kavyaphophalia wrote:
CarcassTwo doubts
1. For Q26
Why is A not correct? The explanation you have given for A is exactly what the option saying - The fact the evolution doesn't favour adaptive over maladaptive is reinforcing the idea that maladaptive characteristics exist
For E - How did you arrive at the reasoning for they were necessary at one point and are not anymore?
2. For Q27
How did you come across natural vs tools for details vs constraints - that's arbitrary. Any better way to narrow down?
I thought was useful my in-depth explanation of both the passage (which is crucial to understand the questions) and the questions themselves. Usually I try to give an explanation from any point of view
Nonetheless, you need to find an analogy to this sentence
The role those anthropologists ascribe to evolution is not of
dictating the details of human behavior but one of
imposing constraints because
Our "frailties"- give us the sense or idea of our constraints
(A) The ability of most people to see all the colors of the visible spectrum as against most people's inability to name any but the primary colors
In the first part of the sentence - the ability to see colors - we do not have details of any kind. It is just a fact or a scenario. In the second part of the sentence we do have an inability but we do not have any kind of constraint such as frustration, love, joy and so on. Also we have certain ability to discern primary colors
(E) The greater lung capacity of mountain peoples that helps them live in oxygen-poor air as against people's inability to fly without special apparatus
Here instead we have details: the greater lung capacity. On the other hand, we have the constraint: our inability to fly. And this shows us OUR
sense of constraints. W are limited
In other words, the entire question rotates around the fact that the evolution is important not that much fo the details of our behaviour rather for those constraint that limit us, being in the grip of them.
I hope npw is more clear sir
06 Jul 2022, 06:58 
