Question 6.

One additional complexity: the incense burner (which would have been made of clay, and decorated with spiky appliques representing the sacred ceiba tree found in this region) is categorised as a person - but also as a tree.

The additional complexity that the author talks about here is the addition of another layer in the non-binary understanding of personhood. The incense burner was already classified as a person, but now it has also been classified as a tree. Hence, we have Options A and C. Note that the third category, that is tree, has a relation with the previous two categories. The boundary separating tree and person is porous. And since the incense burner has been categorized as a tree too, the relationship between them is porous too. Hence, we can infer that the third category shares a similar relationship with the previous two categories, and A is the correct answer.

The author is not exemplifying an exception but citing an additional complexity that is present in the definition. Hence, B can be eliminated.

The author does not establish the porosity of the divine and the profane. Hence, Option D is out of the scope of the passage.