NMAT Mock Test - 3 (New Pattern) - CAT MCQ

Read the following passage and provide appropriate answers.

The idea of demarcating certain areas within the country as special economic zones to promote investment and growth is not new. A large country unable to provide the kind of facilities and environment that can attract foreign investment throughout the country often finds it feasible and attractive to carve up some of its areas where such facilities can be provided. The laws and procedures for setting up new industries are waived to make the area business-friendly with developed infrastructure and a one-window interaction with government. In addition, huge tax benefits are promised to lure investors. China's experience shows that if chalked out and implemented with care such a policy can accelerate the flow of capital and technology from abroad and thereby speed up growth.

However, SEZs may not be the best option in all situations to clear the bottlenecks in growth.

India's experience with export processing zones (EPZs) bears this out. They have failed in India for the simple reason that the factors that made the SEZs successful in China have been absent here. In India, as in China, EPZs were thought of as a way of providing an escape route from the stranglehold of control that prevailed over the Indian economy. But even while promising to ease the rigours of controls, Indian policy-makers could not give up their penchant for micromanaging from the centre and undoing the promised relaxations with all kinds of qualifications and “guidelines”.

Over last two decades India has evolved into a market economy and much of governmental control has disappeared, but the flow of foreign direct investment has not reached anywhere near the levels of China.

Besides, infrastructure building has fallen far short of what is required. Even after three years of the enactment of the Electricity Act (2003), private investment in electricity generation is still a trickle with the states refusing to give up the monopoly of their electricity boards in the matter of purchase of the power generated. While swearing by growth, governments at both the centre and the states cite the fiscal responsibility laws to plead their helplessness in making the required investments to improve infrastructure.

Given the situation, the SEZs have apparently been thought of as a simple way out. In its enthusiasm for SEZs the commerce ministry forgot two critical lessons of the Chinese experience, viz., that an SEZ must be of an adequate size to provide opportunities for reaping the benefits of large-scale operations and their number should be few. Every industry or economic activity worth its name is now seeking SEZ status. Proposals are now being floated to invite foreign educational institutions to come to India with promises of SEZ treatment! The finance ministry apprehends a loss of nearly ? 1,75,000 crore in direct taxes, customs duties and excise duties over the next five years.

Q. The author's arguments suggest the following conclusions, except

Choose the word most nearly opposite to the given word.

Candid

Choose the word most nearly opposite to the given word.

Severe

Choose the word OPPOSITE in meaning with the given word.

QUELL

Choose the option that is OPPOSITE in meaning to the capitalized words.

RESTITUTION

Each sentence below has been broken up into four parts sequentially (a, b, c, d). Choose that part which contains a mistake. If there is no error, then select option E - No error

Each sentence below has been broken up into four parts sequentially (a, b, c, d). Choose that part which contains a mistake. If there is no error, then select option E - No error

Each sentence below has been broken up into four parts sequentially (a, b, c, d). Choose that part which contains a mistake. If there is no error, then select option E - No error

Each sentence below has been broken up into four parts sequentially (a, b, c, d). Choose that part which contains a mistake. If there is no error, then select option E - No error

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.

Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.

It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.

We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.

Q. According to Popper, the statement “Scientific beliefs are universal in character” implies that

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.

Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.

It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.

We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.

Q. With which of the following statements, would the author agree most?

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.

Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.

It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.

We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.

Q. Which of the following would be the most appropriate conclusion?

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers.

Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.

It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.

We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.

Q. The statement, “this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be”, implies that

Directions: The following sentence tests your ability to recognise grammar and usage errors. The sentence contains either a single error or no error at all. The sentence does not contain more than one error. The error, if there is one, is underlined and lettered. If the sentence contains an error, select any one from the underlined part that must be changed to make the sentence correct. If the sentence is correct, select option (E). In choosing the answer, follow the requirements of standard written English.

He (A) has been invited (B) to attend the annual day of the college (C) as a distinguished (D) guests. (E) No error

Directions: In the following question, a pair of related words is followed by five pairs of words. Select the pair that best expresses a relationship similar to that expressed in the original pair.

EPAULET : SHOULDER

Directions: Choose an option that completes a relationship similar to that between the given pair of words.

Snake : Reptilian : : Lion : ____________

Directions: Choose the set of prepositions whose meaning and sequence best fits the 3 given sentences.

1. As he was leaving the house, he handed __________ the necessary documents to the landlord.

2. Children in that concept based school were not forced to abide __________ its rules.

3. No one could leave the class _____ the teacher told them to do so.

(A) by

(B) until

(C) to

(D) over

(E) on

(F) for

Directions: Choose the set of prepositions whose meaning and sequence best fits the 3 given sentences.

1. There is no point in counting ______ him as support as he is notoriously undependable.

2. He spoke for over forty minutes, but the speech was totally unrelated ______ the subject of the meeting.

3. Though I would not recommend it, I have no objection ______ your going to that movie.

(A) off

(B) with

(C) to

(D) on

(E) for

(F) in

Directions: The following sentence tests your ability to recognise grammar and usage errors. The sentence contains either a single error or no error at all. The error, if there is any, will be from underlined and lettered part of the sentence. If the sentence contains an error, select the appropriate underlined part that must be changed to make the sentence correct. If the sentence is correct, select option (E). While choosing your answer, follow the requirements of standard written English.

The eggs of the female fish (A) are harvested from the ovary, (B) passed through a fine-meshed strainer, (C) and are drained of liquid, (D) fat, and membranes. (E) No error

Directions: The sentence below has two blanks. Beneath the sentence are five sets of words. Choose the set of words that, when inserted in the sentence, best fits the meaning of the sentence as a whole.

The validity of the survey results can be credited to the fact that everyone who completes a doctorate was _______ to fill the survey; so the data is quite __________.

Directions: The following sentence contains either a single error or no error at all. If the sentence contains an error, select the underlined part that must be changed to make the sentence correct. If the sentence is correct, select choice (E). Follow the requirements of standard written English.

The two men were (A) not interested in the same thing and the (B) work which each of them (C) had to do was of (D) different nature. (E) No error

Directions: Choose the option that best fills the blanks in the given sentence.

The head ___________ was annoyed to see a _________ in the soup.

Directions: Select the option that most suitably fills up the blanks.

The simple management _________ like the 5-S principle illustrate the _______ of the Japanese management policies.

Directions: The following sentence tests your ability to recognise grammar and usage errors. The sentence contains either a single error or no error at all. The error, if there is any, will be from underlined and lettered part of the sentence. If the sentence contains an error, select the appropriate underlined part that must be changed to make the sentence correct. If the sentence is correct, select option (E). While choosing your answer, follow the requirements of standard written English.

The fireman (A) could not succeed (B) in rescue the child (C) although they were able to (D) put out the fire. (E) No error

Directions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Enunciated by Jung as an integral part of his psychology in 1916 immediately after his unsettling confrontation with the unconscious, the transcendent function was seen by Jung as uniting the opposites, transforming psyche, and central to the individuation process. It also undoubtedly reflects his personal experience in coming to terms with the unconscious. Jung portrayed the transcendent function as operating through symbol and fantasy and mediating between the opposites of consciousness and the unconscious to prompt the emergence of a new, third posture that transcends the two. In exploring the details of the transcendent function and its connection to other Jungian constructs, this work has unearthed significant changes, ambiguities, and inconsistencies in Jung's writings. Further, it has identified two separate images of the transcendent function:

(1) the narrow transcendent function, the function or process within Jung's pantheon of psychic structures, generally seen as the uniting of the opposites of consciousness and the unconscious from which a new attitude emerges; and

(2) the expansive transcendent function, the root metaphor for psyche or being psychological that subsumes Jung's pantheon and that apprehends the most fundamental psychic activity of interacting with the unknown or other. This book has also posited that the expansive transcendent function, as the root metaphor for exchanges between conscious and the unconscious, is the wellspring from whence flows other key Jungian structures such as the archetypes and the Self, and is the core of the individuation process. The expansive transcendent function has been explored further by surveying other schools of psychology, with both depth and non-depth orientations, and evaluating the transcendent function alongside structures or processes in those other schools which play similar mediatory and/or transitional roles.

Q. The above passage is most likely an excerpt from:

Directions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Enunciated by Jung as an integral part of his psychology in 1916 immediately after his unsettling confrontation with the unconscious, the transcendent function was seen by Jung as uniting the opposites, transforming psyche, and central to the individuation process. It also undoubtedly reflects his personal experience in coming to terms with the unconscious. Jung portrayed the transcendent function as operating through symbol and fantasy and mediating between the opposites of consciousness and the unconscious to prompt the emergence of a new, third posture that transcends the two. In exploring the details of the transcendent function and its connection to other Jungian constructs, this work has unearthed significant changes, ambiguities, and inconsistencies in Jung's writings. Further, it has identified two separate images of the transcendent function:

(1) the narrow transcendent function, the function or process within Jung's pantheon of psychic structures, generally seen as the uniting of the opposites of consciousness and the unconscious from which a new attitude emerges; and

(2) the expansive transcendent function, the root metaphor for psyche or being psychological that subsumes Jung's pantheon and that apprehends the most fundamental psychic activity of interacting with the unknown or other. This book has also posited that the expansive transcendent function, as the root metaphor for exchanges between conscious and the unconscious, is the wellspring from whence flows other key Jungian structures such as the archetypes and the Self, and is the core of the individuation process. The expansive transcendent function has been explored further by surveying other schools of psychology, with both depth and non-depth orientations, and evaluating the transcendent function alongside structures or processes in those other schools which play similar mediatory and/or transitional roles.

Q. A comparison similar to the distinction between the two images of the transcendent function would be:

Directions: Analyse the passage given and provide an appropriate answer for the questions that follow.

Enunciated by Jung as an integral part of his psychology in 1916 immediately after his unsettling confrontation with the unconscious, the transcendent function was seen by Jung as uniting the opposites, transforming psyche, and central to the individuation process. It also undoubtedly reflects his personal experience in coming to terms with the unconscious. Jung portrayed the transcendent function as operating through symbol and fantasy and mediating between the opposites of consciousness and the unconscious to prompt the emergence of a new, third posture that transcends the two. In exploring the details of the transcendent function and its connection to other Jungian constructs, this work has unearthed significant changes, ambiguities, and inconsistencies in Jung's writings. Further, it has identified two separate images of the transcendent function:

(1) the narrow transcendent function, the function or process within Jung's pantheon of psychic structures, generally seen as the uniting of the opposites of consciousness and the unconscious from which a new attitude emerges; and

(2) the expansive transcendent function, the root metaphor for psyche or being psychological that subsumes Jung's pantheon and that apprehends the most fundamental psychic activity of interacting with the unknown or other. This book has also posited that the expansive transcendent function, as the root metaphor for exchanges between conscious and the unconscious, is the wellspring from whence flows other key Jungian structures such as the archetypes and the Self, and is the core of the individuation process. The expansive transcendent function has been explored further by surveying other schools of psychology, with both depth and non-depth orientations, and evaluating the transcendent function alongside structures or processes in those other schools which play similar mediatory and/or transitional roles.

Q. It can be definitely inferred from the passage above that