📘 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 13 to 16: The passage below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[Fifty] years after its publication in English [in 1972], and just a year since [Marshall] Sahlins himself died—we may ask: why did [his essay] “Original Affluent Society” have such an impact, and how has it fared since? . . . Sahlins’s principal argument was simple but counterintuitive: before being driven into marginal environments by colonial powers, hunter-gatherers, or foragers, were not engaged in a desperate struggle for meager survival. Quite the contrary, they satisfied their needs with far less work than people in agricultural and industrial societies, leaving them more time to use as they wished. Hunters, he quipped, keep bankers’ hours. Refusing to maximize, many were “more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game.” . . .
The so-called Neolithic Revolution, rather than improving life, imposed a harsher work regime and set in motion the long history of growing inequality . . .
Moreover, foragers had other options. The contemporary Hadza of Tanzania, who had long been surrounded by farmers, knew they had alternatives and rejected them. To Sahlins, this showed that foragers are not simply examples of human diversity or victimhood but something more profound: they demonstrated that societies make real choices. Culture, a way of living oriented around a distinctive set of values, manifests a fundamental principle of collective self-determination. . . . But the point [of the essay] is not so much the empirical validity of the data—the real interest for most readers, after all, is not in foragers either today or in the Paleolithic— but rather its conceptual challenge to contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism. The empirical served a philosophical and political project, a thought experiment and stimulus to the imagination of possibilities.
With its title’s nod toward The Affluent Society (1958), economist John Kenneth Galbraith’s famously skeptical portrait of America’s postwar prosperity and inequality, and dripping with New Left contempt for consumerism, “The Original Affluent Society” brought this critical perspective to bear on the contemporary world. It did so through the classic anthropological move of showing that radical alternatives to the readers’ lives really exist. If the capitalist world seeks wealth through ever greater material production to meet infinitely expansive desires, foraging societies follow “the Zen road to affluence”: not by getting more, but by wanting less. If it seems that foragers have been left behind by “progress,” this is due only to the ethnocentric self-congratulation of the West. Rather than accumulate material goods, these societies are guided by other values: leisure, mobility, and above all, freedom. . . .
Viewed in today’s context, of course, not every aspect of the essay has aged well. While acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it does not thematize them as heavily as we might today. Rebuking evolutionary anthropologists for treating present-day foragers as “left behind” by progress, it too can succumb to the temptation to use them as proxies for the Paleolithic. Yet these characteristics should not distract us from appreciating Sahlins’s effort to show that if we want to conjure new possibilities, we need to learn about actually inhabitable worlds.
RC Line-wise Explanation
Paragraph 1
Original: Fifty years after its publication in English in 1972, and just a year since Marshall Sahlins himself died—we may ask: why did “Original Affluent Society” have such an impact, and how has it fared since?
Explanation: Half a century after its release and a year after Sahlins’s death, it's worth questioning why his essay was influential and how it's held up over time.
Original: Sahlins’s principal argument was simple but counterintuitive: before being driven into marginal environments by colonial powers, hunter-gatherers, or foragers, were not engaged in a desperate struggle for meager survival.
Explanation: Sahlins argued, contrary to common belief, that early foragers lived comfortably before colonial displacement—they weren’t barely surviving.
Original: Quite the contrary, they satisfied their needs with far less work than people in agricultural and industrial societies, leaving them more time to use as they wished.
Explanation: Foragers met their needs easily, working less than farmers or industrial workers, and had more leisure time.
Original: Hunters, he quipped, keep bankers’ hours.
Explanation: He humorously noted that hunters worked short hours, similar to office workers.
Original: Refusing to maximize, many were ‘more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game.’
Explanation: Instead of trying to get the most food or resources, foragers often prioritized leisure activities and fun over hunting.
Paragraph 2
Original: The so-called Neolithic Revolution, rather than improving life, imposed a harsher work regime and set in motion the long history of growing inequality . . .
Explanation: Sahlins claimed that the shift to agriculture actually made life harder and introduced social inequality.
Paragraph 3
Original: Moreover, foragers had other options. The contemporary Hadza of Tanzania, who had long been surrounded by farmers, knew they had alternatives and rejected them.
Explanation: Foragers like the Hadza, despite being exposed to farming, chose not to adopt it.
Original: To Sahlins, this showed that foragers are not simply examples of human diversity or victimhood but something more profound: they demonstrated that societies make real choices.
Explanation: Sahlins saw this as proof that cultures actively choose how to live—they aren't just shaped by circumstance.
Original: Culture, a way of living oriented around a distinctive set of values, manifests a fundamental principle of collective self-determination.
Explanation: He emphasized that culture reflects deliberate, shared decisions and values.
Paragraph 4
Original: But the point of the essay is not so much the empirical validity of the data—the real interest for most readers, after all, is not in foragers either today or in the Paleolithic— but rather its conceptual challenge to contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism.
Explanation: The essay’s main appeal isn’t its facts about foragers, but its challenge to modern capitalist values and individualism.
Original: The empirical served a philosophical and political project, a thought experiment and stimulus to the imagination of possibilities.
Explanation: Sahlins used anthropology to provoke readers to rethink society and imagine different ways of living.
Paragraph 5
Original: With its title’s nod toward The Affluent Society (1958), economist John Kenneth Galbraith’s famously skeptical portrait of America’s postwar prosperity and inequality, and dripping with New Left contempt for consumerism, “The Original Affluent Society” brought this critical perspective to bear on the contemporary world.
Explanation: By referencing Galbraith’s work and critiquing consumerism, Sahlins linked his ideas to wider leftist criticisms of modern capitalism.
Original: It did so through the classic anthropological move of showing that radical alternatives to the readers’ lives really exist.
Explanation: He used the anthropologist’s tool of showcasing different cultures to prove other ways of life are possible.
Original: If the capitalist world seeks wealth through ever greater material production to meet infinitely expansive desires, foraging societies follow “the Zen road to affluence”: not by getting more, but by wanting less.
Explanation: While modern economies chase endless growth, foragers achieved contentment by limiting their wants—a minimalist philosophy.
Original: If it seems that foragers have been left behind by “progress,” this is due only to the ethnocentric self-congratulation of the West.
Explanation: The belief that foragers are backward reflects Western bias, not objective truth.
Original: Rather than accumulate material goods, these societies are guided by other values: leisure, mobility, and above all, freedom.
Explanation: Foragers prioritized things like free time, movement, and independence over wealth.
Paragraph 6
Original: Viewed in today’s context, of course, not every aspect of the essay has aged well.
Explanation: Some parts of the essay may seem outdated today.
Original: While acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it does not thematize them as heavily as we might today.
Explanation: Though it mentioned colonial harm, the essay didn’t focus on it as much as modern readers might expect.
Original: Rebuking evolutionary anthropologists for treating present-day foragers as “left behind” by progress, it too can succumb to the temptation to use them as proxies for the Paleolithic.
Explanation: Ironically, even while criticizing others, Sahlins sometimes implied that foragers represent ancient lifestyles.
Original: Yet these characteristics should not distract us from appreciating Sahlins’s effort to show that if we want to conjure new possibilities, we need to learn about actually inhabitable worlds.
Explanation: Despite its flaws, the essay’s core message—to look at real, livable alternatives to modern life—remains valuable.
RC Paragraph Explanation
Paragraph 1 Summary
Sahlins argued that foragers were not impoverished or desperate but led relaxed lives with minimal work, defying modern assumptions about primitive societies.
Paragraph 2 Summary
The Neolithic shift to agriculture brought more work and introduced inequality, challenging the idea that it was a step forward.
Paragraph 3 Summary
Modern foragers like the Hadza demonstrate cultural autonomy by choosing their lifestyle over available alternatives, supporting the idea of societies making conscious choices.
Paragraph 4 Summary
The essay’s power lies not in its data but in its critique of capitalist society, offering a provocative alternative to modern economic values.
Paragraph 5 Summary
By echoing Galbraith and critiquing consumerism, the essay presents forager societies as valid alternatives defined by minimalism, freedom, and leisure.
Paragraph 6 Summary
Though some of Sahlins’s ideas haven’t aged well and underplay colonialism, his main contribution—imagining viable alternatives to modern life—remains important.
RC Quick Table Summary
| Paragraph Number | Main Idea |
|---|---|
| Paragraph 1 | Sahlins argued that foragers lived well with little work, opposing the myth of survival hardship. |
| Paragraph 2 | Agriculture increased labor and inequality instead of improving life. |
| Paragraph 3 | Foragers like the Hadza actively choose their way of life, highlighting cultural self-determination. |
| Paragraph 4 | The essay critiques modern capitalism more than it studies foragers empirically. |
| Paragraph 5 | Foraging societies offer alternative values to capitalism: leisure, simplicity, and freedom. |
| Paragraph 6 | While not perfect, Sahlins’s work invites us to imagine real, alternative ways of living. |
RC Questions
Ques 13. The author mentions Tanzania’s Hadza community to illustrate:
Ques 14. The author of the passage mentions Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society” to:
Ques 15. We can infer that Sahlins's main goal in writing his essay was to:
Ques 16. The author of the passage criticises Sahlins’s essay for its:
