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.
What does the author BEST mean when they refer to the Battle of Stalingrad and Pearl Harbour?
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.
The question asks about the association with historical events. Here it is important to note that the historical events were per se not "interpreted". The author clearly mentions the fact that he might have different views about the same historical event if he were born elsewhere. This inference rules out the fact that history is being interpreted, rather the person (in this case immigrants) is associated with certain historical events depending on their location and their cultural ties.
The only correct option is "Humans’ interpretation of specific events depends on their emotional association with them."
There is no "erratic interpretation" that is happening, it is rather understanding of a certain event based on emotion, cultural and geographic association.
Create a FREE account and get: