Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 08 July 2026

Political philosophy – a discipline we trace back to Plato and Aristotle – is reasoning about how we live together in political units. It is about states, government, laws, institutions and citizenship. But it doesn’t have much to say about homes, families, marriage or parenting. The discipline that studies how we live together in family units, as opposed to political ones, used to be called economics, from the Greek oikonomika, or science of the home. This was before the name became exclusively attached to how we make and spend money, when what went on inside the home still mattered to philosophers. It no longer does. This may be because, until very recently, philosophers were almost exclusively male – even today in the UK, only a quarter of those at the top of the profession are women.

Women philosophers, of course, have always written about the home. I write about it in my new book, No Place like Home (2026). But women philosophers have long been excluded from the canon: until very recently, they were not read, they were not studied, they were not taught. This is changing. But, until it does, we can still ask why the home was not a topic of philosophical interest.

My answer is that things needn’t have been that way. Philosophers took from the past what they wanted, and helped the rest disappear. The story of how the home as a domestic space dropped out of philosophical thinking is a story of reception. And I will try and reconstruct a small part of that story here.

Although it’s not clear when thinking about the home as a sphere separate from political life actually started, we can find evidence of it in Aristotle’s political philosophy, which was developed in Athens in the 4th century BCE. Aristotle postulated a natural division between men and the state, on the one hand, and women and the home on the other: a public and a private sphere. He believed human beings could associate in two distinct ways, with a sphere corresponding to each mode of association: the household for the private sphere versus the city-state for the public sphere. The household he saw as a natural necessity for survival, and for bringing up children, and this is where women belonged, both for their protection, and because they were best suited for obeying and not for taking part in public life. Adult men, who did not need protecting, and whose abilities went beyond simple domestic organisation, belonged to the city-state and public service.

However much we’d like to blame Aristotle for millennia of sexist prejudice, he did not write in a vacuum. Nor was he the only one in Athens who believed that men and women needed to live separate lives, in separate spheres.

Q1. Which of the following options best captures the primary purpose of the author in writing this passage? Correct Option 4 … Explanation: The author explicitly states her thesis: "My answer is that things needn't have been that way... The story of how the home as a domestic space dropped out of philosophical thinking is a story of reception." She then uses Aristotle as an example of this historical trajectory. Option 4 perfectly aligns with this purpose. Option 1 focuses too aggressively on attacking Aristotle, whereas the author notes he "did not write in a vacuum." Option 2 turns a supporting statistical detail into the main goal. Option 3 treats an introductory etymological detail as the macro-purpose of the text. Hence, option 4.Q2. The author asserts that "things needn't have been that way" and that the omission of the home from philosophy was a selective act of historical reception. Which of the following findings, if true, would most strongly support this assertion? Correct Option 1 … Explanation: The author's argument hinges on the idea that the exclusion of the home was not inevitable — that later gatekeepers selectively "took from the past what they wanted, and helped the rest disappear." If option 1 is true — that earlier prominent philosophers treated the household and the state as equally significant integrated topics — it proves philosophy could have included the home and validates that its exclusion was a result of biased selective reception. Option 2 discusses lifestyle habits but doesn't prove that philosophical text development was selective. Option 3 focuses on modern student preferences rather than historical canon construction. Option 4 introduces an unmentioned narrative about 19th-century plagiarism. Hence, option 1.Q3. Based on the first paragraph, what does the historical shift in the meaning of the word "economics" (from oikonomika) imply about the evolution of philosophy? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The author notes that oikonomika meant the "science of the home," studied "before the name became exclusively attached to how we make and spend money, when what went on inside the home still mattered to philosophers." She immediately follows this by noting that philosophers were "almost exclusively male." Connecting the shift away from the home to the demographic dominance of male gatekeepers implies that as the home became separated from public male-dominated arenas, it lost its perceived intellectual value within the canon. Option 1 values financial capitalism over the home, running counter to the author's defensive stance. Options 3 and 4 introduce extreme, unverified assumptions. Hence, option 2.Q4. Which of the following topics would serve as the most organic continuation of the passage's final paragraph? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The final paragraph pivots away from Aristotle's individual ideas to his surrounding environment — "he did not write in a vacuum. Nor was he the only one in Athens who believed that men and women needed to live separate lives, in separate spheres." An organic continuation must follow this exact transition into the broader Athenian context. Option 2 does exactly this by promising to explore the cultural and legal conventions of Athens that supported these separate spheres. Option 1 jumps back to a modern demographic statistic, disrupting the historical analysis. Option 3 takes a defensive anti-authorial stance that breaks the critical narrative flow. Option 4 is meta and awkward for a mid-essay continuation. Hence, option 2.