CAT 2023 Slot 1 Question Paper (July 29) - CAT MCQ

The passage focuses on the interconnectedness within the global south in the context of the Indian Ocean world's migration networks. It emphasizes historical connections between the coasts of East Africa, the Arab coasts, and South and East Asia. The passage does not specifically highlight migration networks connecting the Indian Ocean world with the global north. Instead, it underscores the significance of geographical location, religious histories, and commercial interactions within the region, pointing to a more localized and regional perspective on migration. Therefore, Option A is not true according to the passage. Additionally, the passage mentioned the Indian Ocean as “a term used to describe the very long-lasting connections among the coasts of East Africa, the Arab coasts, and South and East Asia.” and not north and south.
Option B is correct as the passage mentions that for much of history, travel by sea in the Indian Ocean was easier than by land, emphasizing the importance of geographical location.
Option C is correct as the passage indicates that the novels in the book draw on and shape a wider sense of Indian Ocean space through themes, images, metaphors, and language, including religious and commercial aspects.
Option D is correct as the passage notes that migration is often portrayed as abandonment rather than adventure, indicating a complex and ambivalent nature of the migration experience in the Indian Ocean world.

Options A, C and D have the following format World/Novels : Characteristic of that particular world/novel.
Option B is the odd one out as the characteristic of Border-crossing does not belong to the Postcolonial novels world. 

From the passage, we can infer that the Indian Ocean novels were "outward-looking - full of movement, bordercrossing and south-south interconnection". At the same time, they showcased elements of the global south like Slavery, Forced Migration etc. Hence, A and C showcase valid elements of the Indian Ocean Novels World.

On the other hand, postcolonial novels were usually [concerned with] national questions, land-focused and inward-looking. They featured anti-colonial nationalism. Hence, option D is also a valid Theme:Characteristic combination.

However, we note that Border-crossing is an element of the Indian Ocean novel world and not the Postcolonial novel world. Hence, option B is not a valid combination and thus is the odd one out.

“For their part Ghosh, Gurnah, Collen and even Conrad reference a different set of histories and geographies than the ones most commonly found in fiction in English. Those [commonly found ones] are mostly centred in Europe or the US, assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and mention places like Paris and New York. “

The passage argues that the novels discussed in "Writing Ocean Worlds" diverge from the common representations found in English fiction, which often center on Europe or the US, assume a background of Christianity and whiteness, and mention places like Paris and New York. If Option D were true, it would support the passage's claim rather than weaken it. Therefore, Option D is the correct answer.

Through the passage, the author claims that the Indian Ocean novels provide a more realistic picture of the Indian Ocean space, particularly in the representation of Africa. The author claims that the depiction is more authentic and free from Eurocentricity that is seen in other novels.

Option A weakens the passage by contradicting these claims and suggesting that the depiction of Africa is influenced by postcolonial nostalgia.

Option B weakens the passage by suggesting a potential bias or negative stereotyping in the portrayal of Africa in Indian Ocean novels.

Option C weakens the author's claim by disputing that there is eurocentric perspective in other novels.

Option D is not explicitly presented by the author as a reason why non-geographers disregard geographic influences. The author suggests that scholars often react negatively to explanations involving a geographic role by denouncing "geographic determinism." However, the specific idea of dismissal is not explicitly outlined in the passage.
The other options on the other hand, can be inferred from the passage:

Option A can be inferred from the following lines: “ One reason is that some geographic explanations advanced a century ago were racist, thereby causing all geographic explanations to become tainted.”

Option B can be inferred from the following lines: “Another reason for reflex rejection of geographic explanations is that historians have a tradition, in their discipline, of stressing the role of contingency (a favorite word among historians) based on individual decisions and chance.”

Option C can be inferred from the last paragraph of the passage:” Geographic explanations usually depend on detailed technical facts of geography and other
elds of scholarship . . . Most historians and economists don’t acquire that detailed knowledge as part of the professional training.”

The passage does not explicitly mention the criticism of scholars for having outdated interpretations of past cultural and historical phenomena. The primary focus of the author's criticism, as discussed in the passage, centers on scholars' tendencies to dismiss geographic factors, label geographic explanations as deterministic, and associate geographic analyses with past racism.Therefore Option B is the correct answer.

It is given that the applications are scheduled for processing in twenty 15-minute slots starting at 9:00 am and ending at 2:00 pm. Ten applications are scheduled in each slot.
Hence, the total number of applicants = (20*10) = 200. It is also known that 50% of the applications were US applications, and the number of US applications was the same in all the slots. The same was true for the other three categories.

Hence, the number of total number of US applicants = (200*50%) = 100, and the number of US applicants in each slot = (100/20) = 5 It is also known that Ira, Vijay, and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot. Since the number of Schengen applicants was the same in all the slots, it implies the number of Schengen applicants in each slot is at least 3. Similarly, it is given that Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 am slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category, which implies the number of other category applicants in each slot is at least 2. Since the number of total applicants in each slot is 10, this implies the number of Schengen and other applicants in each slot is 3, and 2, respectively. Hence, the number of UK applicants is 0 in each slot.

It is also known that the number of total counters is 10, among which four are dedicated to US applications, and two each for UK applications, Schengen applications, and Others applications. It is given that each US and UK application requires 10 minutes of processing time, and Vijay was called to a counter at 9:25 am. (Who is 5th in the queue). It can only be possible when the processing time of Schengen applications is 12.5 minutes.

On a particular day, Ira, Vijay, and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 am. When they entered the office, exactly six out of the ten counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and ready to start processing the next.
Hence, at 9.20 am, there are exactly four free counters. Out of these 4, 2 is the UK counter, and the other two are other counters. (Since the US counters and Schengen Counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and were ready to start processing the next.)

From the table, we can say that the total number of UK applicants in each slot is zero, Hence, the total number of applicants is zero.

It is given that the applications are scheduled for processing in twenty 15-minute slots starting at 9:00 am and ending at 2:00 pm. Ten applications are scheduled in each slot.
Hence, the total number of applicants = (20*10) = 200. It is also known that 50% of the applications were US applications, and the number of US applications was the same in all the slots. The same was true for the other three categories.
Hence, the number of total number of US applicants = (200*50%) = 100, and the number of US applicants in each slot = (100/20) = 5 It is also known that Ira, Vijay, and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot. Since the number of Schengen applicants was the same in all the slots, it implies the number of Schengen applicants in each slot is at least 3.
Similarly, it is given that Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 am slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category, which implies the number of other category applicants in each slot is at least 2. Since the number of total applicants in each slot is 10, this implies the number of Schengen and other applicants in each slot is 3, and 2, respectively. Hence, the number of UK applicants is 0 in each slot.
It is also known that the number of total counters is 10, among which four are dedicated to US applications, and two each for UK applications, Schengen applications, and Others applications. It is given that each US and UK application requires 10 minutes of processing time, and Vijay was called to a counter at 9:25 am. (Who is 5th in the queue). It can only be possible when the processing time of Schengen applications is 12.5 minutes.

On a particular day, Ira, Vijay, and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 am. When they entered the office, exactly six out of the ten counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and ready to start processing the next.
Hence, at 9.20 am, there are exactly four free counters. Out of these 4, 2 is the UK counter, and the other two are other counters. (Since the US counters and Schengen Counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and were ready to start processing the next.) For the other applicants, the time taken to process one application is at most 5 minutes, which implies the total time taken to process 40 applications is at most (40*5) = 200 minutes.

It is given that the applications are scheduled for processing in twenty 15-minute slots starting at 9:00 am and ending at 2:00 pm. Ten applications are scheduled in each slot.

Hence, the total number of applicants = (20*10) = 200. It is also known that 50% of the applications were US applications, and the number of US applications was the same in all the slots. The same was true for the other three categories.

Hence, the number of total number of US applicants = (200*50%) = 100, and the number of US applicants in each slot = (100/20) = 5 It is also known that Ira, Vijay, and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot. Since the number of Schengen applicants was the same in all the slots, it implies the number of Schengen applicants in each slot is at least 3.

Similarly, it is given that Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 am slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category, which implies the number of other category applicants in each slot is at least 2. Since the number of total applicants in each slot is 10, this implies the number of Schengen and other applicants in each slot is 3, and 2, respectively. Hence, the number of UK applicants is 0 in each slot.

It is also known that the number of total counters is 10, among which four are dedicated to US applications, and two each for UK applications, Schengen applications, and Others applications. It is given that each US and UK application requires 10 minutes of processing time, and Vijay was called to a counter at 9:25 am. (Who is 5th in the queue). It can only be possible when the processing time of Schengen applications is 12.5 minutes.

On a particular day, Ira, Vijay, and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 am. When they entered the office, exactly six out of the ten counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and ready to start processing the next.
Hence, at 9.20 am, there are exactly four free counters. Out of these 4, 2 is the UK counter, and the other two are other counters. (Since the US counters and Schengen Counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and were ready to start processing the next.) Nandini's position was sixth in the queue in the Schengen Applications. From the table, we can see that her process will end at 9.45 am.

The correct option is D

It is given that some of the houses are occupied. The remaining ones are vacant and are the only ones available for sale.
The base price of a vacant house is Rs. 10 lakhs if the house does not have a parking space, and Rs. 12 lakhs if it does. The quoted price (in lakhs of Rs.) of a vacant house is calculated as (base price) + 5 × (road adjacency value) + 3 × (neighbor count).
It is also known that the maximum quoted price of a house in Block XX is Rs. 24 lakhs Hence, there can be two cases for the maximum quoted price of a house in block XX.

Case 1: House with parking space: => 12+5a+3b = 24 => 5a+3b = 12 ( a = road adjacency value, b= neighbor count) The only value for which the equation satis
es is (a = 0, and b=4). But the value of b can't be 4 because the maximum neighbor count can be at most 3.
Hence, case 1 is invalid.

Case 2: House without parking space: => 10+5a+3b = 24 => 5a+3b = 14 => (a, b) = (1, 3) Hence, the house must have 3 neighbors and 1 road connected to it. Hence, the only possible case is B2.
Therefore, the neighbor houses of B2, which are (B1, A2, and C2) are occupied.
It is known that Row 1 has two occupied houses, one in each block. Since B1 is already occupied, it implies A1, and C1 are vacant.
Hence, the configuration of block XX is given below: (Where U = Unoccupied/ Vacant, and U = Occupied)

Now for block YY, we know that both houses in Column E are vacant. Each of Column-D and Column-F has at least one occupied house. There is only one house with parking space in Block YY.
It is also known that the minimum quoted price of a house in block YY is Rs. 15 lakhs, and one such house is in Column E.
Case 1: The minimum quoted house is E2: We know that the road adjacency of E2 is 1, hence we can calculate whether the house has parking space or not, and the neighbor count (b) If the house has parking space, then: 12+5*1+3*b = 15 => 3b = -2 (which is not possible) Hence, the house has no parking space => 10+5*1+3b = 15 => b = 0 b = 0 implies all the neighbor house of E2 is vacant, which are (E1, D2, and F2).
It is known that each of Column-D and Column-F has at least one occupied house, which implies D1, and F1 must be occupied.
But D1 and F1 can't be occupied together since the total number of occupied houses in Row 1 is 2 (one in each block).
Hence, This case is invalid.
Case 2: The minimum quoted house is E1: We know that the road adjacency of E1 is 0, hence we can calculate whether the house has parking space or not, and the neighbor count (b). i) If the house has no working space, then: 10+5*0+3b = 15 => b = 5/3 (this is not possible since b has to be an integer value) Hence, the house has parking space => 12+5*0+3b = 15 => b = 1 => One neighbor house is occupied among D1 and F1.
Let's take the case that house D1 is occupied and F1 is empty. In that case, the value of house F1 would be 10(there is no parking space)+ (5*0) + (3*the number of neighbours) Here, even if we take the number of neighbours to be 1, which is maximum for F1 in this case, the value of F1 would be a maximum of 13. This is lower than the lowest value house in block YY. Therefore, F1 cannot be empty.
Let us see the other scenario of D1 being unoccupied.
Here, the value of D1 can be 15 or 18 depending on if D2 is unoccupied or occupied respectively.
We do not know the status of houses D2 and F2.
Therefore, the
nal diagram is given below:

From the diagram, we can see that B1 is definitely occupied. The rest opinions are not definitely correct.

The correct option is C

It is given that some of the houses are occupied. The remaining ones are vacant and are the only ones available for sale.
The base price of a vacant house is Rs. 10 lakhs if the house does not have a parking space, and Rs. 12 lakhs if it does. The quoted price (in lakhs of Rs.) of a vacant house is calculated as (base price) + 5 × (road adjacency value) + 3 × (neighbor count).
It is also known that the maximum quoted price of a house in Block XX is Rs. 24 lakhs Hence, there can be two cases for the maximum quoted price of a house in block XX.
Case 1: House with parking space: => 12+5a+3b = 24 => 5a+3b = 12 ( a = road adjacency value, b= neighbor count) The only value for which the equation satis
es is (a = 0, and b=4). But the value of b can't be 4 because the maximum neighbor count can be at most 3.
Hence, case 1 is invalid.
Case 2: House without parking space: => 10+5a+3b = 24 => 5a+3b = 14
=> (a, b) = (1, 3) Hence, the house must have 3 neighbors and 1 road connected to it. Hence, the only possible case is B2.
Therefore, the neighbor houses of B2, which are (B1, A2, and C2) are occupied.
It is known that Row 1 has two occupied houses, one in each block. Since B1 is already occupied, it implies A1, and C1 are vacant.
Hence, the configuration of block XX is given below: (Where U = Unoccupied/ Vacant, and U = Occupied)

Now for block YY, we know that both houses in Column E are vacant. Each of Column-D and Column-F has at least one occupied house. There is only one house with parking space in Block YY.
It is also known that the minimum quoted price of a house in block YY is Rs. 15 lakhs, and one such house is in Column E.

Case 1: The minimum quoted house is E2: We know that the road adjacency of E2 is 1, hence we can calculate whether the house has parking space or not, and the neighbor count (b) If the house has parking space, then: 12+5*1+3*b = 15 => 3b = -2 (which is not possible) Hence, the house has no parking space => 10+5*1+3b = 15 => b = 0 b = 0 implies all the neighbor house of E2 is vacant, which are (E1, D2, and F2).
It is known that each of Column-D and Column-F has at least one occupied house, which implies D1, and F1 must be occupied.
But D1 and F1 can't be occupied together since the total number of occupied houses in Row 1 is 2 (one in each block).
Hence, This case is invalid.

Case 2: The minimum quoted house is E1: We know that the road adjacency of E1 is 0, hence we can calculate whether the house has parking space or not, and the neighbor count (b). i) If the house has no working space, then: 10+5*0+3b = 15 => b = 5/3 (this is not possible since b has to be an integer value) Hence, the house has parking space => 12+5*0+3b = 15 => b = 1 => One neighbor house is occupied among D1 and F1.

Let's take the case that house D1 is occupied and F1 is empty. In that case, the value of house F1 would be 10(there is no parking space)+ (5*0) + (3*the number of neighbours) Here, even if we take the number of neighbours to be 1, which is maximum for F1 in this case, the value of F1 would be a maximum of 13. This is lower than the lowest value house in block YY. Therefore, F1 cannot be empty. Let us see the other scenario of D1 being unoccupied. Here, the value of D1 can be 15 or 18 depending on if D2 is unoccupied or occupied respectively. We do not know the status of houses D2 and F2. 

Therefore, the final diagram is given below:

From the diagram, we can say that the number of vacant houses in Row 2 in Block XX is 1, and the number of vacant houses in Row 2 in Block YY is either 1 or 2.
Hence, the total number of vacant houses is either 2 or 3

The correct option is D

Prime Factorising 1134, we get 1134 = 2 x 3⁴ x 7 and 168 = 2³ x 3 x 7

1134ⁿ is a factor of 168 => the factor of 2 should be atleast 3, for 168 to be a factor => n = 3.
Now,  1134ⁿ = 1134³ = 2³ x 3¹² x 7³ is a factor of 168^m = (2³ x 3 x 7)^m => m = 12 as power of 3 should be atleast 12.
=> So, m + n = 15.

=> (x²- 4) (x²+3) = 0 => since, x is a positive real number (given) => x = 2.

Comparing the L.H.S. and R.H.S.

(can be verified using the second term as well).

For the L.H.S. of the equation to be 0, each of the square terms should be 0 (as squares cannot be negative)
=> x - 2y - 1 = 0 => x - 2y = 1

Let us consider 3 cases:

1) x = 0, This is a solution, as both L.H.S and R.H.S will be equal (0) when x = 0. (1 solution) 2) x > 0