<p>The passage talks about altruism, which is defined as unselfish acts of animals or human beings, whereby they dont give importance to their own needs and care for their members. However, the lecture contradicts the passage by giving its own examples.
According to the passage, human beings share food and donate their parts of their bodies to other people without expecting anything in return. The passage opposes this by illustrating with the example of how human beings are rewarded with non materialistic things, such as widespread recognition and acknowledgement from the society. It also states that the acts of donation help them feel proud of themselves.
In addition, the passage supports its argument by providing an example of meerkat. The sentinel meerkat has to guard the members of its group by giving warning signs, which help the other meerkats escape from their enemies, while they search for their food. By doing this, the sentinel meerkat exposes itself to more danger. Also, it loses its opportunity to feed itself. The lecture opposes these opinions by stating that the sentinel meerkat satisfies its hunger before safe guarding the other members and it has a higher chance to escape from the attack of its enemies. It does this by escaping into nearby burrows, whereas, the other predators have to move quickly to save themselves from their enemies. Thus, the other meerkats are more vulnerable to attacks from their enemies.</p>
<p>Here is a word that you really need to learn: context.</p>
<p>As it stands, what you’ve written is nothing but a jumble of words.</p>
<p>Hi, relevance is important, but, here we are talking not just about humans right. When somebody does something good, we set that person as an example and try to move on. That’s why there is some kind of ego which enters even a person who does good. He thinks that he had done something great and all the people are talking about him. We glorify good because we want good things to take place. But, that is not the case with animals. Animals do things because they have no other go. They have not been blessed with an analytical brain and mind which is self-conscious. They dont know whether they are doing good or bad. You can teach some tricks to animals but, not behavior or character. Thats possible only in humans. And in order to bring up a good character in a person he needs to know the difference between what is good and what is bad.</p>
<p>“It also states that the acts of donation help them feel proud of themselves” I feel like you cut the paragraph short here. This is a good thought, and you should take it a step further by analyzing and explaining how this relates to your argument. </p>
<p>Also, what is the essay for, btw?</p>