Final answer:
Rachel's belonging to a wealthy social class due to her birth into a rich family is an example of an ascribed status. It is not achieved by personal efforts but is predetermined by the family she was born into. The correct option for this question is 'ascribed status'.
Step-by-step explanation:
When examining the scenario of Rachel, born into considerable wealth and the heir to a large conglomerate, the social class she belongs to is determined not by her personal achievements, but rather by circumstances at birth. Sociologically, such a social class is known as her ascribed status. This status is outside of an individual's control and can include elements such as sex, race, and, in Rachel's case, family background and wealth. An achieved status, in contrast, would be something obtained through individual effort, such as occupational success or educational attainment.
U.S. society often differentiates between 'old money' and 'new money.' Rachel, having been socialized within a wealthy family for generations, has an ascribed status of 'old money,' which comes with certain cultural expectations, norms, and often, a higher level of prestige. One's social class can significantly influence life experiences and opportunities, as it is a group who shares common status based on factors like wealth, income, education, and occupation. Thus, Rachel's social class, derived from her family's wealth and standing, would be correctly identified as her ascribed status (Option 4). It is not her achieved status, ideal status, or desired status, as these imply a degree of choice or personal attainment which does not apply to circumstances of birth and inherited wealth.