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 andquot;normative thinkingandquot; as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage a...

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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:

a)
An impediment
b)
A curse
c)
A boon
d)
Of functional utility

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question ba...

In the given context, the author clearly views normative thinking as something which is negative and which creates problems in the understanding of homosexuality.

Two options focus on this negative aspect: impediment (Any structure that makes progress difficult) and curse (Wish harm upon; invoke evil upon).

From the meanings of the two words, we can see that Option A is the better choice in the given context as curse is too extreme a word to use in the given context.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

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.The terms "Nature, nurture and choice", as used by the author, reflect

View answer

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

View answer

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

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Children begin to learn values when they are very young, before they can reason effectively. Young children behave in ways that we would never accept in adults: they scream, throw food, take off their clothes in public, hit, scratch, bite, and generally make a ruckus. Moral education begins from the start, as parents correct these antisocial behaviours, and they usually do so by conditioning children's emotions. Parents threaten physical punishment ("Do you want a spanking?"), they withdraw love ("I'm not going to play with you anymore!"), ostracize ("Go to your room!"), deprive ("No dessert for you!"), and induce vicarious distress ("Look at the pain you've caused!"). Each of these methods causes the misbehaved child to experience a negative emotion and associate it with the punished behaviour. Children also learn by emotional osmosis. They see their parents' reactions to news broadcasts and storybooks. They hear hours of judgmental gossip about inconsiderate neighbours, unethical co-workers, disloyal friends, and the black sheep in the family.Emotional conditioning and osmosis are not merely convenient tools for acquiring values: they are essential. Parents sometimes try to reason with their children, but moral reasoning only works by drawing attention to values that the child has already internalized through emotional conditioning. No amount of reasoning can engender a moral value, because all values are, at bottom, emotional attitudes. Recent research in psychology supports this conjecture. It seems that we decide whether something is wrong by introspecting our feelings: if an action makes us feel bad, we conclude that it is wrong. Consistent with this, people's moral judgments can be shifted by simply altering their emotional states.Psychologist Jonathan Haidt and colleagues have shown that people make moral judgments even when they cannot provide any justification for them. For example, 80% of the American college students in Haidt's study said it's wrong for two adult siblings to have consensual sex with each other even if they use contraception and no one is harmed. And, in a study I ran, 100% of people agreed it would be wrong to sexually fondle an infant even if the infant was not physically harmed or traumatized. Our emotions confirm that such acts are wrong even if our usual justification for that conclusion (harm to the victim) is inapplicable.If morals are emotionally based, then people who lack strong emotions should be blind to the moral domain. This prediction is borne out by psychopaths, who, it turns out, suffer from profound emotional deficits. Psychologist James Blair has shown that psychopaths treat moral rules as mere conventions. This suggests that emotions are necessary for making moral judgments. The judgment that something is morally wrong is an emotional response.It doesn't follow that every emotional response is a moral judgment. Morality involves specific emotions. Research suggests that the main moral emotions are anger and disgust when an action is performed by another person, and guilt and shame when an action is performed by oneself. Arguably, one doesn't harbour a moral attitude towards something unless one is disposed to have both these self- and other-directed emotions. You may be disgusted by eating cow tongue, but unless you are a moral vegetarian, you wouldn't be ashamed of eating it.In some cases, the moral emotions that get conditioned in childhood can be re-conditioned later in life. Someone who feels ashamed of a homosexual desire may subsequently feel ashamed about feeling ashamed. This person can be said to have an inculcated tendency to view homosexuality as immoral, but also a conviction that homosexuality is permissible, and the latter serves to curb the former over time.In summary, moral judgments are based on emotions, and reasoning normally contributes only by helping us extrapolate from our basic values to novel cases. Reasoning can also lead us to discover that our basic values are culturally inculcated, and that might impel us to search for alternative values, but reason alone cannot tell us which values to adopt, nor can it instil new values.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the note on which the author ends the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Children begin to learn values when they are very young, before they can reason effectively. Young children behave in ways that we would never accept in adults: they scream, throw food, take off their clothes in public, hit, scratch, bite, and generally make a ruckus. Moral education begins from the start, as parents correct these antisocial behaviours, and they usually do so by conditioning children's emotions. Parents threaten physical punishment ("Do you want a spanking?"), they withdraw love ("I'm not going to play with you anymore!"), ostracize ("Go to your room!"), deprive ("No dessert for you!"), and induce vicarious distress ("Look at the pain you've caused!"). Each of these methods causes the misbehaved child to experience a negative emotion and associate it with the punished behaviour. Children also learn by emotional osmosis. They see their parents' reactions to news broadcasts and storybooks. They hear hours of judgmental gossip about inconsiderate neighbours, unethical co-workers, disloyal friends, and the black sheep in the family.Emotional conditioning and osmosis are not merely convenient tools for acquiring values: they are essential. Parents sometimes try to reason with their children, but moral reasoning only works by drawing attention to values that the child has already internalized through emotional conditioning. No amount of reasoning can engender a moral value, because all values are, at bottom, emotional attitudes. Recent research in psychology supports this conjecture. It seems that we decide whether something is wrong by introspecting our feelings: if an action makes us feel bad, we conclude that it is wrong. Consistent with this, people's moral judgments can be shifted by simply altering their emotional states.Psychologist Jonathan Haidt and colleagues have shown that people make moral judgments even when they cannot provide any justification for them. For example, 80% of the American college students in Haidt's study said it's wrong for two adult siblings to have consensual sex with each other even if they use contraception and no one is harmed. And, in a study I ran, 100% of people agreed it would be wrong to sexually fondle an infant even if the infant was not physically harmed or traumatized. Our emotions confirm that such acts are wrong even if our usual justification for that conclusion (harm to the victim) is inapplicable.If morals are emotionally based, then people who lack strong emotions should be blind to the moral domain. This prediction is borne out by psychopaths, who, it turns out, suffer from profound emotional deficits. Psychologist James Blair has shown that psychopaths treat moral rules as mere conventions. This suggests that emotions are necessary for making moral judgments. The judgment that something is morally wrong is an emotional response.It doesn't follow that every emotional response is a moral judgment. Morality involves specific emotions. Research suggests that the main moral emotions are anger and disgust when an action is performed by another person, and guilt and shame when an action is performed by oneself. Arguably, one doesn't harbour a moral attitude towards something unless one is disposed to have both these self- and other-directed emotions. You may be disgusted by eating cow tongue, but unless you are a moral vegetarian, you wouldn't be ashamed of eating it.In some cases, the moral emotions that get conditioned in childhood can be re-conditioned later in life. Someone who feels ashamed of a homosexual desire may subsequently feel ashamed about feeling ashamed. This person can be said to have an inculcated tendency to view homosexuality as immoral, but also a conviction that homosexuality is permissible, and the latter serves to curb the former over time.In summary, moral judgments are based on emotions, and reasoning normally contributes only by helping us extrapolate from our basic values to novel cases. Reasoning can also lead us to discover that our basic values are culturally inculcated, and that might impel us to search for alternative values, but reason alone cannot tell us which values to adopt, nor can it instil new values.Q. It can be understood from the context and theme of the passage, that it is most likely to be an excerpt taken from which of the following sources?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CAT

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

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:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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. In the given context of the passage, the author views "normative thinking" as:a)An impedimentb)A cursec)A boond)Of functional utilityCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam