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: Jan 13, 2026
  • 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.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Phase 1: Identify the passage’s primary dichotomy.
Rodents utilize pheromonal cues for kin/stranger identification, thereby segmenting in-group from out-group. Humans, while not reliant on pheromones, also engage in “kin-selective violence” and possess cultural kinship, categorizing the world as “us” versus “them.”
Phase 2: Assess the choices.
- Option A: Accurate. Both species exhibit an in-group/out-group tendency. - Option B: Inaccurate — rodent behavior is instinctual; human behavior can be overridden, which is not a shared characteristic. - Option C: Incorrect — rodent groups are based on kinship; human groups are based on arbitrary, cultural factors. - Option D: Partially correct, but hostility was not highlighted as the central similarity. - Option E: Inaccurate — only rodents possess genetically determined pheromones.
Phase 3: Determination.
The accurate parallel is Option A.
Final Determination: \[\boxed{\text{A}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
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: Jan 13, 2026
  • 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.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Identify Core Distinction.
Humans, unlike rodents, base kinship on adaptable cultural factors rather than fixed genetic traits. This cultural kinship is fluid, varying with context, location, and time.
Step 2: Assess Choices.
- Option A: Partially accurate but less comprehensive than "fluidity and situational dependence." - Option B: Accurate. The text highlights that human group affiliation markers are context-dependent, not static. - Option C: Overly specialized and not explicitly stated. - Option D: True but insufficient, as it omits entire identity markers beyond just traits. - Option E: Too broad and indistinct.
Step 3: Determine Outcome.
Therefore, Option B represents the most accurate interpretation.
Final Answer: \[\boxed{\text{B}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
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: Jan 13, 2026
  • 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.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall passage example.
The author posits that their familial background might have evoked a stronger emotional response to Stalingrad than to Pearl Harbor. This illustrates that an individual's connection to historical events is not inherent but is instead influenced by their personal emotional and cultural affiliations.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Too general — the issue extends beyond merely "erratic interpretation of history." - Option B: An overstatement — human reasoning is guided by cultural frameworks, not a complete lack of logic. - Option C: Inaccurate — the influencing factor is not lineage but the emotional and cultural context. - Option D: Accurate. The interpretation of historical events is indeed shaped by individual emotional connections. - Option E: Not relevant to the provided example.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Consequently, Option D most accurately reflects the central idea.
Final Answer: \[\boxed{\text{D}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

Questions Asked in XAT exam