CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Directions: Read the following passage and an... Start Learning for Free
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kitten's development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.
This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.
Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cat's mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.
Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.
Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the female's jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.
The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.
Q. The passage stresses
  • a)
    the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animals
  • b)
    the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animals
  • c)
    the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviour
  • d)
    the relative worth of two types of pets to their owners
  • e)
    a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of cats
Correct answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that fo...
Key points:

Difference between cats and dogs:
- The passage emphasizes the independent nature of cats compared to dogs.
- Cats have a more self-reliant and unique nature, while dogs are known for their camaraderie and good-fellowship.

Behavioral traits:
- Cats exhibit independent movement and action, forming a personal relationship with humans while maintaining their feline instincts.
- Dogs, on the other hand, see their human owners as pseudo parents and dominant members of the pack, showing deference and fidelity.

Social structure:
- Dogs live in group with a strict hierarchical order, while cats do not have a group-oriented society.
- Cats spend most of their time in solitary pursuits, making them less inclined towards group loyalty.

Owner preferences:
- Cat lovers tend to have a stronger bias towards working alone and independence, while dog lovers may have a preference for group loyalty.
- Studies suggest that a majority of cat lovers are female, possibly due to historical gender roles and societal development.

Conclusion:
- The passage highlights the contrasting traits of cats and dogs, emphasizing the unique characteristics of each species and the preferences of their owners.
- Ultimately, it suggests that both feline and canine traits exist in all individuals, reflecting a blend of independence and sociability in human nature.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The author suggests that a significant difference between dogs and cats is that, in contrast to dogs, cats

Read the following passage and answer the questions associated with each of them.Pieces of behavior, beliefs, arguments, policies, and other exercises of the human mind may all be described as rational. To accept something as rational is to accept it as making sense, as appropriate, or required, or in accordance with some acknowledged goal, such as aiming at truth or aiming at the good.The contrast between "rational coherence" and "reason", might be questioned. In principle, the answer to this question might perfectly coincide: that what agents have reason, or ought, to do just is what it would be rationally coherent for them to do, and vice versa. In several ways, however, the answers might be expected to diverge.First, even if what one ought to do is just to make one's responses globally coherent, what it takes to make one's responses locally coherent might differ from what it takes to make them globally coherent. By Subjective Desire-Based Theory, what agents have reason, or ought, to do or intend is just what, liven what they believe their circumstances to be, would best satisfy their strongest, present intrinsic desires. Suppose that the agent's strongest, present intrinsic desire is for health. Nevertheless, he intends to have a smoke, believing that lighting up is a necessary means. By Subjective Desire-Based Theory Theory, it is not the case that he ought to intend to light up. If he were globally coherent, the agent would not intend to light up. But if he does form an intention to light up, he achieves a kind local coherence.Second, what the agent has reason, or ought, to do or intend may depend not on what she believes her circumstances to be, but on something more "objective." What an agent has reason, or ought, to do, might be what the evidence (where this depends on something other than her attitudes) available to the agent suggests about her circumstances, what the evidence of the person making the reason- or ought-claim suggests about the agent's circumstances, what the evidence of the person assessing the claim suggests about the agent's circumstances, or all of the relevant facts about the agent's circumstances. Consider the Objective Desire-Based Theory-agents have reason, or ought, to do or intend just what, given what their circumstances actually are, would best satisfy their strongest, present intrinsic desires taken as a whole. Suppose the agent's strongest, present intrinsic desire is to drink a gin and tonic, and she so intends. However, she mistakenly believes that the stuff in this bottle is gin, when it is in fact petrol. So she believes that mixing the stuff with tonic is a means to drinking a gin and tonic. According to the Objective Desire-Based Theory, she does not have reason to intend to mix the stuff with tonic and drink it. But if she does so intend, she might be said to have achieved a kind of rational coherence, both local and global.Third, one might hold not a Desire-Based Theory, but a Value-Based Theory-whatever ultimate ends an agent has reason, or ought, to achieve depend not on what she desires or wills, but instead on what is of independent value. Suppose the madman's strongest, present intrinsic desire is to set off a nuclear war, and he so intends. Moreover, the madman knows that intending to press this button is a necessary and sufficient means to setting off a nuclear war. In intending to press this button, the madman would achieve a kind of coherence, both local and global. By Desire-Based Theories, the madman ought so to intend. By Value-Based Theory, this is not the case.There are several reasons to expect at least some divergence between what one has reason, or ought, to do or intend, and what it would be rationality coherent for one to do or intend. But that is perfectly compatible with partial convergence. Among the things that agents have reason, or ought, to do or intend is precisely to make their responses rationally coherent. Just as we ought not to torture, or ought to care for our children, we ought to be rationally coherent.Q. Which of the following statements best summarizes the difference between the value based theory and the desire based theory?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.Every living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a single cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the union of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally understood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life on the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as life remains on the globe. The corollaries of this fact are of great importance.Early investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a product of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was natural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character of the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious hypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in the germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers of his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who have not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is conceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which produces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so on.But a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann, professor of zoölogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made himself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so effectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every biologist. Weismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is produced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception of the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated germ-plasm, not only continuous but (potentially at least) immortal. The body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the germ-cells produce the body.The basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration of the reproduction of very simple organisms. "Death is the end of life," is the belief of many other persons than the Lotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must eventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for example, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two, and each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the original cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to survive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go through the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the process will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be called potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.The immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed by the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could destroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and is dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are favorable, it can live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner or later, as is Man. "It dies from accident often, from old age never." Now the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the single-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been carried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men reproduce in the same way - by simple fission - as the Infusorian and other one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much the same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be expected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable circumstances?The author of the passage would agree with the statement

Directions: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow:There are two parties to every observation---the observed and the observerWhat we see depends not only on the object looked at, but on our own circumstances---position, motion, or more personal idiosyncrasies. Sometimes by instinctive habit, sometimes by design, we attempt to eliminate our own share in the observation, and so form a general picture of the world outside us, which shall be common to all observers. A small speck on the horizon of the sea is interpreted as a giant steamer. From the window of our railway carriage we see a cow glide past at fifty miles an hour, and remark that the creature is enjoying a rest. We see the starry heavens revolve round the earth, but decide that it is really the earth that is revolving, and so picture the state of the universe in a way which would be acceptable to an astronomer on any other planet.The first step in throwing our knowledge into a common stock must be the elimination of the various individual standpoints and the reduction to some specified standard observer. The picture of the world so obtained is none the less relative. We have not eliminated the observer's share; we have only fixed it definitely.To obtain a conception of the world from the point of view of no one in particular is a much more difficult task. The position of the observer can be eliminated; we are able to grasp the conception of a chair as an object in nature---looked at all round, and not from any particular angle or distance. We can think of it without mentally assigning ourselves some position with respect to it. This is a remarkable faculty, which has evidently been greatly assisted by the perception of solid relief with our two eyes. But the motion of the observer is not eliminated so simply. We had thought that it was accomplished; but the discovery that observers with different motions use different space- and time-reckoning shows that the matter is more complicated than was supposed. It may well require a complete change in our apparatus of description, because all the familiar terms of physics refer primarily to the relations of the world to an observer in some specified circumstances.Whether we are able to go still further and obtain a knowledge of the world, which not merely does not particularise the observer, but does not postulate an observer at all; whether if such knowledge could be obtained, it would convey any intelligible meaning; and whether it could be of any conceivable interest to anybody if it could be understood---these questions need not detain us now. The answers are not necessarily negative, but they lie outside the normal scope of physics.The circumstances of an observer which affect his observations are his position, motion and gauge of magnitude. More personal idiosyncracies disappear if, instead of relying on his crude senses, he employs scientific measuring apparatus. But scientific apparatus has position, motion and size, so that these are still involved in the results of any observation. There is no essential distinction between scientific measures and the measures of the senses. In either case our acquaintance with the external world comes to us through material channels; the observer's body can be regarded as part of his laboratory equipment, and, so far as we know, it obeys the same laws. We therefore group together perceptions and scientific measures, and in speaking of “a particular observer” we include all his measuring appliances.Position, motion, magnitude-scale---these factors have a profound influence on the aspect of the world to us. Can we form a picture of the world which shall be a synthesis of what is seen by observers in all sorts of positions, having all sorts of velocities, and all sorts of sizes?As per the passage, the author believes that

Read the following passage and answer the questions associated with each of them.Pieces of behavior, beliefs, arguments, policies, and other exercises of the human mind may all be described as rational. To accept something as rational is to accept it as making sense, as appropriate, or required, or in accordance with some acknowledged goal, such as aiming at truth or aiming at the good.The contrast between "rational coherence" and "reason", might be questioned. In principle, the answer to this question might perfectly coincide: that what agents have reason, or ought, to do just is what it would be rationally coherent for them to do, and vice versa. In several ways, however, the answers might be expected to diverge.First, even if what one ought to do is just to make one's responses globally coherent, what it takes to make one's responses locally coherent might differ from what it takes to make them globally coherent. By Subjective Desire-Based Theory, what agents have reason, or ought, to do or intend is just what, liven what they believe their circumstances to be, would best satisfy their strongest, present intrinsic desires. Suppose that the agent's strongest, present intrinsic desire is for health. Nevertheless, he intends to have a smoke, believing that lighting up is a necessary means. By Subjective Desire-Based Theory Theory, it is not the case that he ought to intend to light up. If he were globally coherent, the agent would not intend to light up. But if he does form an intention to light up, he achieves a kind local coherence.Second, what the agent has reason, or ought, to do or intend may depend not on what she believes her circumstances to be, but on something more "objective." What an agent has reason, or ought, to do, might be what the evidence (where this depends on something other than her attitudes) available to the agent suggests about her circumstances, what the evidence of the person making the reason- or ought-claim suggests about the agent's circumstances, what the evidence of the person assessing the claim suggests about the agent's circumstances, or all of the relevant facts about the agent's circumstances. Consider the Objective Desire-Based Theory-agents have reason, or ought, to do or intend just what, given what their circumstances actually are, would best satisfy their strongest, present intrinsic desires taken as a whole. Suppose the agent's strongest, present intrinsic desire is to drink a gin and tonic, and she so intends. However, she mistakenly believes that the stuff in this bottle is gin, when it is in fact petrol. So she believes that mixing the stuff with tonic is a means to drinking a gin and tonic. According to the Objective Desire-Based Theory, she does not have reason to intend to mix the stuff with tonic and drink it. But if she does so intend, she might be said to have achieved a kind of rational coherence, both local and global.Third, one might hold not a Desire-Based Theory, but a Value-Based Theory-whatever ultimate ends an agent has reason, or ought, to achieve depend not on what she desires or wills, but instead on what is of independent value. Suppose the madman's strongest, present intrinsic desire is to set off a nuclear war, and he so intends. Moreover, the madman knows that intending to press this button is a necessary and sufficient means to setting off a nuclear war. In intending to press this button, the madman would achieve a kind of coherence, both local and global. By Desire-Based Theories, the madman ought so to intend. By Value-Based Theory, this is not the case.There are several reasons to expect at least some divergence between what one has reason, or ought, to do or intend, and what it would be rationality coherent for one to do or intend. But that is perfectly compatible with partial convergence. Among the things that agents have reason, or ought, to do or intend is precisely to make their responses rationally coherent. Just as we ought not to torture, or ought to care for our children, we ought to be rationally coherent.Q. What is the. difference between rational local coherence and rational global coherence?

Top Courses for CAT

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. 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 Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.The domesticated cat is an incongruity. No other animal has developed such a personal relationship with humanity, while at the same time demanding and getting such independent movement and action. The cat manages to remain a domesticated animal because of the cycle of its rearing. Living both with other same species members (its mother and littermates) and with humans (the family that has adopted it) during its formative years and kittenhood, it becomes emotionally involved and considers that it belongs to both species. It is analogical to a kid who is brought up in an alien land and becomes bilingual. The juvenile cat becomes bimental. It has twofold psyche; it is a cat physically but mentally it is both feline and human. Once it is completely grown–up, however most of its responses are feline ones and it has only one main response to its human owners. It treats them as pseudo–parents. The rationale is that they took over from the real mother at a sensitive stage of the kittens development and went on giving it milk, solid food, and comfort as it grew up.This is quite dissimilar from the kind of attachment that develops between human and dog. The dog sees its human owners as pseudo parents, as does the cat. On that score the process of attachment is parallel. But the dog has an extra link. Canine the social order is group–organised; feline society is not. Dogs live in group with firmly controlled grade interaction among the individuals. There are top dogs, middle dogs, and bottom dogs and under normal circumstances they move around together, keeping check on each other the whole time. So the adult domesticated dog perceives its human family both as pseudo parents and as the dominant members of the pack, hence its prominent prestige for deference and its illustrious faculty for fidelity. Even though cats also have a complex social set up, but they never stalk in group. In the wild, most of their day is spent in solitary pursuit having a walk with a human, as a result, has no charm for them. For the same reasons, "gyrating", learning to "shake hands" and "stand", are some things that do not entice them at all. Such drills are just futile for them.Therefore the second a cat makes its owner open the door, something that humans despise a lot, it just does not bother to see the reaction of its master and move off without a second glance. As it enters the open door it jumps the barrier and is transformed. The wild cat brain takes over small human–kitten brain. The dog, however in a similar circumstance, is tempted to look back and see if his master is joining him in the fun. The cats mind has ventured into another, absolutely feline world, where weird and wonderful biped species have no place.Owing to this major difference between domestic cats and domestic dogs, the feline admirers have a propensity to be rather different from canine admirers. As a rule, cat–lovers have a stronger personality bias toward working alone, independent on the larger group. Artists like cats; soldiers like dogs. The much–lauded "group loyalty" phenomenon is alien to both cats and cat–lovers.Those who have studied cat–owners and dog–owners as two discrete groups report that there is also a gender predisposition. A majority of cat–lovers are female. This prejudice is not startling if the division of labour is taken into consideration in the process of development of human society. Primitive males became specialised as group–hunters, while the females jobs were food–gathering and childbearing. This difference added to a human male "pack attitude" that is not very prominent in the females. Coyote, the untamed ancestors of domestic dogs, also became group–hunters, so the modern dog has much more in common with the human male than with the human female.The argument will always go on – feline self–reliance and uniqueness versus canine camaraderie and good–fellowship. But it is vital to stress that in reality all of us, have both feline and canine basics in our characters.Q.The passage stressesa)the laziness of cats that keeps them from being pack animalsb)the ignorance of dogs, which makes them more obedient pets as compared to feline animalsc)the antipathy that cats feel for humans and their resulting behaviourd)the relative worth of two types of pets to their ownerse)a difference between cats and dogs that emphasises the independent nature of catsCorrect answer is option 'E'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev