CAT 2023 Slot 1 VARC Question & Solution

Reading ComprehensionMedium

Passage

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.

[Fifty] years after its publication in English [in 1972], and just a year since [Marshall] Sahlins himself died—we may ask: why did [his essay] “Original Affluent Society” have such an impact, and how has it fared since? . . . Sahlins’s principal argument was simple but counterintuitive: before being driven into marginal environments by colonial powers, hunter-gatherers, or foragers, were not engaged in a desperate struggle for meager survival. Quite the contrary, they satisfied their needs with far less work than people in agricultural and industrial societies, leaving them more time to use as they wished. Hunters, he quipped, keep bankers’ hours. Refusing to maximize, many were “more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game.” . . . The so-called Neolithic Revolution, rather than improving life, imposed a harsher work regime and set in motion the long history of growing inequality . . .

Moreover, foragers had other options. The contemporary Hadza of Tanzania, who had long been surrounded by farmers, knew they had alternatives and rejected them. To Sahlins, this showed that foragers are not simply examples of human diversity or victimhood but something more profound: they demonstrated that societies make real choices. Culture, a way of living oriented around a distinctive set of values, manifests a fundamental principle of collective self-determination. . . .

But the point [of the essay] is not so much the empirical validity of the data—the real interest for most readers, after all, is not in foragers either today or in the Paleolithic—but rather its conceptual challenge to contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism. The empirical served a philosophical and political project, a thought experiment and stimulus to the imagination of possibilities.

With its title’s nod toward The Affluent Society (1958), economist John Kenneth Galbraith’s famously skeptical portrait of America’s postwar prosperity and inequality, and dripping with New Left contempt for consumerism, “The Original Affluent Society” brought this critical perspective to bear on the contemporary world. It did so through the classic anthropological move of showing that radical alternatives to the readers’ lives really exist. If the capitalist world seeks wealth through ever greater material production to meet infinitely expansive desires, foraging societies follow “the Zen road to affluence”: not by getting more, but by wanting less. If it seems that foragers have been left behind by “progress,” this is due only to the ethnocentric self-congratulation of the West. Rather than accumulate material goods, these societies are guided by other values: leisure, mobility, and above all, freedom. . . .

Viewed in today’s context, of course, not every aspect of the essay has aged well. While acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it does not thematize them as heavily as we might today. Rebuking evolutionary anthropologists for treating present-day foragers as “left behind” by progress, it too can succumb to the temptation to use them as proxies for the Paleolithic. Yet these characteristics should not distract us from appreciating Sahlins’s effort to show that if we want to conjure new possibilities, we need to learn about actually inhabitable worlds.

Question 1

We can infer that Sahlins's main goal in writing his essay was to:

put forth the view that, despite egalitarian origins, economic progress brings greater inequality and social hierarchies.

highlight the fact that while we started off as a fairly contented egalitarian people, we have progressively degenerated into materialism.

hold a mirror to an acquisitive society, with examples of other communities that have chosen successfully to be non-materialistic

counter Galbraith’s pessimistic view of the inevitability of a capitalist trajectory for economic growth.

Solution:

The passage emphasizes that Marshall Sahlins's main goal in writing his essay was to hold a mirror to an acquisitive society (contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism). The essay accomplishes this by providing examples of foraging societies that made real choices to prioritize values such as leisure, mobility, and freedom over material accumulation. Sahlins contrasts the Zen road to affluence, where affluence is achieved by wanting less, with the capitalist pursuit of wealth through material production and consumerism. Therefore, Sahlins's goal, as portrayed in the passage, aligns with the idea of presenting examples of communities that have successfully chosen non-materialistic paths as a critique of acquisitive societies. So, Option C is the correct answer.

Option A: While Sahlins's essay acknowledges growing inequality and social hierarchies resulting from the Neolithic Revolution, it is more focused on contrasting foraging societies with contemporary economic life.

Option B: The primary emphasis is on showcasing foraging societies' choices and values rather than asserting a progressive degeneration of society.

Option D: Even though Sahlins's essay critiques aspects of contemporary economic views, its primary focus is not explicitly countering Galbraith's pessimistic view but rather presenting alternative possibilities through examples of non-materialistic societies.

Question 2

The author mentions Tanzania’s Hadza community to illustrate:

that hunter-gatherer communities’ subsistence-level techniques equipped them to survive well into contemporary times.

how pre-agrarian societies did not hamper the emergence of more advanced agrarian practices in contiguous communities.

that forager communities’ lifestyles derived not from ignorance about alternatives, but from their own choice.

how two vastly different ways of living and working were able to coexist in proximity for centuries.

Solution:

Option C is the correct answer because the passage uses the example of Tanzania's Hadza community to illustrate that forager communities, like the Hadza, do not conform to a simple narrative of human diversity or victimhood. Instead, they actively make choices about their way of life. The passage mentions that the Hadza, despite being surrounded by farmers, knew they had alternatives and consciously rejected them. This example serves to emphasize that forager communities are not constrained by ignorance about alternatives; rather, their lifestyles derive from their own choices. Therefore, Option C accurately captures the essence of the Hadza illustration in the passage.

Option A: The passage doesn't specifically highlight the survival techniques of hunter-gatherer communities into contemporary times, but rather emphasizes their choices and values.

Option B: The passage doesn't discuss the Hadza community in the context of agrarian practices in contiguous communities, making this option irrelevant to the illustration.

Option D: The passage does not suggest that the Hadza community coexisted with vastly different ways of living and working for centuries

Question 3

The author of the passage mentions Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society” to:

show how Galbraith’s theories refute Sahlins’s thesis on the contentment of pre-hunter-gatherer communities.

contrast the materialist nature of contemporary growth paths with the pacifist content ways of living among the foragers.

document the influence of Galbraith’s cynical views on modern consumerism on Sahlins’s analysis of pre-historic societies.

show how Sahlins’s views complemented Galbraith’s criticism of the consumerism and inequality of contemporary society.

Solution:

The passage explicitly mentions that Sahlins's essay, "The Original Affluent Society," brought a critical perspective to contemporary consumerism and inequality, echoing the themes found in John Kenneth Galbraith's work, "The Affluent Society." The passage notes that Sahlins's essay contrasts the values of foraging societies with the capitalist pursuit of wealth, and it suggests that the essay complements Galbraith's skeptical portrait of postwar prosperity and inequality. Therefore, Option D accurately reflects the information presented in the passage regarding the relationship between Sahlins's views and Galbraith's criticism of contemporary society.

The passage does not suggest that Galbraith’s theories refute Sahlins’s thesis but rather highlights their complementarity (Option A) nor does it focus on contrasting foragers' ways of living with Galbraith's views on contemporary growth paths (Option B).

The passage does not document the influence of Galbraith’s views on Sahlins’s analysis; instead, it emphasizes how Sahlins's essay complements Galbraith’s critical perspective on contemporary society. Therefore Option C is incorrect too.

Question 4

The author of the passage criticises Sahlins’s essay for its:

cursory treatment of the effects of racism and colonialism on societies.

outdated values regarding present-day foragers versus ancient foraging communities.

critique of anthropologists who disparage the choices of foragers in today’s society

failure to supplement its thesis with robust empirical data.

Solution:

"Viewed in today’s context, of course, not every aspect of the essay has aged well. While acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it does not thematize them as heavily as we might today."

Option A is the correct answer because the passage explicitly mentions that, when viewed in today's context, not every aspect of Sahlins's essay has aged well, and it acknowledges that the essay does not thematize issues like racism, colonialism, and dispossession as heavily as might be expected today. The term "cursory treatment" suggests that the essay provides only a brief or superficial examination of the effects of racism and colonialism on societies, and the passage criticizes this aspect of the essay for not giving these important issues more comprehensive attention.