Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Comprehension:
This fluidity and situational dependence is uniquely human. In other species, in-group/outgroup distinctions reflect degrees of biological relatedness, or what evolutionary biologists call “kin selection.” Rodents distinguish between a sibling, a cousin, and a stranger by smell—fixed, 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 fixed, 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 flags, 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 fixed 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 reshuffle 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.
Based on the passage, how are rodents and humans similar to each other?
Let us try understanding the passage,
The author contrasts human flexibility in group identity with the fixed, biology-based kin selection seen in other species. While animals like rodents and chimpanzees form groups strictly based on genetic relatedness—with cooperation or aggression dictated by pheromonal signals and familial bonds—humans exhibit a much more fluid and context-dependent approach to grouping.
The focus then shifts to how humans establish group bonds beyond mere biological kinship. Although capable of kin-based loyalty, modern societies predominantly engage in "cultural kin selection," where rituals, shared language, and collective practices foster feelings of deep kinship among unrelated individuals.
The author then explains that because human identity formation is culturally driven rather than genetically pre-determined, people adopt arbitrary symbols—like specific clothing, hairstyles, or even political hats—to signal their membership in a group. These markers serve as visual cues of belonging and tribal affiliation in a diverse society.
Finally, the author illustrates that cultural communities and identities are inherently arbitrary and shaped by chance historical events, using the example of immigrant families. The unpredictable nature of immigration outcomes can drastically alter an individual's life path and identity, highlighting how national and cultural identities emerge from factors beyond genetic ties, subject to the random twists of history.
Question asks: Based on the passage, how are rodents and humans similar to each other?
We look at the options seeing which of the following we can infer.
A cannot be inferred, it is stated that Rodents have a signature scent, nothing is mentioned about humans.
B cannot be inferred as this is not mentioned throughout
C is inherently wrong and goes against the main idea of the passage
E cannot be inferred as there is no mention of behavior to outsiders.
D can be inferred as both humans and rodents create groups although on different basis but nevertheless still divide themselves from others using different criterion.
Create a FREE account and get: