Which one of the Following best Explains the “additional complexity” that the Example of the Incense burner Illustrates Regarding personhood For the Classic Maya? - VARC | CAT
Reading Comprehension
Which one of the following best explains the “additional complexity” that the example of
the incense burner illustrates regarding personhood for the Classic Maya?
(i) The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a similar relation with the previous two.
(ii) The example provides an exception to the nonbinary understanding of personhood that the passage had hitherto established.
(iii) The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a dissimilar relation with the previous two.
(iv) The example complicates the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in the sacred, establishing the porosity of the divine and the profane.
(i) The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a similar relation with the previous two.
(ii) The example provides an exception to the nonbinary understanding of personhood that the passage had hitherto established.
(iii) The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a dissimilar relation with the previous two.
(iv) The example complicates the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in the sacred, establishing the porosity of the divine and the profane.
(i) The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by
bringing in a third category that shares a similar relation with the previous two.
Option 1 is the Option that best clarifies the "extra intricacy" that the incense sticks model passes on with regards to character. Option 2 is quick to go out in light of the fact that the model isn't an exemption for the non-twofold cognizance. Truth be told, it adds one more layer to the non-parallel character of the Maya public. Option 3 goes out in light of the fact that it isn't adding a "third class", and isn't sharing an "inconsistent relationship". Truth be told, relations are comparable, not unique. what's more Option 4 goes out in light of the fact that with practically no verification it says "model muddles non-double comprehension of character". Along these lines, Option 1 is the most ideal choice as all that given in it coordinates with what is said in the section.
Comments
Post a Comment