Question
The following passage discusses the use of evolutionary biology in the field of internationid relations.
(1) Unsurprisingly, the vast complexities of the poltical arena- political parties, shits in the balance of
power, non-state actors, and multinational corporations to name a few- cannot be watered down into the
masculine-feminine dichotomy, as Steven Pinker or Frands Fukuyama suggest. (2) That reductive binary
does not serve even to explain the evolution of the human psyche. (3) To try to make it do so would be to
completely disregard the minutiae [small points] of the human experience, dilute millions of years of
evolution into a single occurrence, and toss aside the identities of so many people who fall outside of the
gender binary as genetic failures. (4) And then, to be so audacious as to apply that narrow thinkang to a
few hundred years of political history such attempts would be not only unprofessional, but wrong.
Which cholce would provide the best evidence for the conclusion of the passage?
(A) An abridgment in the masculine-feminine relationship in evolutionary biology.
(B) A study that indicates the percentage of people who understand the masculine feminine dichotomy
(C) An interview that discusses the formation of the masculine feminine dichotomy,
(D) Research that indicates the relatively unimportant impact of gender on historical political everts
Answer
D) Research that indicates the relatively unimportant impact of gender on historical political events.