Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:
this sense, one can think of literature less as some inherent quality or set of qualities displayed by certain kinds of writing all the way from Beowulf to Virginia Woolf, than as a number of ways in which people relate themselves to writing. It would not be easy to isolate, from all that has been variously called ‘literature, some constant set of inherent features. In fact, it would be as impossible as trying to identify the single distinguishing feature which all games have in common. There is no ‘essence’ of literature whatsoever. Any bit of writing may be read ‘non-pragmatically’, if that is what reading a text as literature means, just as any writing may be read ‘poetically. If I pore over the railway timetable not to discover a train connection but to stimulate in myself general reflections on the speed and complexity of modern existence, then I might be said to be reading it as literaturE) John M. Ellis has argued that the term ‘literature’ operates rather like the word ‘weed’: weeds are not particular kinds of plant, but just any kind of plant which for some reason or another a gardener does not want arounD) Perhaps ‘literature’ means something like the opposite: any kind of writing which for some reason or another somebody values highly. As the philosophers might say, ‘literature’ and ‘weed’ are functional rather than ontological terms: they tell us about what we do, not about the fixed being of things.

What is the significance of the analogy drawn between “weed” and “literature” in the context of the passage?

The correct option is: They are considered expendable by deterministic systems.

Step-by-step Explanation:
1. Understanding the Analogy in the Passage:
The passage introduces an analogy proposed by John M. Ellis, comparing the term "literature" to the word "weed." According to Ellis, a weed is not defined by any inherent biological characteristics (what it is ontologically), but rather by its relationship to a gardener's desires (what it does or does not do functionally). Specifically, a weed is "just any kind of plant which for some reason or another a gardener does not want around." This means that in a managed, deterministic environment like a garden, weeds are identified solely to be weeded out or treated as expendable.

2. Connecting Weed to Literature:
Similarly, "literature" is defined as the opposite of a weed: "any kind of writing which for some reason or another somebody values highly." Just as weeds are plants that are excluded or deemed expendable in a gardening system because they are not wanted, literature represents writing that is selectively valued, while other writing is deemed non-literary or expendable in a given literary or cultural system.

3. Functional vs. Ontological Classification:
The passage concludes that both "literature" and "weed" are functional rather than ontological terms. This means they are defined by human utility, evaluation, and action within structured systems rather than by a fixed, immutable essence. Within these systems (like gardening or academic/cultural curation), objects are evaluated and can be designated as expendable or valuable based on the rules of the system.