CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage a... Start Learning for Free
DIRECTIONS for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three 'explanations' of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of 'common knowledge', determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologist's research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a 'finding' in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the 'causes' of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins' Are these explanations actually justifications ('We/They can't help it') or are they something more mischievous and sinister ('If it's genetic, then maybe something can be done about it')
First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the 'order of nature', and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.
Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific 'truth'. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be 'against the order of nature'.
Q. The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:
  • a)
    The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality    
  • b)
    The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality    
  • c)
    The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality    
  • d)
    The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexuality
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question ba...
In the given case, refer to the lines: They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three ''explanations'' of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions.
The lines show that how these three are used by society and scientists to define homosexuality in a very limited and restrictive manner. Thus, Option C is the correct answer here. The other options are clever mutilations of the given information in the passage but these do not match the intended meaning.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question ba...
In the given case, refer to the lines: They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three ''explanations'' of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions.
The lines show that how these three are used by society and scientists to define homosexuality in a very limited and restrictive manner. Thus, Option C is the correct answer here. The other options are clever mutilations of the given information in the passage but these do not match the intended meaning.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.It can be inferred from the passage that

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q. The author of the passage clearly

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Civilization is a continuous movement—hence there is a gradual transition from the Oriental civilization to the Western. The former finally merges into the latter. Although the line of demarcation is not clearly drawn, some striking differences are apparent when the two are placed in juxtaposition. Perhaps the most evident contrast is observed in the gradual freedom of the mind from the influences of tradition and religious superstition. Connected with this, also, is the struggle for freedom from despotism in government. It has been observed how the ancient civilizations were characterized by the despotism of priests and kings. It was the early privilege of European life to gradually break away from this form of human degradation and establish individual rights and individual development. Kings and princes, indeed, ruled in the Western world, but they learned to do so with a fuller recognition of the rights of the governed. There came to be recognized, also, free discussion as the right of people in the processes of government. It is admitted that the despotic governments of the Old World existed for the few and neglected the many. While despotism was not wanting in European civilization, the struggle to be free from it was the ruling spirit of the age. The history of Europe centres around this struggle to be free from despotism and traditional learning, and to develop freedom of thought and action.Among Oriental people the idea of progress was wanting in their philosophy. True, they had some notion of changes that take place in the conditions of political and social life, and in individual accomplishments, yet there was nothing hopeful in their presentation of the theory of life or in their practices of religion; and the few philosophers who recognized changes that were taking place saw not in them a persistent progress and growth. Their eyes were turned toward the past. Their thoughts centred on traditions and things that were fixed. Life was reduced to a dull, monotonous round by the great masses of the people. If at any time a ray of light penetrated the gloom, it was turned to illuminate the accumulated philosophies of the past. On the other hand, in European civilization we find the idea of progress becoming more and more predominant. The early Greeks and Romans were bound to a certain extent by the authority of tradition on one side and the fixity of purpose on the other. At times there was little that was hopeful in their philosophy, for they, too, recognized the decline in the affairs of men. But through trial and error, new discoveries of truth were made which persisted until the revival of learning in the Middle Ages, at the time of the formation of new nations, when the ideas of progress became fully recognized in the minds of the thoughtful, and subsequently in the full triumph of Western civilization came the recognition of the possibility of continuous progress.Another great distinction in the development of European civilization was the recognition of humanity. In ancient times humanitarian spirit appeared not in the heart of man nor in the philosophy of government. Even the old tribal government was for the few. The national government was for selected citizens only. Specific gods, a special religion, the privilege of rights and duties were available to a few, while all others were deprived of them. This invoked a selfishness in practical life and developed a selfish system even among the leaders of ancient culture. The broad principle of the rights of an individual because he was human was not taken into serious consideration even among the more thoughtful. If he was friendly to the recognized god he was permitted to exist. If he was an enemy, he was to be crushed. On the other hand, the triumph of Western civilization is the recognition of the value of a human being and his right to engage in all human associations for which he is fitted. While the Greeks came into contact with the older civilizations of Egypt and Asia, and were influenced by their thought and custom, they brought a vigorous new life which gradually dominated and mastered the Oriental influences. They had sufficient vigor and independence to break with tradition, wherever it seemed necessary to accomplish their purpose of life.Q. According to the information given in the passage, it can be deduced that

Directions: Analyze the following passage and provide appreciate answers for the questions that follow.Ideas involving the theory probability play a decisive part in modern physics. Yet we will still lack a satisfactory, consistence definition of probability; or, what amounts to much the same, we still lack a satisfactory axiomatic system for the calculus of probability. The relations between probability and experience are also still in need of clarification. In investigating this problem we shall discover what will at first seem an almost insuperable objection to my methodological views. For although probability statements play such a vitally important role in empirical science, they turn out to be in principle impervious to strict falsification. Yet this very stumbling block will become a touchstone upon which to test my theory, in order to find out what it is worth. Thus, we are confronted with two tasks. The first is to provide new foundations for the calculus of probability. This I shall try to do by developing the theory of probability as a frequency theory, along the lines followed by Richard von Mises, But without the use of what he calls the 'axiom of convergence'(or 'limit axiom') and with a somewhat weakened 'axiom of randomness' The second task is to elucidate the relations between probability and experience. This means solving what I call the problem of decidability statements. My hope is that the investigations will help to relieve the present unsatisfactory situation in which physicists make much use of probabilities without being able to say, consistently, what they mean by 'probability'.Q. The statement, "The relations between probability and experience are still in need of clarification" implies that

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.They are born that way. They have become that way. They have chosen to be that way. Nature, nurture and choice, these are three explanations of homosexuality that the modern world throws up every now and then. Most often, they are regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives, and might be released into the public domain as the result of genetic, psychiatric or sociological research, or as politicized convictions. These theories, and the various guises in which they become part of common knowledge, determine not only perceptions of and attitudes to homosexuality, but also how homosexuals make sense of and live out their own lives. So, when a Canadian psychologists research suggests that having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay, it is important to be able to put such a finding in its place and think about what is going on behind and around the research. Why is it that, every now and then, the causes of homosexuality have to be located in the genes, or in some form of biological determinism, and linked to left-handedness or red-headedness, or to similar behaviour in mice, fruit-flies, monkeys or penguins Are these explanations actually justifications (We/They cant help it) or are they something more mischievous and sinister (If its genetic, then maybe something can be done about it)First, similar explanations are never sought for heterosexuality, which is the order of nature, and hence beyond enquiry. Behind most such investigations into homosexuality is profoundly normative thinking. It is deviancy from the norm that requires scientific explanation, and in civilized societies some deviancies need empirically grounded justification. Second, the focus is always on male homosexuality. Lesbians complicate most hypotheses and inferences regarding sexuality, and women come into the picture only as wombs in which the drama of sexual destinies is played out. Third, biological sex, gender-roles, sexual identity and sexual behaviour are distinct but variously overlapping elements within human sexuality. They combine among one another to form complex and shifting configurations most of which cannot be reduced to simple binaries like gay and straight, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Between being absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, human sexual identity and behaviour show innumerable gradations, variations and changes, some culturally inflected, that defy fixed definitions and categories.Most research into why homosexuals are homosexuals fails to take into account these essential complexities and variations, and is therefore premised on a limitedness that renders dubious its claims to scientific truth. In the liberal West, where most battles against sexual injustice seem to have been won, the persistence of such research could only point to a deep discomfort with what the Indian Penal Code still deems, more unabashedly, to be against the order of nature.Q.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect:a)The approach of the intelligentsia to describe homosexuality b)The limited parameters the scientific community has in order to understand homosexuality c)The straightjacket compartments used by society and scientists to describe homosexuality d)The intellectual vacuum that the world finds itself in when it forced to come face to face with homosexualityCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam
Signup to solve all Doubts
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev