Question Description
Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for SAT 2025 is part of SAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the SAT exam syllabus. Information about Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for SAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for SAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for SAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Question based on the following passages and supplementary material.Passage 1 is adapted from Radhika Singh, “Mice Utopias and the Behavioral Sink," published July 31, 2015 in the blog of The Borgen Project (borgenproject. org). Passage 2 is adapted from Frans de Waal, “Is it Behavioral Sink or Resource Distribution?" published in Scientific American online July 21, 2010.Passage 1In 1972, behavioral researcher John Calhounintroduced four breeding pairs of mice into a box9-feet square and 4.5-feet high. It was a “perfect(5) universe:” the mice were safe from predators anddisease and given ample food and water. Theydoubled in population every 55 days.However, within a year males stoppeddefending their territory, random violence broke(10) out, and female mice attacked their own offspring.Normal social bonds and interactions completelybroke down. Infant abandonment soared, andmortality climbed. Cannibalism appeared, eventhough there was more than enough food. Fertile(15) females closed themselves off from society, andmales of reproductive age—Calhoun called themthe “beautiful ones”—did nothing but eat, sleepand groom.Calhoun called this breakdown the(20) “behavioral sink,” vand believed it came aboutwhen there were too many mice and a lack ofimportant social roles for each one to play. Evenwhen enough of the population died off so thatonly an optimal population remained, the mice(25) were not able to return to their natural behavior.This connection between a breakdown ofsocial bonds and violence was observed by EmileDurkheim in the late 19th century. In traditionalsocieties, where family expectations and religion(30) held sway, people enjoyed strong social bondsand had distinct social roles to fill. However,as they moved to cities, they found they werefighting for a place in society. In exasperation anda state of helplessness, many fell into poverty or(35) turned to crime, violence and even suicide.The fear of failing to be a productive memberof society and fulfilling social roles can also pushpeople, like the “beautiful ones,” into isolatingthemselves. For instance, Japanese “hikikomori”(40) refuse to leave their rooms, sometimes for years,because they feel shame for being unable to fulfillfamilial expectations.However, it is not clear that a high populationdensity necessarily leads to a breakdown of(45) society and social roles. Humans might beable, with our ingenuity, to create social rolesfor everyone and avoid the behavioral sink.Some critics, such as psychologist JonathanFreedam, suggested that it was not the density of(50) population that overwhelmed the mice but thelarge number of social interactions they had todeal with. Humans are able to avoid this, evenwhile living in a highly dense area.Passage 2In the 1960s, John Calhoun placed a group(55) of rats in a room and observed how the animalskilled, sexually assaulted and, eventually,cannibalized one another. Thisbehavioral deviancy led Calhoun to coin the phrase“behavioral sink.”(60) In no time, popularizers were comparingpolitically motivated street riots with rat packsand inner cities to behavioral sinks. Warningthat society was heading for either anarchy ordictatorship, Robert Ardrey, a popular science(65) journalist, remarked in 1970 on the voluntarynature of human crowding and its ill effects. Thenegative impact of crowding became a centraltenet of the voluminous literature on aggression.In extrapolating from rodents to people,(70) however, these writers were making a giant leap.Compare, for instance, the per capita murderrates with the number of people per squarekilometer in different nations. There is in fact nostatistically meaningful relation. Among free-(75) market nations, the U.S. has the highest homiciderate despite a low population density.To see how other primates respond to beingpacked together, we compared rhesus monkeysin crowded cages with those roaming free(80) on Morgan Island in South Carolina. We alsocompared chimpanzees in indoor enclosureswith those living on large forested islands.Nothing like the expected crowding effectscould be found. If anything, primates become(85) more sociable in captivity, grooming each othermore—probably in an effort to counter thepotential of conflict, which is greater the closerthey live together. Primates are excellent atconflict resolution.(90) For the future of the world this means thatcrowding by itself is perhaps not the problem itis made it out to be. Resource distribution seemsthe real issue. This was already true for Calhounsrats, the violence among them could be explained(95) by concentrated food sources and competition.Also for humans, I would worry more aboutsustainability and resource distribution thanpopulation density.Phase A: Days 1–104 (Social Adjustment): Mice are introduced (4 males and 4 females). Nests are established.Phase B: Days 105–315 (Rapid growth): Population doubles every 55 days.Male strength corresponds to frequency of reproduction. As crowding develops, immature males begin to proliferate within the population.Phase C: Days 316–560 (Stagnation): Population doubles every 145 days.Male ability to defend territory declines. Nursing females become more aggressive, even towards own offspring. By midway point in Phase C, virtually all young are prematurely rejected by their mothers. Although 20% of nest sites are unoccupied, there is severe overcrowding in other sites.Withdrawn males become more violent toward each other.Phase D: Days 561–1588 (Death): Population begins to decline on Day 561.Incidences of pregnancy decline rapidly with no young surviving. The last 1000 mice born grow up with no social skills or ability to defend territory. The males become withdrawn and obsessed with their own grooming.Q.Which choice best describes the relationship between the two passages?a)They propose alternate theories about how humans can avoid the behavioral sink.b)They each critique different aspects of John Calhoun’s rat study.c)They present contradictory viewpoints on the relevance of rat studies to human behavior.d)They provide different explanations for why human societies are susceptible to the behavioral sink.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice SAT tests.