CAT PYQ 2021: Odd One Out (June 21) - CAT MCQ

The given collection of statements focuses on predatory journals. The author begins by mentioning the subject {Statement 1} in a grim tone. He highlights the kind of claims that these journals state: presence in 'influential databases', quality 'editorial boards' and a 'rigorous peer-review structure' {Statement 4}. On the surface, 'they are exactly like any reputed journal' {Statement 3}. However, the ground reality is starkly different: paying money allows you to publish anything in such predatory journal {Statement 2}. Hence, arrangement 1432 forms a coherent paragraph with predatory journals as the centre of attention.
Statement 5 deviates from this subject. Although the topic seems to be about academic publishing, the focus is no longer on predatory journals, but instead, it becomes a bit broader. Since there is a mismatch in scope, we discern Statement 5 as the odd one out.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph is about the inadequacy of laws about commercial activities in space in the wake of rapid technological developments in the same field. All sentences, other than 4, talk about this inadequacy or highlight why the laws are inadequate. Option 4 is out of context here, as it talks about the US disrespecting international law. It does not relate to the inadequacy of space law for commercial activities, and hence, is the answer.

The sentences have been taken from Harvard's Justice, and have been modified considerably. Since a paragraph has not been directly taken here, the better way of elimination here would be to evaluate the major points of each sentence and see which one runs tangent to the discussion at hand. (During the examination, one must try both ways to solve: arranging and eliminating.)

1. Using the debate on biotechnology to evaluate moral arguments.
2. Why is bioengineering disputed?
3. The promise of bioengineering.
4. Ethics of bioengineering based on theology.
5. The theological argument.

We can see here that the last four sentences try to examine why bioengineering is disputed in spite of its huge potential. Then reasons are given about the question on its ethicality, and how it is closely associated with theology on the matter.
1 however runs tangential to the discussion. The main focus is bioengineering while 1 aims to shift the focus and use the debate on the matter as a stepping stone to reach another goal: evaluating/formulating moral arguments. Hence, 1 is the odd one out here.

A brief reading of the sentences tells us that the paragraph must be about the industry of neuromarketing, which is still in its embryonic phase. 3 can be the opening sentence to the paragraph, as it introduces the topic at hand. All the other sentences need a sentence before them that introduces what is being talked about.
1,4, and 2 then go on to talk about the opinion of differernt associated parties on the matter. It has taken the advertising industry by storm. Others feel that this 'art' is being masked as a science, and many lack enthusiasm on the matter.
5 however, does not fit in here. The reason is that it talks about 'psychology', which is different from the use of neural science. Even if one is not familiar with the difference, we can see that it goes a step forward to talk about the application of a science, whereas the paragraph is mostly concerned with a growing science and how it is shaping public opinion. Hence, 5 is the odd one out.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph must be about the disparity in the representation of different genders. Sentences 1,2,3, and 5 are concerned with the problems that arise when the representation of females is less.  
4, however, runs tangent to the discussion at hand. It talks about 'structural inequalities'. This sentence, if included in the paragraph, would render it incomplete as all the other sentences talk about gender inequality and not structural inequality. Thus, 4 is out of context here.

This is a relatively simple question. 4 opens the paragraph by giving us the reference of time and place. It talks about white liberty in colonies, and slavery in those colonies. 4 says “the slaves could never be muted”. 5 comes as an additional information for 4, because 5 clearly says that “slave owners were obsessed over slave talk” and 1 says “talk was the most common way for enslaved men and women to subvert the rules of their bondage” ...2 further adds to the story by stating that “even in conditions of extreme violence.... their words remained ubiquitous”. Thus 4512 form a logical link, with 3 as the odd one out. The sequence may not strictly be 4512, but in all cases 3 is the odd one.

This could be a challenging question, but we have to look for clues that connect the sentences. This will help us create a new sequence and find the odd one out. 5 says “more specifically, the feminist enquiry...”. thus there must a reference to “more specifically” because this phrase is used to bring in clarity to something. We must try to find a reference to this. The reference can be found in 1, which says “for feminists, the question of ...” (the question of =enquiry). Thus 15 form a pair. 5 has “...the feminist enquiry begins with the realization...and 4 further adds to it by saying “the documentation of this realization...was one of the earliest tasks undertaken by feminist critics...” 2 concludes by stating that “Elaine’s critique of the literary curriculum is exemplary of this work”. 2 serves as an example of 4. 3 is the odd one out.

This is a question of moderate difficulty. 1 points at some truth. We must try to find the sentence that connects with 1. How can we monopolize and protect data? By having intellectual property rights. Thus 31 form a pair. 4 adds another idea to the story; it says “alongside the world of monopolised information (already discussed in 31), we have information as a social good, incapable of being owned. 5 concludes by saying that “information good are freely replicable....it can be copied and pasted infinitely”. In the light of intellectual property rights, and free information goods, 2 seems to be the odd one out.

The answer for this question seems to be a little weird. Though 4 is the official answer, we believe that sentence 5 should have been the right choice. 2 will open the paragraph. 1 and 4 focus on the victim’s past. 1 says “victim’s trauma after the assault rarely gets the attention...” and 4 says “even the most charitable question seems to focus on the victim’s past...”. 3 finally concludes by saying “the result is that we don’t have much of a vocabulary for what happens in a victim’s life after the painful past...”. 5 should have been the right answer, but the official answer is 4.

5 says ‘for instance'. We must find the sentence that logically connects with 5. Also, we must connect the pronoun ‘it’ in sentence 4 with some noun. The pronoun cannot refer to the plural “models” in 1 or the plural ‘algorithms’ in 5. It can refer to the singular noun “hate speech detection” in 2. Thus 24 form a pair. Similarly, 1 and 5 form a pair because the example of ‘human-like biases” in 1 can be found in 5. Also, both the sentences speak about algorithms. Thus 2415 form a logical pair, and 3 is the odd one out.