CAT Verbal Mock Test - 3


25 Questions MCQ Test CAT New | CAT Verbal Mock Test - 3


Description
Attempt CAT Verbal Mock Test - 3 | 25 questions in 35 minutes | Mock test for CAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study CAT New for CAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
QUESTION: 1

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.

But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.

So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.

With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.

Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.

Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller one).

Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.

For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.

But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.

Q. Which of the following is the main theme of the passage?

Your answer is correct

Solution: The passage starts with discussing how the Outer Space Treaty is a good step in the right direction and then proceeds to discuss the proliferation of satellites leading us to the problem, which is the management of debris in space. The passage then proceeds to discuss the responsibility of every nation and ends with a subtle imploration to countries to get to the drawing board to chalk out a solution. A good way of understanding the main theme of the passage is to structurally divide the passage into several parts and asking yourself, which idea is relevant to all the parts and is not just limited to one segment.

Option A: While the Outer Space Treaty is an important feature of the discussion, the reader must notice that it was a ‘document made before moon-landing'. The writer is clearly focussed on the future and how we could sustain space exploration without making it more and more difficult for the future generations. So, it doesn’t just stop at the Treaty and uses it as an introduction to the whole thought process that maintaining hygiene in space is in our best interest. Hence, discussing the importance of the Outer Space Treaty is an introductory idea and not the main idea of the passage. A is not the answer.

Option B: ‘But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty's authors could never have imagined where we'd be now.’ This is how the second para starts - with a ‘but’. That means the author is not complacent about the Outer Space Treaty and implores everyone to look at how far we have come and how much bigger the magnitude of this problem is. From here on, till the end of the para the author talks about issues related to the problem of an increasing number of satellites and space debris resulting from the celestial mining as indicated by - ‘So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges - let alone the political, legal, and business ones - involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects’. B raises all the relevant issues spoken about in the passage. B is the answer.

Option C: To address the scientific and engineering challenges around managing the proliferation of man-made satellites in orbit. The author talks about the fact that no one has an idea about the challenges involved in cleaning up the space debris. However, this is part of a bigger idea, a bigger discussion about how to deal with space debris caused by our celestial mining. The passage doesn’t dive into discussing those engineering or scientific challenges specifically (indicated by the absence of a discussion on scientific and engineering facts relevant to satellites, their debris, etc.). While there is a solution offered through the discussion of San Francisco-based Planet Labs, that is only one of the ideas touched up, but not a thorough discussion on addressing the challenges. Hence, C while being relevant isn’t the main idea of the passage. C is not the answer.

Option D: The Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space is one of the initiatives taken up by a band of space environmentalists, it is one of the solutions explained as part of the bigger problem - ‘Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit or pulverize a unique asteroid could be similarly scrutinized’. However, this Institute is not the soul focus of the passage (indicated by the fact that this discussion is only limited to the paras in the middle and doesn’t extend until the end of the passage). Hence, D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 2

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.

But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.

So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.

With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.

Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.

Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller one).

Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.

For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.

But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.

Q. Which of the following is least likely to be an objective of the Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space, as can be understood from the passage?

Your answer is correct

Solution: So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges - let alone the political, legal, and business ones - involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That's why Aaron Boiey, a planetary physicist at the University of British Columbia., and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars from Canada, the U.S., the UK, and China are putting together the world's first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space - essentially a space-focused think tank. With their focus on sustainable development Boiey and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Option A: From the underlined portions above, no one has an idea how to deal with the challenge and that’s why Aaron’s team was formed. Hence, one of the goals of the Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space was to focus on sustainable development and also protect space while treating it as a global common. Also, this para follows the para which discusses the proliferation of man-made satellites increasing the space debris. Hence, A is not the answer.

Option B: The underlined portions show that the team consisted of policy experts, legal scholars and space scientists. Hence, one of the missions of the Institute was to provide a common platform for experts from various fields to discuss various angles of the space debris problem. Hence, B is not the answer.

Option C: This line indicates a problem that wasn’t directly mentioned in the scope of this passage. The problem discussed in the passage is that of too many man-made satellites making it a daunting task to keep track of the orbiting debris and space. In other words, it’s not the number of satellites but the management of the debris that is the problem discussed. The number is therefore, least likely to be the objective. Hence, Option C is the answer.

Option D: From the line today's space activities don’t compromise future ones’, we can understand that the Institute wants to secure the future of space exploration as well, which is in danger (jeopardy) if the debris is left unmanaged. This can further be understood from the line If one day a collision begets another and another, like in the 2013 movie Gravity, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else’. Hence, D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 3

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.

But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.

So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.

With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.

Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.

Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller one).

Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.

For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.

But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.

Q. Which of the following is the likely cause behind the author’s warning but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species’?

Solution: ‘Something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today's space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact - but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage’. The author calls the whole fishing example an analogy So, it can be understood that the author is drawing a parallel saying, just like no individual country thinks it is doing enough damage with its fishing activities but all the countries combined together maybe causing a lot of damage, space debris too is not a problem that any country thinks it is individually responsible for, but the cumulative effect may be disastrous. It is therefore important to understand that the author isn’t really talking about fishing or the oceans but using the analogy to discuss the space debris problem as a whole, and is imploring for a combined resolution.

Option A: This option ‘literally’ focuses on fish and the oceans and therefore, cannot be the reason why the author mentioned this line. A is not the answer.

Option B: The ‘Bystander Effect’ leads all countries to think someone else will clean up the forests or oceans. This option seems to suggest a passive problem. Countries aren’t doing anything thinking other countries will take care of it. The problem in the passage is not that countries aren’t doing anything believing other countries will take care. The problem in the passage is that countries are spreading debris without realising that the cumulative effect of all those space activities could result in a serious problem. So, it is their action and not their inaction, which is the problem according to the passage. Also, it is not just about cleaning up forests or oceans. Hence, B is not the answer.

Option C: ‘Countries underestimate the cumulative effect and focus only on the individual effects of their activities impacting the environment.’ The author's argument is that countries are probably not aware of the scope and scale of the combined effects of their activities. From ‘where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact - but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species’ we can understand that each country may think that its impact is low but, they do not realise how the effects of their individual impact combine to create a much bigger problem. Hence, Option C is the answer.

Option D: The same rules that pertain to forests and oceans must apply to space’. This line suggests the author didn’t use forests or oceans as an analogy but directly to talk about what applies to forests and oceans and hence, must apply to oceans. But that is not the case. The author clearly states it is an analogy. In other words, it is a comparison. Also, there are no concrete rules discussed in the passage for forests or oceans. Option D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 4

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.

But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.

So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.

With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.

Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.

Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller one).

Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.

For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.

But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.

Q. The author mentions the example of San Francisco-based Planet Labs to demonstrate which of the following points?

Solution: San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites' orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry. But what if not everyone acts in everyone's best interest?

The answer to this question has been summarised well in the last line of the passage. Planet Labs has been mentioned as an example of a company that owns many orbiting satellites which self-destroy themselves after the expiration date spreading no debris. When the author asks about those who don’t act in everyone’s interest, the thought following the word ‘but’, he suggests that Planet Labs is indeed acting in a way that is in everyone's best interest.

Option A: The para doesn’t talk about the ownership of satellites. Yes, the word 'private' suggests it is not government-owned but if that were the main idea of the example, the decay of the orbits and burn up in re-entry wouldn’t be discussed. Hence, Option A is not the answer.

Option B: The para is a solution to the main problem discussed in the passage - how to deal with space debris. This line summarises the idea of the example, that one can use many satellites while ensuring they are not left out in orbit as space debris. That ensures everyone's interests are protected (future explorations shouldn’t be harmed or disturbed). Hence, Option B is the answer.

Option C: From ‘makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years' time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry' we can understand that satellites can be designed to be self-destructive. Hence, Option C is not the answer.

Option D: Small satellites can be sent, but there is no evidence to believe that they can replace larger, traditional satellites. Hence, Option D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 5

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.

But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.

So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.

With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.

Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.

Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller one).

Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.

For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.

But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.

Q. From the evidence in the first para, which assumption is the author making in the line, ‘For a document conceived before the moon-landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking’?

Solution: An assumption can be understood by looking at the premise statement and the conclusion statement and by spotting the jump in between them. That gives us the unsaid premise. Here, the conclusion statement is that the document was conceived before the moon-landing (Data). The conclusion statement is that it is forward-looking. So, the assumption here is that the document is too progressive for the moon-landing era. Hence, the ideas mentioned therein - “celestial bodies" like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies' activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples, and it explicitly prohibits weapons of mass destruction in space - are too progressive for the moon-landing era.

Option A; The document was more about how to take positive ownership of space and how it shouldn't be mined for personal profit. The assumption was therefore not about ‘how much knowledge1 we have about space but how to take care of space and protect it. Hence, A is not the answer.

Option B: This line puts the progressive idea of taking responsibility for space in perspective, explaining how it was not a thought expected before the moon-landing era. In other words, around the time when we had just landed on the moon, a thought about how to treat celestial exploration was way ahead of its time. Hence, B is the answer.

Option C: This line focuses on the need to protect space. The assumption was about the quality of the document and its ideas and not about the need for the ideas in that document (space to be protected), Hence, C is not the answer.

Option D: This line seems to indicate that something significant happened during moon-landing that made us think about our responsibility towards space and its hygiene. However, that is not true. Nothing significant necessarily had to happen for a document to talk about our awareness of keeping the space free of debris. The assumption was about the progressiveness of a document older than moon-landing. Hence, D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 6

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The Outer Space Treaty – written in 1967 and signed by all the major world powers – is the closest thing we have to a constitution for space. For a document conceived before the moon landing, it’s remarkably forward-looking: it declares “celestial bodies” like the moon and asteroids off-limits for private development and requires countries authorize and continually supervise companies’ activities in space. It also says that space exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all peoples.

But even with that impressive scope of vision, the treaty’s authors could never have imagined where we’d be now. Currently there are 1,738 man-made satellites in orbit around our planet. As they become more affordable to build and launch, they’ll no doubt proliferate and vie for valuable real estate there with space stations, space tourists, space colonists, space miners, military spacecraft, and thousands of derelict satellites and other immobile debris.

So far no one has any idea how to deal with the scientific and engineering challenges – let alone the political, legal, and business ones – involved in sustainably managing orbital debris and mining celestial objects. That’s why Aaron Boley and at least six other space scientists, policy experts, and legal scholars are putting together the world’s first Institute for the Sustainable Development of Space – essentially a space-focused think tank. The experts aim to find long-term solutions so that future generations of space explorers can continue where today’s leaves off.

With their focus on sustainable development, Boley and his team come across as a band of space environmentalists who want to treat space like a global common, something that can be used but also must be protected, so that today’s space activities don’t compromise future ones. Earthly analogues include conflicts over forests or oceans, where people or even nations on their own might think they’re having a minimal impact – but their combined extractions of resources or pollution result in overfished or threatened species. Sustainably-fished species can survive indefinitely, while some practices, like fish trawling or proposed seafloor mining, could cause more lasting damage.

Space activities that threaten to fill up low Earth orbit could be similarly scrutinized. Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say. If one day a collision begets another and another, it could produce an impenetrable ring of debris that effectively prevents future space activities for everyone else. Until unproven technologies for vacuuming, netting, or harpooning debris become viable, temporary solutions are needed.

Currently each satellite has to have its own debris mitigation plan, which usually means falling back to Earth within 25 years or boosting up higher into a “graveyard orbit” (where there’s still a risk of collision, albeit a much smaller one).

Constant monitoring of so many objects seems a daunting task, with swarms of small satellites now more affordable to send up into space than their larger, traditional counterparts.

For example, at any one time, San Francisco-based Planet Labs, a private Earth imaging company, has some 200 orbiting satellites between the size of a shoe box and a washing machine. They generally fly at altitudes of 500 kilometres, which is below the densest regions and makes it easier for the satellites’ orbits to naturally decay over a few years’ time, upon which they fall and burn up in re-entry.

But what if not everyone acts in everyone’s best interest? No one has taken responsibility for a plethora of unidentified and unmaneuverable debris already polluting the atmosphere. There’s no overarching authority. What we can do is get together around a table.

Q. Which of the following, if proven false, will negate the author’s conclusion in the line, ‘It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two, they say’?

1. No solution to permanently clean up the space debris will be implemented in the next decade or two.

2. Currently, we don’t have any solution for cleaning up the space debris.

3. Commercialization of low earth orbit could contribute to a lot of space debris.

4. Debris not in the low Earth orbit doesn’t pose much of a challenge.

Solution: ‘Boley and his colleagues believe that orbital debris is the most pressing and formidable problem facing space development today. It will only worsen as we witness the commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next decade or two. they say’. From these lines, it can be understood that the author thinks It' (orbital debris, the most pressing and formidable problem) will only worsen as there is more commercialization of low Earth orbit in the next two days. This could mean two things. That commercialisation will add to the debris and there will be no way of getting rid of that debris - in the next decade or two.

If (1) is false, it means, we will implement a solution in the next decade or two to get rid of the debris. In that case, commercialization will not pose the problem it does currently. Hence, (1) is one of the answers.

If (2) is false, it means we do have a solution to clean up the space debris. In that case, commercialisation will not pose the problem it does currently. This will negate the conclusion. So (2) is one of the answers.

If (3) is false, it means commercialisation will not contribute to the space debris. In that case, the problem may not worsen. This will negate the conclusion. Hence (3) is one of the answers.

If (4) is false, it means debris in the low Earth orbit will pose much of a challenge. This will not negate the conclusion that things get worse. Hence, (4) is not one of the answers.

Option A: This leaves out 1 and 2 and includes 3. Hence, false.

Option B: This leaves out 1 and includes 4. Hence false.

Option C: This leaves out 2 and 3 and includes 4. Hence false.

Option D: This includes 1,2 and 3. Hence, this is the answer.

QUESTION: 7

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.

A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.

I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.

Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.

In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.

It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”

Q. Which of the following can be understood from the passage?

Solution: Option A: From ‘A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher, we can understand that Orwell wrote a memoir about the time he spent as a dishwasher. However, it cannot be understood why he spent that time as a dishwasher. So, we cannot say Orwell spent that time as a dishwasher to write his memoir. It is a cause-effect fallacy, where his writing a memoir is more an effect rather than the cause. Hence, Option A is not the answer.

Option B: ‘We've all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off. From this, we can understand that chefs have to work on Fridays and Saturday nights. But, it cannot be understood whether they work on other days. So, saying that chefs work only on Fridays and Saturdays is not justified. Option B is not the answer.

Option C: From It’s a haven for foreigners - Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles', we can understand that the professional kitchen offers a haven (a sanctuary/refuge) for foreigners. It doesn’t necessarily mean that professional kitchens are inclined (preponderance) towards foreigners. This is a false generalisation. Hence, Option C is not the answer.

Option D: From ‘Today's top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen - free agents in search of more money, more acclaim’. From this we can understand that at least some top chefs bounce around for more fame and money. Hence, Option D can be understood from the passage.

QUESTION: 8

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.

A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.

I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.

Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.

In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.

It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”

Q. Which of the following explains the author’s purpose in mentioning humours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook”?

Solution: The author alludes to the rumours to demonstrate that (he says, he is not surprised) there is a strain of criminality and the ‘unsavoriness' amongst those in the chef business.

Option A: The author hints at the fact that ‘the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit’. In other words, it is those with a strain of criminality who probably get attracted towards the cooking business. There is no evidence to say that the criminality originates in them due to their association with the cooking industry, much less because of the stress. Hence, Option A is not the answer.

Option B: The author mentions a rumour and says he is not surprised by it. In other words, he can empathize as to why the most common profession among prison inmates is ‘cook’. In other words, it makes sense to the author that many criminals were cooks. He is trying to demonstrate how there is a streak of criminality associated with people in the professional cooking industry. Hence Option B is the answer.

Option C: While the 'unsavoriness' of the cooking industry has been discussed, the author never mentions whether those with criminality 'thrive' or flourish more than others. In fact, the tone of the author in the passage is such that he doesn't mention the strain of criminality in a negative tone. The author doesn’t talk about how to achieve success in the professional cooking industry. Hence, Option C is not the answer.

Option D: While the statement is true, it is not connected to the rumour the author cites. Being a misfit doesn’t necessarily mean being a criminal and the author doesn't establish that relationship either. So, the rumour wasn't mentioned to prove that cooks/chefs are misfits. Hence, Option D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 9

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.

A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.

I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.

Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.

In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.

It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”

Q. Which of the following can be inferred as a difference between chefs of the present age and chefs when the author had just entered the profession?

Solution: Option A: From ‘Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen -free agents in search of more money, more acclaim’ it can be understood that modern chefs, according to the author, can hope to find fame and money. However, it cannot be inferred what they value more, money or acclaim, compared to earlier chefs. Hence, Option A is not the answer.

Option B: From the line 'Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long wav toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian’. we can understand that modern day chefs get much better working conditions, which wasn't the case in the past. This definitely represents a difference between modern day chefs and chefs of the past. Hence, Option B is the answer.

Option C: From the line ‘Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it' we can understand that modern-day chefs aspired to become chefs, studied for it and planned for it. In other words, they have chosen this profession. Hence, Option C is not the answer.

Option D: The author clearly mentions in the passage As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry'. In other words, the author doesn't say that the present chefs do not have that strain of criminality. The author asserts that a hint of criminality can always be associated with those in the cooking business. Hence, Option D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 10

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.

A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.

I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.

Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.

In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.

It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”

Q. Which of the following possibly explains the relationship the author seemed to have shared with ‘his crew’?

Solution: From this, 7 wanted it all: the cuts and bums on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat," or “new guy’) to chefdom - doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and hard my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of "The Wild Bunch” it is obvious that the author had a ’positive’ relationship with his crew. ‘Camaraderie' is a positive word and the same can be inferred from ‘my own crew'. Also, ‘Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners’ we can understand that there was mentorship and protectiveness, positive.

Option A: ‘Cutthroat hostility' or enmity or antagonism are negative terms. The author used the word ‘cutthroat’ as a noun, a reference to a band of pirates that operated together with great loyalty and pride in their own team. ‘Cutthroat’ in the option has been used as an adjective, thus changing the context and meaning completely. Hence, Option A is not the answer.

Option B: From ‘Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness', it can be understood that the author hints that one needs stoicism in the profession of being a cook/chef. Stoicism is the ability to remain unaffected in both positive and negative situations. However, this doesn't reflect the relationship between the author and his crew. The author is not neutral towards his crew. He enjoys their company ('camaraderie'). Stoicism doesn’t explain his attitude towards the crew. Hence, Option B is not the answer.

Option C: As explained above, the author protected his crew and also had a good spirit of camaraderie with ‘his team'. So, the words ‘protective’ and ‘mentorship' are justified. Hence, Option C is the answer.

Option D: Given the strong positive feelings the author shared with his team, a negative word like ‘indifference’ (the absence of any emotional bond) cannot be justified. Hence, Option D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 11

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.

A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.

I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.

Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.

In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.

It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”

Q. Which of the following best summarises the usage of the analogy by the author: ‘Being a chef is a lot like being an air traffic controller’?

Solution: Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster.' The second part of the line explains the analogy. An air-traffic controller is constantly dealing with the threat of disaster.

Option A: The author does talk about donning several hats after this analogy but not before he talks about averting disaster. An air-traffic controller wouldn’t don several hats and is only responsible for thinking constantly about and preventing disaster. After that, the author goes on to elaborate how the chef is responsible for his crew. Hence, A is not the answer.

Option B: As explained for the previous option, the author does talk about a chef being responsible for his crew, protecting his crew. However, that was after he talks about the analogy. Hence, B is not the answer.

Option C: This line refers to demanding hotel owners, angry purveyors, and inconsistent paymasters. It is not related to the analogy of the air-traffic controller used to discuss a different angle - that of the chef being on top of the situation. Hence, C is not the answer.

Option D: This line is a rephrasing of constantly dealing with the threat of disaster" explaining the real reason why the author used the analogy of the air-traffic controller. Hence, D is the answer.

QUESTION: 12

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.

A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.

I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.

Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.

In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.

It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”

Q. Which of the following is the author least likely to agree with about the professional cooking industry?

Solution: Option A: From ‘Admittedly, it's a life that grinds you down' and ‘Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay-checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners’, we can understand that the life of a chef is never easy and involves plenty of troubles. Hence, the author is likely to agree with this statement. A is not the answer.

Option B: From ‘there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professions! cooking that attracted me to it in the first place’, we can understand that not all is white and legal in the cooking business. Hence, B is not the answer.

Option C: From the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family’, we can understand that misfits do find solace in the cooking industry. ‘New family’ means those who have a bad history can look for new affections (solace). Hence, the author is likely to agree with this statement. C is not the answer.

Option D: The author clearly mentions that the cooking business is the ‘last refuge for misfits’ and that he loves ‘the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work’. Hence, he will not likely agree to the statement that ‘Crackpots, refugees, dreamers and sociopaths’ are too weird for the business, {meaning so weird they are not fit for the industry) Hence, choice D is the answer.

QUESTION: 13

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.

If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.

The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)

To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.

The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.

Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.

This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.

Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.

Q. Which of the following best explains why the author feels that the result of the ‘mental gymnastics’ is reassuring?

Solution: 'So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are. remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position. This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring.’ According to these lines, we can infer that what the author finds deeply reassuring is that everybody is in a position where they feel inadequate and unhappy, and that is more because of skewed perception rather than the actual truth.

Option A: We are not talking about just one’s friends not doing well. We are not even looking at who is not doing well. We are feeling inadequate because we are looking at others doing better than us. Hence, this option doesn't explain the author’s opinion. Choice A is not the answer.

Option B: The feelings of self-pity and inferiority are not exclusive to you and are felt by everyone. The author feels reassured because these feelings are not exclusive to one person but the reassurance is not from a sadistic realisation that everyone is equally sad but rather from the happy realisation that the comparisons leading to these feelings are not apt. This can be understood from the last line of the antepenultimate para - 'remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position1. Hence, Choice B is the answer.

Option C: As per the last para in the passage, the feeling of self-pity is because of skewed comparisons, because we choose people from the wrong set to compare ourselves with. The skewed comparisons may result in self-pity and it is not the other way around. Hence, Choice C is not the answer.

Option D: The basic difference between this option and the actual reason is that the former justifies the sadness as natural. The actual reason for being reassured is that this feeling is misguided (not natural as this option points out). Hence, Choice D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 14

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: you're kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.

If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.

The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)

To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.

The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.

Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.

This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.

Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.

Q. Which of the following is the author’s primary point of view in the passage?

Solution: The authors primary point of view in the passage is that comparisons with others which generally leave us with the feeling of inferiority may not be accurate given that the field from which we pick our samples are skewed in the first place.

Option A: While the passage discusses Friendship Paradox’, it doesn’t focus on the applications of the paradox, that too, in the study of social networks, another aspect not discussed at length but mentioned as a passing example. Hence, Choice A is not the answer.

Option B: Comparisons with others leading to dissatisfaction, according to the passage, are indeed, a universal phenomenon, as the passage asserts that it is quite likely everyone experiences the feeling of self-pity. Hence, Choice B is a misrepresentation of the idea of the passage.

Option C: While this line alludes to something reasonably true, the passage is not about one’s network connections alone, but about every kind of topology where comparisons with a similar group of peers is possible. Hence, Choice C doesn’t represent the idea of the passage well.

Option D: The idea of the passage is two-fold: that everyone is feeling inadequate because of a similar set of comparisons with peers, and that everyone’s field of comparison is skewed. This option points to that flaw in everyone's comparisons -statistically skewed field. Hence, Choice D is the answer.

QUESTION: 15

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: you're kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.

If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.

The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)

To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.

The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.

Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.

This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.

Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.

Q. Which of the following reiterates the assumption in the line ‘Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out’?

Solution: The assumption made by the author while saying this has actually been elaborated in the following line: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. In other words, the assumption is people are connected both ways and there is no pattern behind who is more popular and who isn’t (an idea the passage contradicts). In other words, if we compare the number of friends every individual has(X) with the average of the number of friends the individuals ‘friends have (Y), the author's initial assumption is that it will cancel out. In other words, the probability of X being more or less than Y is the same. A simple way of looking at this question is identifying whether an option strengthens the Friendship Paradox or goes against it. Since, the author’s initial assumption here was contradicting the Friendship Paradox, one can identify whether a particular option demonstrates the assumption or contradicts it.

Option A: This contradicts the above-explained principle because this option clearly shows that one’s friends might have other friends thereby increasing the possibility of Friendship Paradox being true. The option strengthens the Friendship Paradox, thereby weakening the author’s assumption, rather than demonstrating it. Hence, Choice A is not the answer.

Option B: This line proves the possibility of people being friends with people who have a lot more friends, thereby increasing the average of the friends one's friends have. Thereby, the Friendship Paradox is strengthened by this option. In other words, it will contradict the author's assumption. Hence, Choice B is not the answer.

Option C; This line once again seems to strengthen the Friendship Paradox by showing that clearly that the statement ‘any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less' is false. So, it contradicts the assumption of the author. Hence, Choice C is not the answer.

Option D: This line clearly negates the Friendship Paradox by stating that in any given network or group the probability of one being more or less popular (in terms of number of friends) that the average of the group is similar. Hence, it strengthens/demonstrates the assumption made by the author. Choice D is the answer.

QUESTION: 16

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: you're kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.

If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.

The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)

To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.

The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.

Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.

This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.

Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.

Q. Which of the following needs to be proven wrong to weaken the author’s opinion in ‘You're more likely to know more popular people…but you're not friends with any of them’?

Solution: In the lines considered for the question, the author’s assumption is that popularity number of friends are proportional (debatable, but we stick to the author's assumption).

Option A: If A is proven wrong, it means that popular people may not have more friends than the average individual. The author’s opinion that one is more likely to be friends with popular people then ‘friendless people' will be weakened by the same.

Option B: This option compares 'fame' and ‘popularity’ and totally ignores the important parameter of ‘number of friends'. Hence, Choice B is easy to eliminate.

Option C: This when proven false, indicates that popularity of a person and the friends-count are connected. This strengthens the author's opinion rather than weakens it. Hence, Choice C can be eliminated.

Option D: This option, as it stands, weakens the author’s opinion (which says popular people are the ones who have a lot of friends). Hence, if proven false, it will strengthen the author's opinion.

QUESTION: 17

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.

If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.

The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)

To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.

The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.

Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.

This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.

Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.

Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?

Solution: There are two problems according to the passage. The first half (let's call it A) is that we compare ourselves only to the cream: the richest, the wealthiest, etc. The second half (let’s call it B) of the problem is that while picking the people to compare with (the cream), the field we have to pick them from, is in itself, skewed. This is demonstrated by ‘When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with.'

Option A: There are two problems with this option. Firstly, there is an assumption that people in ‘we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people’ are the same as ‘those who have done better in life than we have1. Secondly, this still refers to the group A. The other half is group B. Hence, Choice A can be eliminated.

Option B: This option talks about why we compare in the first place. The question is not so much about why we compare, but whom we compare with. Hence, Choice B can be eliminated.

Option C: Once again, this option is about the ethos of comparison and why we shouldn’t be comparing. That is not the idea of that problem. We are discussing whom we compare with and the field from which we pick the sample of whom to compare with. Choice C is not the answer.

Option D: This option points that we do not look at the bigger picture when selecting the pool (the field that is skewed against us) from which we pick people to compare. Hence, this line best suggests the second half of the problem indicated in the para. Hence, Choice D is the answer.

QUESTION: 18

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: you're kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.

If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.

The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)

To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.

The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.

Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.

This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.

Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.

Q. Which of the following, if true, does not demonstrate ‘Friendship Paradox’ as explained in the passage?

Solution: Friendship Paradox as explained in the paradox comes from, 'If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.' The paradox is demonstrated when you compare yourself with those in your particular network who are already there for a specific reason. (We don't compare ourselves with non-gym-goers but only with gym-regulars, who in turn, are likely to be more chiselled than us. We are comparing ourselves with those picked from a skewed sample.)

Option A: Everyone in the library seems to be reading more books than you do, because your comparison is with only those who come to the library in the first place and not with those who never read. Choice A fits the ‘Friendship Paradox’ perfectly. Choice A is not the answer.

Option B: The option mentions all the relatives and not a select, skewed group that we pick based on those in a network we have formed. Hence, this particular set doesn’t conform to the criteria discussed in the passage. Hence, this option doesn’t demonstrate the topology vulnerable to Friendship Paradox. Choice B is the answer. Option C: Only those who are interested in trekking would join the trekking group and hence, our comparison is only with those who like trekking. We never encounter those who don’t like trekking or those we never trek. This example fits with the criteria discussed in the passage (similar to the library example). Hence, Choice C demonstrates Friendship Paradox and is therefore, not the answer.

Option D: If you compare yourself with other NGO activists, they seem to be more involved because we are only comparing ourselves with others in the group, who are precisely in the group because of their commitment. Choice D demonstrates Friendship Paradox. Hence, Choice D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 19

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

A ‘Blue Ocean’, is an uncontested market space that makes competition irrelevant, sometimes a previously unknown market space. In Blue Oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In Red Oceans – that is, in all the industries already existing – companies compete by grabbing for a greater share of limited demand. As the market space gets more crowded, prospects for profits and growth decline. Products turn into commodities, and increasing competition turns the water bloody.

There are two ways to create Blue Oceans. One is to launch completely new industries, as eBay did with online auctions. But it’s much more common for a Blue Ocean to be created from within a Red Ocean when a company expands the boundaries of an existing industry.

As market power has moved from companies to consumers, and global competition has intensified, managers in almost all industries have come to face steep performance challenges. To turn things around, they need to be more creative in developing and executing their competitive strategies. But long-term success will not be achieved through competitiveness alone. Increasingly, it will depend on the ability to generate new demand and create and capture new markets.

The payoffs of market creation are huge. Just compare the experiences of Apple and Microsoft. Over the past 15 years, Apple has made a series of successful market-creating moves, introducing the iPod, iTunes, the iPhone, the App Store, and the iPad. From the launch of the iPod in 2001 to the end of its 2014 fiscal year, Apple’s market cap surged more than 75-fold as its sales and profits exploded. Over the same period, Microsoft’s market cap crept up by a mere 3% while its revenue went from nearly five times larger than Apple’s to nearly half of Apple’s. With close to 80% of profits coming from two old businesses – Windows and Office – and no compelling market-creating move, Microsoft has paid a steep price.

Q. Which of the following can be understood from the passage?

I. Apple’s market cap surge is because of the new market-creating moves.

II. Companies cannot register high growth in market cap indefinitely by relying on old businesses.

III. Market-creating moves always lead to growth and increase in profits.

Solution: From the third para

The payoffs of market creation are huge. Just compare the experiences of Apple and Microsoft. Over the past 15 years, Apple has made a series of successful market-creating moves. introducing the iPod. iTunes, the iPhone, the App Store, and the iPad. From the launch of the iPod in 2001 ro trie end of its 2014 fiscal year. Apple's market cap surged more than 75-fold as its sales and profits exploded. Over the same period, Microsoft's market cap crept up by a mere 3% while its revenue went from nearly five times larger than Apples to nearly half of Apple's. With close to 80% of profits coming from two old businesses - Windows and Office - and no compelling market-creating move. Microsoft has paid a steep price.

It can be understood that the author ascribes the success of Apple (payoffs) to their market creation.

I - The author starts the last para by saying market creation payoffs are huge and gives Apple as an example. The author then states that Apple has made several market-creating moves and goes on to mention that the market cap surged more than 75-fold. So, the payoff is corelated to the surge in market cap. Hence, I can be understood.

II - From the Microsoft example, it can be understood that according to the author relying on old businesses will lead to a company paying a steep price - market cap creeping at a low rate (in this case, a mere 3%). So, it can be understood that companies cannot keep on milking the same businesses indefinitely for growth (yes, profits may continue, but at a very low rate). Hence, II can be understood.

III - The author corelates market growth with market-creating moves, but doesn't conclude anywhere in the passage that all market-creating moves payoff or succeed. There is a difference between saying ‘market-creating moves lead to growth and profits’ and ‘market-creating moves always lead to growth and profits.’ Hence, it cannot be understood from the passage. Hence, Option B is the answer.

QUESTION: 20

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

A ‘Blue Ocean’, is an uncontested market space that makes competition irrelevant, sometimes a previously unknown market space. In Blue Oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In Red Oceans – that is, in all the industries already existing – companies compete by grabbing for a greater share of limited demand. As the market space gets more crowded, prospects for profits and growth decline. Products turn into commodities, and increasing competition turns the water bloody.

There are two ways to create Blue Oceans. One is to launch completely new industries, as eBay did with online auctions. But it’s much more common for a Blue Ocean to be created from within a Red Ocean when a company expands the boundaries of an existing industry.

As market power has moved from companies to consumers, and global competition has intensified, managers in almost all industries have come to face steep performance challenges. To turn things around, they need to be more creative in developing and executing their competitive strategies. But long-term success will not be achieved through competitiveness alone. Increasingly, it will depend on the ability to generate new demand and create and capture new markets.

The payoffs of market creation are huge. Just compare the experiences of Apple and Microsoft. Over the past 15 years, Apple has made a series of successful market-creating moves, introducing the iPod, iTunes, the iPhone, the App Store, and the iPad. From the launch of the iPod in 2001 to the end of its 2014 fiscal year, Apple’s market cap surged more than 75-fold as its sales and profits exploded. Over the same period, Microsoft’s market cap crept up by a mere 3% while its revenue went from nearly five times larger than Apple’s to nearly half of Apple’s. With close to 80% of profits coming from two old businesses – Windows and Office – and no compelling market-creating move, Microsoft has paid a steep price.

Q. All of the following are differences between Blue Oceans and Red Oceans EXCEPT?

Solution: Option A: A ‘Blue Ocean’, is an uncontested market space that makes competition irrelevant. Hence, the first half is justified. ‘In Red Oceans - that is, in all the industries already existing -companies compete by grabbing for a greater share of limited demand. As the market space gets more crowded. Hence, teeming (crowded) with competition’ in the answer choice is justified. Option A is a valid difference and not the answer.

Option B: From ‘In Blue Oceans, demand is created rather than fought over’ and In Red Oceans - that is, in all the industries already existing - companies compete by grabbing for a greater share of limited demand’. Hence, the difference stated in Option B is justified. Option B is not the answer.

Option C: From ‘As the market space gets more crowded, prospects for profits and growth decline’, we can understand that in Red Oceans, it is the prospect for profit that declines. One cannot ascertain that actual profits decline as well. Hence, the second half of the option cannot be justified. Option C is the answer.

Option D: From ‘But it’s much more common for a Blue Ocean to be created from within a Red Ocean when a company expands the boundaries of an existing industry' we can understand that Blue Oceans push the boundaries. From In Red Oceans - that is, in all the industries already existing we can understand that ‘increasing competition turns the water bloody’. Hence, Option D is a valid difference and not the answer.

QUESTION: 21

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

A ‘Blue Ocean’, is an uncontested market space that makes competition irrelevant, sometimes a previously unknown market space. In Blue Oceans, demand is created rather than fought over. There is ample opportunity for growth that is both profitable and rapid. In Red Oceans – that is, in all the industries already existing – companies compete by grabbing for a greater share of limited demand. As the market space gets more crowded, prospects for profits and growth decline. Products turn into commodities, and increasing competition turns the water bloody.

There are two ways to create Blue Oceans. One is to launch completely new industries, as eBay did with online auctions. But it’s much more common for a Blue Ocean to be created from within a Red Ocean when a company expands the boundaries of an existing industry.

As market power has moved from companies to consumers, and global competition has intensified, managers in almost all industries have come to face steep performance challenges. To turn things around, they need to be more creative in developing and executing their competitive strategies. But long-term success will not be achieved through competitiveness alone. Increasingly, it will depend on the ability to generate new demand and create and capture new markets.

The payoffs of market creation are huge. Just compare the experiences of Apple and Microsoft. Over the past 15 years, Apple has made a series of successful market-creating moves, introducing the iPod, iTunes, the iPhone, the App Store, and the iPad. From the launch of the iPod in 2001 to the end of its 2014 fiscal year, Apple’s market cap surged more than 75-fold as its sales and profits exploded. Over the same period, Microsoft’s market cap crept up by a mere 3% while its revenue went from nearly five times larger than Apple’s to nearly half of Apple’s. With close to 80% of profits coming from two old businesses – Windows and Office – and no compelling market-creating move, Microsoft has paid a steep price.

Q. Which of the following explains the author’s purpose in using the example of Apple and Microsoft?

Solution: But long-term success will not be achieved through competitiveness alone. Increasingly, it will depend on the ability to generate new demand and create and capture new markets. The payoffs of market creation are huge. Just compare the experiences of Apple and Microsoft.

Option A: From the underlined portion above, it can be understood that the author attributes Apple's success (payoff) to market creation and generating demand. Hence, Option A is the answer.

Option B: We cannot compare Apple’s Blue Ocean strategies with those of Microsoft, because none of Microsoft's market-creating moves have been discussed. Instead, it has been stated that Microsoft didn't come up with any market-creating moves. Hence, the Apple example isn't to show that its strategies are better. Option B is not the answer.

Option C: Brand building is a consequence of Blue Ocean strategies which may also lead to increase in market cap. Market cap doesn't lead to brand building. Hence, Option C is not the answer.

Option D; ‘Over the same period, Microsoft’s market cap crept up by a mere 3% while its revenue went from nearly five times larger than Apple’s to nearly half of Apple’s. The revenue of the two companies has been compared but not their brand value. Hence, Option D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 22

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The wheel forms the basic component of any mechanized system today, be it a watch or a jet engine. The world moves on wheels today and the inception of this technology can be traced back to 3500 BC in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization). The Sumerian wheel was invented by joining planks of wood together. However, it is still a mystery as to who actually made the first wheel. The first wheel ever made was not used for any kind of transportation. Rather, it was used by potters to spin clay for making articles like vessels. The first wooden wheel in the world was found in Slovenia and it is more than 5000 years old.

Mesopotamians started using the wheel for transferring goods at a much later period, between 3700 and 3200 BCE. They used it in their chariots and wagons, where four wheels and two axles were included. The Egyptians improvised the wheel further. They made spokes in them and used them in chariots around 2000 BC. During this time, the wheel made its way into Europe where the Greeks ideated to improve the Egyptian wheel. Researchers opine that the wheelbarrow – a hand drawn vehicle with one wheel – was first invented in Greece between the 6th and 4th century BC. It then found its way to China 400 years later, from where it moved to medieval Europe. ... The Romans made a large variety of wheels for chariots, carts, heavy freight wagons, passenger coaches.

In earlier days, circular stones or tree trunks were used as rollers for moving heavy objects. Then people started placing runners below the heavy object and started dragging it like a sledge. Then they combined the sledge and the roller, enabling the arrangement to cover larger distances. Next, the rollers were changed into wheels by cutting out the wood in between the two grooves of the rollers and an axle-like structure was created. Special wooden pegs were used on both sides to keep the runners fastened to the axle. Thus, as the wheel turned, the axle could also turn with it. This was how the first hand-cart was made.

Q. All of the following can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT?

1. The Greeks adopted the idea of wheel-making from the Egyptians and further developed it.

2. The first ever wheel was used for manufacturing purposes, and not for transportation.

3. The earliest wheel was either made of stone or wood.

4. The first hand-cart had only one wheel, allowing transportation of heavy objects quickly and over long distances.

Solution: Statement (1): Around 2000 BC, the wheel made its way into Europe where the Greeks ideated to improve the Egyptian wheel. Hence (1) is true and is not the answer.

Statement (2): The first wheel ever made was not used for any kind of transportation. Rather, it was used by potters to spin clay for making articles like vessels. Statement (2) is correct and is not the answer.

Statement (3): In earlier days, circular stones or tree trunks were used as rollers for moving heavy objects. Then people started placing runners below the heavy object and started dragging it like a sledge... From these lines, the material used in the earliest wheel cannot be inferred since the lines just mention "earlier days". {The first wheel ever made was not used for any kind of transportation.}

The first wooden wheel in the world was found in Slovenia and it is more than 5000 years old. But we cannot infer that this was the first or earliest wheel ever. So (3) is not true and is the answer.

Statement (4): The wheelbarrow was a hand drawn vehicle with one wheel. We cannot say that the first hand-cart had only one wheel. The last paragraph talks about how the first hand-cart was made. ..... Rollers were changed into wheels by cutting out the wood in between the two grooves of the rollers and an axle-like structure was created. Special wooden pegs were used on both sides to keep the runners fastened to the axle. (4) is false as it does not cover the features of the first hand-cart and is the answer. So, both (3) and (4) cannot be inferred from the passage and are the answers.

QUESTION: 23

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The wheel forms the basic component of any mechanized system today, be it a watch or a jet engine. The world moves on wheels today and the inception of this technology can be traced back to 3500 BC in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization). The Sumerian wheel was invented by joining planks of wood together. However, it is still a mystery as to who actually made the first wheel. The first wheel ever made was not used for any kind of transportation. Rather, it was used by potters to spin clay for making articles like vessels. The first wooden wheel in the world was found in Slovenia and it is more than 5000 years old.

Mesopotamians started using the wheel for transferring goods at a much later period, between 3700 and 3200 BCE. They used it in their chariots and wagons, where four wheels and two axles were included. The Egyptians improvised the wheel further. They made spokes in them and used them in chariots around 2000 BC. During this time, the wheel made its way into Europe where the Greeks ideated to improve the Egyptian wheel. Researchers opine that the wheelbarrow – a hand drawn vehicle with one wheel – was first invented in Greece between the 6th and 4th century BC. It then found its way to China 400 years later, from where it moved to medieval Europe. ... The Romans made a large variety of wheels for chariots, carts, heavy freight wagons, passenger coaches.

In earlier days, circular stones or tree trunks were used as rollers for moving heavy objects. Then people started placing runners below the heavy object and started dragging it like a sledge. Then they combined the sledge and the roller, enabling the arrangement to cover larger distances. Next, the rollers were changed into wheels by cutting out the wood in between the two grooves of the rollers and an axle-like structure was created. Special wooden pegs were used on both sides to keep the runners fastened to the axle. Thus, as the wheel turned, the axle could also turn with it. This was how the first hand-cart was made.

Q. The first wheel in the world was invented in?

Solution: Option A: The first wooden wheel in the world was found in Slovenia and it is more than 5000 years old. But choice A is not the answer as it has been mentioned in the passage that it is still a mystery as to who actually made the first wheel. So choice A is not true.

Option B: The inception of the wheel technology can be traced back to 3500 BC in Mesopotamia - the Sumerian wheel was invented by joining planks of wood together. However, it is still a mystery as to who actually made the first wheel. Hence choice B is not the answer.

Option C: The Egyptians only improvised the wheel further. They made spokes in them and used them in chariots around 2000 BC. We cannot say that the first wheel of the world was invented in Egypt. Therefore, choice C is not the answer.

Option D: However, it is still a mystery as to who actually made the first wheel. Hence the correct answer is choice D.

QUESTION: 24

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The wheel forms the basic component of any mechanized system today, be it a watch or a jet engine. The world moves on wheels today and the inception of this technology can be traced back to 3500 BC in Mesopotamia (Sumerian civilization). The Sumerian wheel was invented by joining planks of wood together. However, it is still a mystery as to who actually made the first wheel. The first wheel ever made was not used for any kind of transportation. Rather, it was used by potters to spin clay for making articles like vessels. The first wooden wheel in the world was found in Slovenia and it is more than 5000 years old.

Mesopotamians started using the wheel for transferring goods at a much later period, between 3700 and 3200 BCE. They used it in their chariots and wagons, where four wheels and two axles were included. The Egyptians improvised the wheel further. They made spokes in them and used them in chariots around 2000 BC. During this time, the wheel made its way into Europe where the Greeks ideated to improve the Egyptian wheel. Researchers opine that the wheelbarrow – a hand drawn vehicle with one wheel – was first invented in Greece between the 6th and 4th century BC. It then found its way to China 400 years later, from where it moved to medieval Europe. ... The Romans made a large variety of wheels for chariots, carts, heavy freight wagons, passenger coaches.

In earlier days, circular stones or tree trunks were used as rollers for moving heavy objects. Then people started placing runners below the heavy object and started dragging it like a sledge. Then they combined the sledge and the roller, enabling the arrangement to cover larger distances. Next, the rollers were changed into wheels by cutting out the wood in between the two grooves of the rollers and an axle-like structure was created. Special wooden pegs were used on both sides to keep the runners fastened to the axle. Thus, as the wheel turned, the axle could also turn with it. This was how the first hand-cart was made.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following is true about the earliest wheels produced in Mesopotamia and Egypt?

Solution: Option A: We know from the passage that the Romans made a large variety of wheels for chariots, carts, heavy freight wagons, passenger coaches. The Egyptians improvised the wheel further. They made spokes in them and used them in chariots around 2000 BC. The first part of choice A is incorrect.

Option B: The world moves on wheels today and the inception of this technology can be traced back to 3500 BC in Mesopotamia - the Sumerian wheel was invented by joining planks of wood together. The Egyptians improvised the wheel further. They made spokes in them and used them in chariots around 2000 BC. Hence choice B is the correct answer.

Option C: As explained for choice B, the converse of choice C is true. Choice C is not the answer.

Option D: Mesopotamians (Sumerian civilization) started using the wheel for transferring goods at a much later period, between 3700 and 3200 BCE. They used it in their chariots and wagons, where four wheels and two axles were included. The first part of choice D is correct. The second part of choice D cannot be inferred from the passage. So choice D is not the answer.

QUESTION: 25

DIRECTIONS for questions: The sentences given in each of the following questions, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in the sequence of five numbers as your answer, in the input box given below the question.

1. Texting has habituated us to receiving a much quicker response.

2. An appropriate time frame varies from person to person, but it can be anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour to even immediately, depending on the previous communication.

3. Texting is a medium that conditions our minds in a distinctive way, and we expect our exchanges to work differently with messages than they did with phone calls.

4. Before everyone had a cell phone, people could usually wait a while – up to a few days, even – to call back before reaching the point where the other person would get concerned.

5. When we don’t get the quick response, our mind freaks out.

a) 12345

b) 34125

c) 34521

d) 32145


Solution: Sentence 1 is an independent sentence, without pronouns or conjunctive adverbs (e.g., However, otherwise, meanwhile, as such, therefore, etc. which connect two different sentences).

Sentence 2 should lead to the question 'time frame for what'.

Sentence 3 is again an independent sentence similar to Sentence 1. Between Sentence 1 and Sentence 3, Sentence 3 comes first in the order because it is upstream to Sentence 1 It is upstream because Sentence 3 answers 'what is texting' whereas 1 answer 'what is the effect of texting'. We can talk about what it has habituated us to, only after talking about what it is and when we use it. (Works differently from phone calls). But, Sentence 3 and Sentence 1 need not be part of a mandatory pair/logical block.

Sentence 4 is downstream to Sentence 3 but upstream to Sentence 1. It is downstream to Sentence 3 because it explains what people did when they were more used to calling rather than texting, which is an elaboration of the second half of Sentence 3 (‘work differently with messages than they did with phone calls'). But, Sentence 4 is upstream to Sentence 1 because Sentence 4 is still talking about a pretexting world. Sentence 1 talks about a texting world. So, from 41 the idea moves from what they did when they could call (wait) to when they could text (expect a quicker response). The tense will also help us here. 4 has words like before’, ‘could’, etc. Sentence 1 is in present perfect tense - effect valid in the present of an action that started in the past. So, 341 is a logical block.

On a side note, how do we learn that Sentence 2 talks about the time frame of texting and not of phone calls? Because the time-frame of phone calls is given - we wait for a few days. So, this time frame in Sentence 2 (the quicker one) should be texting. Sentence 5 has a connector word 'the'. The definite article tells us something has been already discussed. The quick response’ should make the student ask did I read about quick response elsewhere'? Yes. In sentence 1.

There could be some confusion around whether Sentence 2 should be placed first or Sentence 5. Sentence 2 talks about what is a good time frame for a response, an elaboration of Sentence 1. Sentence 5 on the other hand talks about the effect of not getting a quick response. In the absence of grammar connections, cause is always an upstream argument to effect. So, 125 is a logical block. Similarly, 341 was a logical block as established above. Hence, the right order would be 34125.

Use Code STAYHOME200 and get INR 200 additional OFF
Use Coupon Code