CAT VA-RC 2021 Slot 1: RC Passage 2

📘 What’s Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?

📝 Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
✅ Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
🔍 In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
📚 Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.



RC Passage

Direction for the questions 5 to 8: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

For the Maya of the Classic period, who lived in Southern Mexico and Central America between 250 and 900 CE, the category of ‘persons’ was not coincident with human beings, as it is for us. That is, human beings were persons - but other, nonhuman entities could be persons, too. . . . In order to explore the slippage of categories between ‘humans’ and ‘persons’, I examined a very specific category of ancient Maya images, found painted in scenes on ceramic vessels. I sought out instances in which faces (some combination of eyes, nose, and mouth) are shown on inanimate objects. . . . Consider my iPhone, which needs to be fed with electricity every night, swaddled in a protective bumper, and enjoys communicating with other fellow-phonebeings. Does it have personhood (if at all) because it is connected to me, drawing this resource from me as an owner or source? For the Maya (who did have plenty of other communicating objects, if not smartphones), the answer was no. Nonhuman persons were not tethered to specific humans, and they did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human. . . . It’s a profoundly democratising way of understanding the world. Humans are not more important persons - we are just one of many kinds of persons who inhabit this world. . . .

The Maya saw personhood as ‘activated’ by experiencing certain bodily needs and through participation in certain social activities. For example, among the faced objects that I examined, persons are marked by personal requirements (such as hunger, tiredness, physical closeness), and by community obligations (communication, interaction, ritual observance). In the images I examined, we see, for instance, faced objects being cradled in humans’ arms; we also see them speaking to humans. These core elements of personhood are both turned inward, what the body or self of a person requires, and outward, what a community expects of the persons who are a part of it, underlining the reciprocal nature of community membership. .

Personhood was a nonbinary proposition for the Maya. Entities were able to be persons while also being something else. The faced objects I looked at indicate that they continue to be functional, doing what objects do (a stone implement continues to chop, an incense burner continues to do its smoky work). Furthermore, the Maya visually depicted many objects in ways that indicated the material category to which they belonged - drawings of the stone implement show that a person-tool is still made of stone. One additional complexity: the incense burner (which would have been made of clay, and decorated with spiky appliques representing the sacred ceiba tree found in this region) is categorised as a person - but also as a tree. With these Maya examples, we are challenged to discard the person/nonperson binary that constitutes our basic ontological outlook. . . . The porousness of boundaries that we have seen in the Maya world points towards the possibility of living with a certain uncategorisability of the world.

RC Line-wise Explanation

Paragraph 1

"For the Maya of the Classic period, who lived in Southern Mexico and Central America between 250 and 900 CE, the category of ‘persons’ was not coincident with human beings, as it is for us."

Explanation: The ancient Maya people did not limit the idea of a "person" to just human beings, unlike modern views.

"That is, human beings were persons - but other, nonhuman entities could be persons, too."

Explanation: While all humans were considered persons, other beings or objects could also be seen as persons.

"In order to explore the slippage of categories between ‘humans’ and ‘persons’, I examined a very specific category of ancient Maya images, found painted in scenes on ceramic vessels."

Explanation: The author studied Maya pottery images to understand how the line between humans and persons was blurred.

"I sought out instances in which faces (some combination of eyes, nose, and mouth) are shown on inanimate objects."

Explanation: They looked for pictures where lifeless objects were given human-like faces.

"Consider my iPhone, which needs to be fed with electricity every night, swaddled in a protective bumper, and enjoys communicating with other fellow-phonebeings."

Explanation: The author compares this idea to how we treat phones like living things—they need power, care, and “socialize.”

"Does it have personhood (if at all) because it is connected to me, drawing this resource from me as an owner or source?"

Explanation: The author questions whether an object becomes a person only because it's connected to a human.

"For the Maya (who did have plenty of other communicating objects, if not smartphones), the answer was no."

Explanation: According to Maya belief, personhood did not come from an object’s relationship to a human.

"Nonhuman persons were not tethered to specific humans, and they did not derive their personhood from a connection with a human."

Explanation: Nonhuman beings had their own personhood, independent of humans.

"It’s a profoundly democratising way of understanding the world."

Explanation: This belief system treats all beings as equally valid persons.

"Humans are not more important persons - we are just one of many kinds of persons who inhabit this world."

Explanation: Humans are seen as only one category of person, not the highest or most important.

Paragraph 2

"The Maya saw personhood as ‘activated’ by experiencing certain bodily needs and through participation in certain social activities."

Explanation: For the Maya, personhood came from having physical needs and being part of social interactions.

"For example, among the faced objects that I examined, persons are marked by personal requirements (such as hunger, tiredness, physical closeness), and by community obligations (communication, interaction, ritual observance)."

Explanation: The objects shown as persons had traits like needing rest or food, and they participated in communal rituals.

"In the images I examined, we see, for instance, faced objects being cradled in humans’ arms; we also see them speaking to humans."

Explanation: The images depict these objects being held lovingly and even communicating with humans.

"These core elements of personhood are both turned inward, what the body or self of a person requires, and outward, what a community expects of the persons who are a part of it, underlining the reciprocal nature of community membership."

Explanation: Being a person involves both inner needs and outward responsibilities, showing a two-way relationship with society.

Paragraph 3

"Personhood was a nonbinary proposition for the Maya."

Explanation: The Maya did not see personhood as simply yes or no; it was a flexible concept.

"Entities were able to be persons while also being something else."

Explanation: Something could be both a tool or object and a person at the same time.

"The faced objects I looked at indicate that they continue to be functional, doing what objects do (a stone implement continues to chop, an incense burner continues to do its smoky work)."

Explanation: Even as persons, these objects still performed their regular, practical functions.

"Furthermore, the Maya visually depicted many objects in ways that indicated the material category to which they belonged - drawings of the stone implement show that a person-tool is still made of stone."

Explanation: Art showed that these “person” objects still kept their physical nature, like a stone object still being shown as stone.

"One additional complexity: the incense burner (which would have been made of clay, and decorated with spiky appliques representing the sacred ceiba tree found in this region) is categorised as a person - but also as a tree."

Explanation: Some objects were considered not only persons, but also other things—like a burner being both a person and a tree.

"With these Maya examples, we are challenged to discard the person/nonperson binary that constitutes our basic ontological outlook."

Explanation: These cases force us to rethink our belief that something is either a person or not.

"The porousness of boundaries that we have seen in the Maya world points towards the possibility of living with a certain uncategorisability of the world."

Explanation: The Maya way of thinking embraces blurred boundaries and the idea that not everything must fit into fixed categories.

RC Paragraph Explanation

Paragraph 1 Summary

The Maya believed that personhood extended beyond humans to nonhuman entities. Unlike modern views, Maya nonhuman persons were not defined by their relationship to humans but existed independently. This perspective presents a more inclusive and egalitarian way of viewing the world.

Paragraph 2 Summary

Maya personhood was defined by both individual needs and social participation. In images, person-like objects express hunger or tiredness and engage in rituals or communication, reflecting a deep integration into community life.

Paragraph 3 Summary

Maya personhood was nonbinary, allowing entities to be both functional objects and persons simultaneously. Some were even depicted as belonging to multiple categories, challenging modern rigid distinctions and encouraging a more fluid view of identity and existence.

RC Quick Table Summary
Paragraph NumberMain Idea
Paragraph 1The Maya viewed personhood as extending beyond humans to independent nonhumans.
Paragraph 2Personhood was defined by both personal needs and social responsibilities.
Paragraph 3Maya beliefs embraced fluid identities, allowing objects to be persons and more.

RC Questions

Ques 5. Which one of the following, if true about the Classic Maya, would invalidate the purpose of the iPhone example in the passage?

Correct Answer: (D) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: Option D: The author uses the example of an iPhone to explore the concept of object "personhood," posing a critical question: "Does the object gain its personhood through its connection to a human being?" The author clarifies that, at least according to the Maya civilization, the answer is a resounding 'no.' In the Maya view, an object's 'personhood' isn't determined by its utility to humans or its connection with them. This perspective fundamentally challenges the idea that the value or 'personhood' of an object is solely tied to its usefulness to humans. Therefore, Option D directly conflicts with the core message of the example. If it were true that the 'personhood' of an incense burner or stone chopper is rooted in its utility to humans, that would undermine the very point the author is making.Options A and B: Neither of these options challenge the central point of the author's example, which is to argue that an object's 'personhood' is not determined by its utility or connection to humans. These options don't offer information that would invalidate the argument or lesson drawn from the example provided.Option C: This option actually aligns with what the author has posited, affirming that an object's 'personhood' is not contingent on its relationship with a human. It doesn't challenge the foundational idea presented in the example, making it an unsuitable choice for invalidating the author's argument.In conclusion, Option D directly conflicts with the author's fundamental argument, making it the correct choice for invalidating the purpose and takeaway of the given example.

Ques 6. Which one of the following best explains the “additional complexity” that the example of the incense burner illustrates regarding personhood for the Classic Maya?t

Correct Answer: (A) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: Option A: In the passage, the author introduces an additional layer of complexity to the concept of object "personhood." Not only is the incense burner considered a "person," but it is also categorized as a "tree," specifically a representation of the sacred ceiba tree indigenous to the region. This addition muddies the already non-binary understanding of personhood. It indicates that categories like "person" and "tree" are not mutually exclusive, but rather share a porous boundary. This aligns with Option A, which suggests that the third category shares a similar relational dynamic with the first two categories, making Option A the most appropriate answer.Option B: This option is not relevant to the point the author is making about additional complexity. The author is not outlining an exception to the concept but rather expanding it to include another layer of complexity. Therefore, Option B can be disregarded as it doesn't pertain to the key argument presented.Option C: While it could be tempting to consider this option because the incense burner is classified both as a "person" and a "tree," the passage does not provide enough evidence to suggest that this specific duality is representative of the Mayan culture's general understanding of personhood. Therefore, Option C cannot be chosen based on the information provided in the passage.Option D: The passage doesn't delve into the concept of the "divine" and the "profane" or suggest that the boundary between them is porous. Therefore, this option is out of the scope of the passage's main point, making it unsuitable for selection.In summary, Option A is the most accurate answer, as it best captures the additional layer of complexity introduced by the author concerning the non-binary concept of object "personhood."

Ques 7. On the basis of the passage, which one of the following worldviews can be inferred to be closest to that of the Classic Maya?

Correct Answer: (B) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: Option B: In the context of the passage, the author elaborates on the Classic Mayan perspective on the concept of personhood. According to this view, personhood is not exclusively tied to humans but extends to nonhuman entities as well. These nonhuman persons do not gain their status through a relationship with humans. Instead, they acquire it through individual needs, like hunger or tiredness, and community responsibilities, such as communication and ritual observance. When viewed through this lens, Option B aligns closely with the Classic Mayan worldview. The tribe described in this option perceives plants as "person-plants" because they are part of an ecosystem and have nutritional needs. This recognition of personal requirements and community obligations matches the Mayan criteria for personhood, making Option B the most appropriate choice.Options A and C: Both of these options attribute the personhood of objects to their usefulness to humans. This contradicts the Mayan belief that personhood is not tied to human utility. As a result, neither Option A nor Option C is compatible with the Classic Mayan understanding of what constitutes a person.Option D: While this option does mention the concept of "bodily needs," which aligns with one of the Classic Mayan criteria for personhood, it introduces the term "functionality." This term is ambiguous in this context and could imply utility to humans, which would clash with the Mayan view. Therefore, due to this ambiguity, Option D can be eliminated from consideration.In summary, Option B is the most fitting choice as it resonates with the Classic Mayan principles of defining personhood based on personal requirements and community obligations, without tethering it to human utility.

Ques 8. Which one of the following, if true, would not undermine the democratising potential of the Classic Maya worldview?

Correct Answer: (A) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: Option A: The author introduces the concept of a "profoundly democratizing" Mayan worldview in which personhood is not confined to human beings. The Mayans believe that nonhuman entities do not derive their personhood based on their connection or utility to humans. Option A suggests that "proximity" could be a criterion for personhood, which would inherently tie the status of an object to its relationship with humans. This idea directly contradicts the author's presentation of the Classic Mayan worldview, where personhood is not linked to human utility or attachment. Therefore, Option A undermines the very premise of the democratizing potential of the Mayan perspective and can be dismissed as an incorrect choice.Option B: Similar to Option A, Option B poses a challenge to the democratizing essence of the Classic Mayan worldview by suggesting that distinctions might be made within the realm of inanimate objects. Such distinctions would impose certain criteria or barriers for the classification of personhood, diminishing the egalitarian nature of this belief system. So, Option B also fails to align with the Classic Mayan perspective on personhood and its inherent democratizing potential.Option C: The Classic Mayan perspective posits that personhood is a nonbinary concept, where entities can be persons and something else simultaneously. The assertion in Option C, which seems to suggest a more binary view of personhood, stands in contrast to this Mayan belief. Thus, Option C also undermines the democratizing potential of the Mayan worldview on personhood, making it an unsuitable choice.Option D: In light of the limitations and contradictions presented by Options A, B, and C, Option D emerges as the correct choice. It is the only option that does not challenge or contradict the Classic Mayan principles regarding the democratizing potential of their understanding of personhood.In summary, Option D is the most compatible with the Classic Mayan view on personhood, as it doesn't challenge its democratizing attributes, unlike the other options.

Actual CAT VA-RC 2021 Slot 1: Question-wise Index

Reading ComprehensionWords from the Passage
RC Passage 1 (Q 1 to 4) Must-Learn Words (Passage 1)
RC Passage 2 (Q 5 to 8) Must-Learn Words (Passage 2)
RC Passage 3 (Q 9 to 12) Must-Learn Words (Passage 3)
RC Passage 4 (Q 13 to 16) Must-Learn Words (Passage 4)
Verbal Ability
Ques 17 (Paragraph Summary) Ques 18 (Misfit/Odd one out)
Ques 19 (Para-jumble) Ques 20 (Paragraph Summary)
Ques 21 (Misfit/Odd one out) Ques 22 (Para-jumble)
Ques 23 (Paragraph Summary) Ques 24 (Misfit/Odd one out)

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free Counselling
Call Icon
×

Get 1 Free Counselling