Which one of the following, if true about the Classic Maya, would invalidate the purpose of the iPhone example in the passage? - Bzziii.com
Reading Comprehension
Which one of the following, if true about the Classic Maya, would invalidate the purpose of
the iPhone example in the passage?
(i) The clay incense burner with spiky appliques was categorised only as a person and not as a tree by the Classic Maya.
(ii) Classic Maya songs represent both humans and non-living objects as characters, talking and interacting with each other.
(iii) The personhood of the incense burner and the stone chopper was a function of their usefulness to humans.
(iv) Unlike modern societies equipped with mobile phones, the Classic Maya did not have any communicating objects.
(i) The clay incense burner with spiky appliques was categorised only as a person and not as a tree by the Classic Maya.
(ii) Classic Maya songs represent both humans and non-living objects as characters, talking and interacting with each other.
(iii) The personhood of the incense burner and the stone chopper was a function of their usefulness to humans.
(iv) Unlike modern societies equipped with mobile phones, the Classic Maya did not have any communicating objects.
(iii) The personhood of the incense burner and the stone chopper was a function of their usefulness to humans.
The author says that a thing (iPhone) has a personality for us because it's connected or useful to me, but that was not the case with the Maya people. To him the inhuman were not tied to specific human beings. To invalidate this example, we must choose an alternative that is against it. Option 3 does exactly that. This makes the personality of incense sticks and stone choppers a function of their usefulness to humans, something the author seeks to negate through the example of the thing (iPhone). Thus if 3 is true for the purpose of the thing example then invalid. All other three options do not invalidate the iPhone instance in any way.So, the Correct answer is Option 3.
Comments
Post a Comment