drives people to adopt arbitrary markers that enable them to spot their cultural kin in an ocean of strangers—hence the importance various communities attach to ags, dress, or facial hair. The hipster beard, the turban, and the “Make America Great Again” hat all fulfill this role by sending strong signals of tribal belonging. Moreover, these cultural communities are arbitrary when compared to the relatively axed logic of biological kin selection. Few things show this arbitrariness better than the experience of immigrant families, where the randomness of a visa lottery can radically reshu e a child’s education, career opportunities, and cultural predilections. Had my grandparents and father missed the train out of Moscow that they instead barely made, maybe I’d be a chain smoking Russian academic rather than a Birkenstock-wearing American one, moved to tears by the heroism during the Battle of Stalingrad rather than that at Pearl Harbor. Scaled up from the level of individual family histories, our big-picture group identities—the national identities and cultural principles that structure our lives— are just as arbitrary and subject to the vagaries of history.

Question: 1

Based on the passage, how are rodents and humans similar to each other?

Show Hint

When comparing species in RC, focus on the functional similarity (here, division of world into in-group/out-group) rather than mechanism (pheromones vs culture).
Updated On: Sep 4, 2025
  • Both rodents and humans divide the world between “us” and “them.”
  • Both rodents and humans can reign their instincts.
  • Both rodents and humans make their groups exclusive of brothers and cousins.
  • Both rodents and humans are hostile towards outsiders.
  • Both rodents and humans carry a genetically determined pheromonal signature.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall the passage’s main contrast.
Rodents rely on pheromonal signatures to distinguish between kin and strangers, thereby separating in-group vs out-group. Humans, though not bound by pheromones, also practice “kin-selective violence” and cultural kinship, dividing the world into “us” vs “them.”
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Correct. Both species demonstrate an in-group/out-group mentality. - Option B: Incorrect — rodents act instinctively; humans may override, but not a shared similarity. - Option C: Wrong — rodents’ groups are made of kin; humans’ are arbitrary and cultural. - Option D: Partially true, but hostility was not emphasized as the key similarity. - Option E: Incorrect — only rodents have genetically determined pheromones.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The valid similarity is Option A.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{A}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

What does the author BEST mean when they say, “This fluidity and situational dependence is uniquely human?”

Show Hint

Look for words like “fluidity,” “situational,” “arbitrary” in RC passages—they often point to context-dependence as the key idea.
Updated On: Sep 4, 2025
  • Humans’ kin selection is not based on instinctual familial bonds while relating to strangers.
  • Humans’ in-group/out-group thinking is influenced by their space and time.
  • Humans use cognitive architecture to detect any potential cues about social coalitions and alliances.
  • The implicit traits that humans associate with can change over time.
  • Humans are uniquely progressive and ever evolving.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall key difference.
Unlike rodents, humans do not rely on fixed, genetic markers but on cultural kinship, which is malleable and changes depending on context, space, and historical period.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Partially true but narrower than the idea of “fluidity and situational dependence.” - Option B: Correct. The author emphasized that human in-group/out-group markers are situational, not fixed. - Option C: Over-technical, not directly stated in passage. - Option D: True but incomplete, since it’s not only traits but whole identity markers. - Option E: Too generic and vague.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the correct interpretation is Option B.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

What does the author BEST mean when they refer to the Battle of Stalingrad and Pearl Harbour?

Show Hint

When an RC uses personal or historical examples (Stalingrad vs Pearl Harbor), check how it illustrates subjective, emotionally-driven perception.
Updated On: Sep 4, 2025
  • Our identities and emotional attachments are subject to erratic interpretation of history.
  • Humans do not follow any specific logic when they develop association with a particular cultural community.
  • Humans’ relationship with any specific place depends upon their lineage and ancestry.
  • Humans’ interpretation of specific events depends on their emotional association with them.
  • Humans are capable of selective violence towards each other.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall passage example.
The author notes how their family background could have made them emotionally moved by Stalingrad rather than Pearl Harbor — showing that human associations with events are not absolute, but shaped by emotional and cultural attachments.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Too broad — it is not just “erratic interpretation of history.” - Option B: Overstates — humans follow cultural logics, not absence of logic. - Option C: Incorrect — not lineage, but emotional-cultural background. - Option D: Correct. Interpretation of historical events is shaped by subjective emotional ties. - Option E: Irrelevant to this example.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, the meaning is best captured by Option D.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{D}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in XAT exam

View More Questions