Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 27 July 2026

Between 2010 and 2011, Los Zetas kidnapped dozens of migrants coming from Central America. Their campaign of terror earned them the reputation of Mexico’s most deadly criminal organisation. In the eastern state of Tamaulipas, in the municipality of San Fernando, authorities found mass graves. According to a 2016 report from the Open Society Justice Initiative, there is compelling evidence that the killings, enforced disappearances and torture committed by members of the Zetas cartel meet the legal definition of crimes against humanity. This gang transformed the landscape of the Mexican drug wars. Beyond drug trafficking, Los Zetas attacked innocent civilians in several towns, operated heavy weapons against the Mexican authorities, and committed massive, forced disappearances.

Most of us are taught to see criminals, like the Zetas, as the polar opposite of the police or the army. Maybe even that the fight between the legal authorities and the illegal cartels is one of simple good versus evil. But some social scientists take a different approach. Los Zetas is interesting for many reasons, including the fact that they were founded by a splinter group from the Mexican Army’s special counterinsurgency unit. In 1997, more than 30 soldiers of the Special Forces Airmobile Group (GAFES in Spanish) defected to work for the leader of the Gulf Cartel, a Mexican drug organisation based in northeastern Mexico. Trained by the government in psychological terror tactics, jungle warfare and the manipulation of heavy weaponry, these soldiers-turned-drug-cartel members named their gang after the Z codes of the Mexican Army radio system.

The movement of these highly trained soldiers into the illegal narcotics trade highlights how the tactics, training and everyday lives of soldiers, police officers, criminals, guerrilla fighters, terrorists and even génocidaires often share a great deal of common ground. They are all specialists in violence, they all have the professional training to kill, and they use these skills to make a living.

Whether they are on the payroll of a government, a guerrilla organisation, a mafia or the police force, all these people, primarily men, are what the sociologist Charles Tilly called ‘violence specialists’. They perform routine and specialised activities in every society on Earth; in fact, they make a living from it. Still, it can be challenging to recognise organised violence as a kind of work, much less one fundamentally shared by both police and criminals.

Every society depends on violence workers, but what is it that makes people go into it as a type of work? Why would they risk their lives and harm others? As I found when I interviewed a group of young, imprisoned men in Mexico who were part of criminal organisations and sentenced for homicide, entering this risky occupation is mostly a voluntary way to gain money and prestige. All of them were imprisoned in a juvenile detention centre in the State of Mexico called La Quinta del Bosque, close to Toluca, the state capital.

Q1. The sociological framing of soldiers, police officers, and cartel members under Charles Tilly's umbrella term "violence specialists" relies on which of the following underlying assumptions? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The author argues against the traditional view that criminals and state forces are "polar opposites." By using Tilly's concept of "violence specialists," the author groups soldiers, police, and cartel members together because "they all have the professional training to kill, and they use these skills to make a living." For this conceptual grouping to hold true, the author must assume that their shared occupational function matters more analytically than whether their paycheck comes from a legal government or an illegal mafia. Option 1 is contradicted by the text, which states the government did train them. Option 3 contradicts the final paragraph, which states entering is a voluntary way to gain money. Option 4 overstates a coincidental naming fact into an intentional military conspiracy. Hence, option 2. Q2. Based on the author's interviews with imprisoned young men at La Quinta del Bosque, which of the following statements represents the most accurate logical conclusion regarding the primary driver of entry into violent criminal occupations in Mexico? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The author states that "entering this risky occupation is mostly a voluntary way to gain money and prestige." The logical conclusion is that enlistment into these violent networks is an act of individual agency aimed at securing material wealth and social standing. Option 1 is the exact opposite of the text — "mostly a voluntary way." Options 3 and 4 introduce bizarre, absolute geographical and institutional constraints that completely misread the localized examples given in the text. Hence, option 2. Q3. Which of the following empirical findings, if true, would most seriously weaken the sociologist's argument that state violence workers (police/army) and illegal violence workers (cartels) share "a great deal of common ground"? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The author's core argument is that legal state forces and illegal cartels share deep common ground as "violence workers." To severely weaken this, we must show they are fundamentally different on an internal or systemic level. If option 3 is true, it proves that state police forces operate under completely distinct psychological, behavioral, and systemic constraints that separate them entirely from the lawless, predatory nature of cartels, shattering the author's attempt to flatten the distinction under a shared occupational banner. Options 1 and 2 strengthen the author's thesis by showing shared traits. Option 4 reinforces historical background but does not challenge the sociological comparison. Hence, option 3. Q4. Which of the following titles best captures the overarching conceptual trajectory and thematic focus of the entire passage? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The text begins with a historical case study of Los Zetas and their military origins before pivoting into a broader sociological thesis — that organized violence, whether performed by the state or illegal actors, is fundamentally a specialized form of labor entered voluntarily for money and prestige. Option 3 perfectly captures both the occupational framing ("laboring/work") and the counterintuitive synthesis between state forces and criminals. Option 1 focuses too narrowly on a technical military detail. Option 2 isolates the legal metrics of the opening paragraph, missing the entire sociological discussion. Option 4 takes localized interview details and distorts them into an absurd institutional mission. Hence, option 3.