Sample Test: Verbal Aptitude- 2 - CAT MCQ

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.

The following speech was delivered by Catiline, a Roman politician and revolutionary, to his soldiers on the eve of the battle which resulted in his defeat and death.
I am well aware, soldiers, that words cannot inspire courage; and that a spiritless army cannot be rendered active, or a timid army valiant, by the speech of its commander. Whatever courage is in the heart of a man, whether from nature or from habit, so much will be shown by him in the field; and on him whom neither glory nor danger can move, exhortation is bestowed in vain; for the terror in his breast stops his ears.
I have called you together, however, to give you a few instructions, and to explain to you, at the same time, my reasons for the course which I have adopted. Two armies of the enemy, one on the side of Rome, and the other on that of Gaul, oppose our progress; while the want of corn, and of other necessaries, prevents us from remaining, however strongly we may desire to remain, in our present position. Whithersoever we would go, we must open a passage with our swords. I conjure you, therefore, to maintain a brave and resolute spirit; and to remember, when you advance to battle, that on your own right hands depend riches, honour, and glory, with the enjoyment of your liberty and of your country. If we conquer, all will be safe; we shall have provisions in abundance, and the colonies and corporate towns will open their gates to us. But if we lose the victory through want of courage, those same places will turn against us; for neither place nor friend will protect him whom his arms have not protected. Besides, soldiers, the same exigency does not press upon our adversaries, as presses upon us; we fight for our country, for our liberty, for our life; they contend for what but little concerns them, the power of a small party. Attack them, therefore, with so much the greater confidence, and call to mind your achievements of old.
We might, with the utmost ignominy, have passed the rest of our days in exile. Some of you, after losing your property, might have waited at Rome for assistance from others. But because such a life, to men of spirit, was disgusting and unendurable, you resolved upon your present course. If you wish to quit it, you must exert all your resolution, for none but conquerors have exchanged war for peace. To hope for safety in flight, when you have turned away from the enemy the arms by which the body is defended, is indeed madness. In battle, those who are most afraid are always in most danger; but courage is equivalent to a rampart.
When I contemplate you, soldiers, and when I consider your past exploits, a strong hope of victory animates me. Your spirit, your age, your valour, gives me confidence to say nothing of necessity, which makes even cowards brave. To prevent the numbers of the enemy from surrounding us, our confined situation is sufficient. But should Fortune be unjust to your valour, take care not to lose your lives unavenged; take care not to be taken and butchered like cattle, rather than fighting like men, to leave to your enemies a bloody and mournful victory.

Q. The phrase '…to say nothing of necessity, which makes even cowards brave' aims to

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a subtle difference between enduring continuance, which in other words is persistence, and firmly adhering to one's chosen course of action which is called obstinacy. Something of note here is the difference between the attitudes of scientists around the world. While some of them persistently work on some projects; others give them up at some stage or the other. A notable example here is Fleming.
Alexander Fleming was a Scottish physician-scientist best known for discovering penicillin. The simple discovery and use of the antibiotic agent has saved millions of lives. Fleming started doing work on penicillin in the late 20s. He tried his best to purify it but failed in his efforts. He wrote in 1932 that he discontinued working on penicillin and gave his reasons as well. He said that it would never be useful and found it to be very unstable. Later on, in 1941, just as Flemming was contemplating retirement, two scientists Florey and Chaine became interested in penicillin and started their efforts to purify penicillin. And because of their persistent efforts, they discovered a process to purify it. In time, they were able to mass-produce it for use during World War II. Both of them along with Fleming were awarded the Nobel Prize.
The stumbling blocks for me were in the beginning when we put forward the idea that tumours need to have their own blood supply. The only response that we got was of hostility and jeering disbelief. When we persistently kept on talking about it, others' response was that this will be a meaningless exercise. There will be no molecules. When we finally proved in 1983 (starting in the late 60s) that these were actually molecules, they gave another observation, 'you'll never prove that that's what tumours use.' The most cynical group insisted that this discovery might be true on mice but it did not hold true on people. But my response has always been that I would not give up my efforts and I cannot stop if somebody else wanted me to stop. I even made the offer if they would give their observations under signature. If they agreed to do so, it would save huge money of the public and the government and we would stop doing the experiments. But nobody agreed to do so.
So, my final observation is that whatever field you have chosen in life, the success will come to you only by way of dogged determination. A pessimistic would say, ok, if they became successful, they were lucky enough. But I differ with it. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. If you want to be successful, you can become so only with persistence and determination. The only thing is that do not give up making efforts. Keep on pursuing whatever you are after against all odds.

Q. 'I even made the offer if they would give their observations under signature.' These words reflect

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a subtle difference between enduring continuance, which in other words is persistence, and firmly adhering to one's chosen course of action which is called obstinacy. Something of note here is the difference between the attitudes of scientists around the world. While some of them persistently work on some projects; others give them up at some stage or the other. A notable example here is Fleming.
Alexander Fleming was a Scottish physician-scientist best known for discovering penicillin. The simple discovery and use of the antibiotic agent has saved millions of lives. Fleming started doing work on penicillin in the late 20s. He tried his best to purify it but failed in his efforts. He wrote in 1932 that he discontinued working on penicillin and gave his reasons as well. He said that it would never be useful and found it to be very unstable. Later on, in 1941, just as Flemming was contemplating retirement, two scientists Florey and Chaine became interested in penicillin and started their efforts to purify penicillin. And because of their persistent efforts, they discovered a process to purify it. In time, they were able to mass-produce it for use during World War II. Both of them along with Fleming were awarded the Nobel Prize.
The stumbling blocks for me were in the beginning when we put forward the idea that tumours need to have their own blood supply. The only response that we got was of hostility and jeering disbelief. When we persistently kept on talking about it, others' response was that this will be a meaningless exercise. There will be no molecules. When we finally proved in 1983 (starting in the late 60s) that these were actually molecules, they gave another observation, 'you'll never prove that that's what tumours use.' The most cynical group insisted that this discovery might be true on mice but it did not hold true on people. But my response has always been that I would not give up my efforts and I cannot stop if somebody else wanted me to stop. I even made the offer if they would give their observations under signature. If they agreed to do so, it would save huge money of the public and the government and we would stop doing the experiments. But nobody agreed to do so.
So, my final observation is that whatever field you have chosen in life, the success will come to you only by way of dogged determination. A pessimistic would say, ok, if they became successful, they were lucky enough. But I differ with it. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. If you want to be successful, you can become so only with persistence and determination. The only thing is that do not give up making efforts. Keep on pursuing whatever you are after against all odds.

Q. As stated by the author in the passage, each of the following can be ascribed to the cynical group EXCEPT:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a subtle difference between enduring continuance, which in other words is persistence, and firmly adhering to one's chosen course of action which is called obstinacy. Something of note here is the difference between the attitudes of scientists around the world. While some of them persistently work on some projects; others give them up at some stage or the other. A notable example here is Fleming.
Alexander Fleming was a Scottish physician-scientist best known for discovering penicillin. The simple discovery and use of the antibiotic agent has saved millions of lives. Fleming started doing work on penicillin in the late 20s. He tried his best to purify it but failed in his efforts. He wrote in 1932 that he discontinued working on penicillin and gave his reasons as well. He said that it would never be useful and found it to be very unstable. Later on, in 1941, just as Flemming was contemplating retirement, two scientists Florey and Chaine became interested in penicillin and started their efforts to purify penicillin. And because of their persistent efforts, they discovered a process to purify it. In time, they were able to mass-produce it for use during World War II. Both of them along with Fleming were awarded the Nobel Prize.
The stumbling blocks for me were in the beginning when we put forward the idea that tumours need to have their own blood supply. The only response that we got was of hostility and jeering disbelief. When we persistently kept on talking about it, others' response was that this will be a meaningless exercise. There will be no molecules. When we finally proved in 1983 (starting in the late 60s) that these were actually molecules, they gave another observation, 'you'll never prove that that's what tumours use.' The most cynical group insisted that this discovery might be true on mice but it did not hold true on people. But my response has always been that I would not give up my efforts and I cannot stop if somebody else wanted me to stop. I even made the offer if they would give their observations under signature. If they agreed to do so, it would save huge money of the public and the government and we would stop doing the experiments. But nobody agreed to do so.
So, my final observation is that whatever field you have chosen in life, the success will come to you only by way of dogged determination. A pessimistic would say, ok, if they became successful, they were lucky enough. But I differ with it. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. If you want to be successful, you can become so only with persistence and determination. The only thing is that do not give up making efforts. Keep on pursuing whatever you are after against all odds.

Q. None of the following statements can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT that:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

There is a subtle difference between enduring continuance, which in other words is persistence, and firmly adhering to one's chosen course of action which is called obstinacy. Something of note here is the difference between the attitudes of scientists around the world. While some of them persistently work on some projects; others give them up at some stage or the other. A notable example here is Fleming.
Alexander Fleming was a Scottish physician-scientist best known for discovering penicillin. The simple discovery and use of the antibiotic agent has saved millions of lives. Fleming started doing work on penicillin in the late 20s. He tried his best to purify it but failed in his efforts. He wrote in 1932 that he discontinued working on penicillin and gave his reasons as well. He said that it would never be useful and found it to be very unstable. Later on, in 1941, just as Flemming was contemplating retirement, two scientists Florey and Chaine became interested in penicillin and started their efforts to purify penicillin. And because of their persistent efforts, they discovered a process to purify it. In time, they were able to mass-produce it for use during World War II. Both of them along with Fleming were awarded the Nobel Prize.
The stumbling blocks for me were in the beginning when we put forward the idea that tumours need to have their own blood supply. The only response that we got was of hostility and jeering disbelief. When we persistently kept on talking about it, others' response was that this will be a meaningless exercise. There will be no molecules. When we finally proved in 1983 (starting in the late 60s) that these were actually molecules, they gave another observation, 'you'll never prove that that's what tumours use.' The most cynical group insisted that this discovery might be true on mice but it did not hold true on people. But my response has always been that I would not give up my efforts and I cannot stop if somebody else wanted me to stop. I even made the offer if they would give their observations under signature. If they agreed to do so, it would save huge money of the public and the government and we would stop doing the experiments. But nobody agreed to do so.
So, my final observation is that whatever field you have chosen in life, the success will come to you only by way of dogged determination. A pessimistic would say, ok, if they became successful, they were lucky enough. But I differ with it. Luck is when preparation meets opportunity. If you want to be successful, you can become so only with persistence and determination. The only thing is that do not give up making efforts. Keep on pursuing whatever you are after against all odds.

Q. A naysayer - one saying that it can never occur or happen - is a person who, according to the passage, characterises the one who subscribes to all of the following EXCEPT that:

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.

The following speech was delivered by Albert Einstein, the great mathematical physicists of all times, on February 12, 1950.
I am grateful to you for the opportunity to express my conviction in this most important political question.
The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. On the part of the United States this illusion has been particularly fostered by the fact that this country succeeded first in producing an atomic bomb. The belief seemed to prevail that in the end it were possible to achieve decisive military superiority.
In this way, any potential opponent would be intimidated, and security, so ardently desired by all of us, would be brought to us and all humanity. The maxim which we have been following during these last five years has been, in short, security through superior military power, whatever the cost.
The armament race between the USA and the USSR, originally supposed to be a preventive measure, assumes hysterical character. On both sides, the means to mass destruction are perfected with feverish haste - behind the respective walls of secrecy. The H-bomb appears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal.
If successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities. The ghostlike character of this development lies in its apparently compulsory trend. Every step appears as the unavoidable consequence of the preceding one. In the end, there beckons more and more clearly general annihilation.
Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself? All of us, and particularly those who are responsible for the attitude of the US and the USSR, should realise that we may have vanquished an external enemy, but have been incapable of getting rid of the mentality created by the war.
It is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view. The leading point of view of all political action should therefore be: What can we do to bring about a peaceful co-existence and even loyal co-operation of the nations?
The first problem is to do away with mutual fear and distrust. Solemn renunciation of violence (not only with respect to means of mass destruction) is undoubtedly necessary.
Such renunciation, however, can only be effective if at the same time a supra national judicial and executive body is set up empowered to decide questions of immediate concern to the security of the nations. Even a declaration of the nations to collaborate loyally in the realisation of such a ''restricted world government'' would considerably reduce the imminent danger of war.
In the last analysis, every kind of peaceful co-operation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondly on institutions such as courts of justice and police. This holds for nations as well as individuals. And the basis of trust is loyal give and take.

Q. On the basis of the information given in the passage, it can be inferred that Einstein speak of which other enemy that he considers invincible in the aftermath of a war?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.

The following speech was delivered by Albert Einstein, the great mathematical physicists of all times, on February 12, 1950.
I am grateful to you for the opportunity to express my conviction in this most important political question.
The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. On the part of the United States this illusion has been particularly fostered by the fact that this country succeeded first in producing an atomic bomb. The belief seemed to prevail that in the end it were possible to achieve decisive military superiority.
In this way, any potential opponent would be intimidated, and security, so ardently desired by all of us, would be brought to us and all humanity. The maxim which we have been following during these last five years has been, in short, security through superior military power, whatever the cost.
The armament race between the USA and the USSR, originally supposed to be a preventive measure, assumes hysterical character. On both sides, the means to mass destruction are perfected with feverish haste - behind the respective walls of secrecy. The H-bomb appears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal.
If successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities. The ghostlike character of this development lies in its apparently compulsory trend. Every step appears as the unavoidable consequence of the preceding one. In the end, there beckons more and more clearly general annihilation.
Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself? All of us, and particularly those who are responsible for the attitude of the US and the USSR, should realise that we may have vanquished an external enemy, but have been incapable of getting rid of the mentality created by the war.
It is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view. The leading point of view of all political action should therefore be: What can we do to bring about a peaceful co-existence and even loyal co-operation of the nations?
The first problem is to do away with mutual fear and distrust. Solemn renunciation of violence (not only with respect to means of mass destruction) is undoubtedly necessary.
Such renunciation, however, can only be effective if at the same time a supra national judicial and executive body is set up empowered to decide questions of immediate concern to the security of the nations. Even a declaration of the nations to collaborate loyally in the realisation of such a ''restricted world government'' would considerably reduce the imminent danger of war.
In the last analysis, every kind of peaceful co-operation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondly on institutions such as courts of justice and police. This holds for nations as well as individuals. And the basis of trust is loyal give and take.

Q. What does Einstein refer to as an 'impasse' in the line, 'Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself?'

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.

The following speech was delivered by Albert Einstein, the great mathematical physicists of all times, on February 12, 1950.
I am grateful to you for the opportunity to express my conviction in this most important political question.
The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. On the part of the United States this illusion has been particularly fostered by the fact that this country succeeded first in producing an atomic bomb. The belief seemed to prevail that in the end it were possible to achieve decisive military superiority.
In this way, any potential opponent would be intimidated, and security, so ardently desired by all of us, would be brought to us and all humanity. The maxim which we have been following during these last five years has been, in short, security through superior military power, whatever the cost.
The armament race between the USA and the USSR, originally supposed to be a preventive measure, assumes hysterical character. On both sides, the means to mass destruction are perfected with feverish haste - behind the respective walls of secrecy. The H-bomb appears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal.
If successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities. The ghostlike character of this development lies in its apparently compulsory trend. Every step appears as the unavoidable consequence of the preceding one. In the end, there beckons more and more clearly general annihilation.
Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself? All of us, and particularly those who are responsible for the attitude of the US and the USSR, should realise that we may have vanquished an external enemy, but have been incapable of getting rid of the mentality created by the war.
It is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view. The leading point of view of all political action should therefore be: What can we do to bring about a peaceful co-existence and even loyal co-operation of the nations?
The first problem is to do away with mutual fear and distrust. Solemn renunciation of violence (not only with respect to means of mass destruction) is undoubtedly necessary.
Such renunciation, however, can only be effective if at the same time a supra national judicial and executive body is set up empowered to decide questions of immediate concern to the security of the nations. Even a declaration of the nations to collaborate loyally in the realisation of such a ''restricted world government'' would considerably reduce the imminent danger of war.
In the last analysis, every kind of peaceful co-operation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondly on institutions such as courts of justice and police. This holds for nations as well as individuals. And the basis of trust is loyal give and take.

Q. According to Einstein, the ghostlike character of the arms race is an outcome of an attitude of nations that can be best captured as below:

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage.

The following speech was delivered by Albert Einstein, the great mathematical physicists of all times, on February 12, 1950.
I am grateful to you for the opportunity to express my conviction in this most important political question.
The idea of achieving security through national armament is, at the present state of military technique, a disastrous illusion. On the part of the United States this illusion has been particularly fostered by the fact that this country succeeded first in producing an atomic bomb. The belief seemed to prevail that in the end it were possible to achieve decisive military superiority.
In this way, any potential opponent would be intimidated, and security, so ardently desired by all of us, would be brought to us and all humanity. The maxim which we have been following during these last five years has been, in short, security through superior military power, whatever the cost.
The armament race between the USA and the USSR, originally supposed to be a preventive measure, assumes hysterical character. On both sides, the means to mass destruction are perfected with feverish haste - behind the respective walls of secrecy. The H-bomb appears on the public horizon as a probably attainable goal.
If successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities. The ghostlike character of this development lies in its apparently compulsory trend. Every step appears as the unavoidable consequence of the preceding one. In the end, there beckons more and more clearly general annihilation.
Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself? All of us, and particularly those who are responsible for the attitude of the US and the USSR, should realise that we may have vanquished an external enemy, but have been incapable of getting rid of the mentality created by the war.
It is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view. The leading point of view of all political action should therefore be: What can we do to bring about a peaceful co-existence and even loyal co-operation of the nations?
The first problem is to do away with mutual fear and distrust. Solemn renunciation of violence (not only with respect to means of mass destruction) is undoubtedly necessary.
Such renunciation, however, can only be effective if at the same time a supra national judicial and executive body is set up empowered to decide questions of immediate concern to the security of the nations. Even a declaration of the nations to collaborate loyally in the realisation of such a ''restricted world government'' would considerably reduce the imminent danger of war.
In the last analysis, every kind of peaceful co-operation among men is primarily based on mutual trust and only secondly on institutions such as courts of justice and police. This holds for nations as well as individuals. And the basis of trust is loyal give and take.

Q. The relationship depicted in the passage between 'hysterical' and 'feverish' can be said to be most dissimilar to that between

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the given question.

Dogs, likely the first domesticated animal, and humans share a strong bond that stretches back thousands of years. Over time, dogs were selected for traits that made them more sociable, loyal, and cooperative. Early on, domesticated canines proved useful in hunting, but nowadays they occupy a wide range of specialized roles, such as search and rescue, agriculture, police, and scent detection. Their ability to fulfill these roles hinges, for the most part, on their responsiveness to human social cues. Often these cues are verbal commands and basic utterances during various contexts but also non-verbal cues such as gestures.
As early as the 1920s, scientists sought to assess dogs' ability to comprehend human speech. One study from 1928 documented the ability of Fellow, a young male German Shepherd, to respond to verbal commands uttered by his owner. Fellow could recognize 68 words and phrases, including phrases such as Go outside and wait for me. More recently, a 2004 study found that Rico, a Border Collie, could identify and retrieve over 200 items, such as various different balls and stuffed toys, when the owner uttered each item's unique name. These studies show that dogs can respond consistently and differently to spoken words and phrases, something not at all surprising even to first-time dog owners. But the Canadian researchers wanted to investigate more closely and empirically the extent to which typical dogs respond to words.
In order to quantify the number of words a dog could comprehend, the researchers employed virtually the same tool that psychologists use to assess infants' understanding and development of early language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory. A total of 165 owners of a variety of dog breeds were surveyed about the different words and phrases that their pets seemed to understand. Each owner was also asked questions about themselves that were relevant to the study, such as dog training experience and household member composition, as well as about their dogs. On average, dog owners identified 89 terms that their pets responded to consistently, half of which were classed as commands. There were outliers, of course, with one clever dog reporting to respond to 215 words. The least responsive dog responded to only 15 words. The current study is consistent with existing research suggesting that dogs may be particularly adept at responding to commands rather than object words," the researchers wrote in their study.
The researchers cautioned, however, that these results do not prove that dogs actually understand the meaning of the words. They could respond to various words uttered by humans due to operant or classical conditioning, such as that present in basic dog training (the sounds that form the word 'sit' are eventually associated with a reward). Dogs may also learn to associate certain sounds that form words with events or objects more passively by learning the association between them through repeated pairings, a process scientists call statistical learning.
"With additional research, our tool could become an efficient, effective, and economical research instrument for mapping out some of their competences and perhaps help predict early the potential of individual dogs for various professions," they added.

Q. Which of the following can be best inferred from the last paragraph of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the given question.

Dogs, likely the first domesticated animal, and humans share a strong bond that stretches back thousands of years. Over time, dogs were selected for traits that made them more sociable, loyal, and cooperative. Early on, domesticated canines proved useful in hunting, but nowadays they occupy a wide range of specialized roles, such as search and rescue, agriculture, police, and scent detection. Their ability to fulfill these roles hinges, for the most part, on their responsiveness to human social cues. Often these cues are verbal commands and basic utterances during various contexts but also non-verbal cues such as gestures.
As early as the 1920s, scientists sought to assess dogs' ability to comprehend human speech. One study from 1928 documented the ability of Fellow, a young male German Shepherd, to respond to verbal commands uttered by his owner. Fellow could recognize 68 words and phrases, including phrases such as Go outside and wait for me. More recently, a 2004 study found that Rico, a Border Collie, could identify and retrieve over 200 items, such as various different balls and stuffed toys, when the owner uttered each item's unique name. These studies show that dogs can respond consistently and differently to spoken words and phrases, something not at all surprising even to first-time dog owners. But the Canadian researchers wanted to investigate more closely and empirically the extent to which typical dogs respond to words.
In order to quantify the number of words a dog could comprehend, the researchers employed virtually the same tool that psychologists use to assess infants' understanding and development of early language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory. A total of 165 owners of a variety of dog breeds were surveyed about the different words and phrases that their pets seemed to understand. Each owner was also asked questions about themselves that were relevant to the study, such as dog training experience and household member composition, as well as about their dogs. On average, dog owners identified 89 terms that their pets responded to consistently, half of which were classed as commands. There were outliers, of course, with one clever dog reporting to respond to 215 words. The least responsive dog responded to only 15 words. The current study is consistent with existing research suggesting that dogs may be particularly adept at responding to commands rather than object words," the researchers wrote in their study.
The researchers cautioned, however, that these results do not prove that dogs actually understand the meaning of the words. They could respond to various words uttered by humans due to operant or classical conditioning, such as that present in basic dog training (the sounds that form the word 'sit' are eventually associated with a reward). Dogs may also learn to associate certain sounds that form words with events or objects more passively by learning the association between them through repeated pairings, a process scientists call statistical learning.
"With additional research, our tool could become an efficient, effective, and economical research instrument for mapping out some of their competences and perhaps help predict early the potential of individual dogs for various professions," they added.

Q. Which of the following statements is the author of the passage most likely to agree with?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the given question.

Dogs, likely the first domesticated animal, and humans share a strong bond that stretches back thousands of years. Over time, dogs were selected for traits that made them more sociable, loyal, and cooperative. Early on, domesticated canines proved useful in hunting, but nowadays they occupy a wide range of specialized roles, such as search and rescue, agriculture, police, and scent detection. Their ability to fulfill these roles hinges, for the most part, on their responsiveness to human social cues. Often these cues are verbal commands and basic utterances during various contexts but also non-verbal cues such as gestures.
As early as the 1920s, scientists sought to assess dogs' ability to comprehend human speech. One study from 1928 documented the ability of Fellow, a young male German Shepherd, to respond to verbal commands uttered by his owner. Fellow could recognize 68 words and phrases, including phrases such as Go outside and wait for me. More recently, a 2004 study found that Rico, a Border Collie, could identify and retrieve over 200 items, such as various different balls and stuffed toys, when the owner uttered each item's unique name. These studies show that dogs can respond consistently and differently to spoken words and phrases, something not at all surprising even to first-time dog owners. But the Canadian researchers wanted to investigate more closely and empirically the extent to which typical dogs respond to words.
In order to quantify the number of words a dog could comprehend, the researchers employed virtually the same tool that psychologists use to assess infants' understanding and development of early language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory. A total of 165 owners of a variety of dog breeds were surveyed about the different words and phrases that their pets seemed to understand. Each owner was also asked questions about themselves that were relevant to the study, such as dog training experience and household member composition, as well as about their dogs. On average, dog owners identified 89 terms that their pets responded to consistently, half of which were classed as commands. There were outliers, of course, with one clever dog reporting to respond to 215 words. The least responsive dog responded to only 15 words. The current study is consistent with existing research suggesting that dogs may be particularly adept at responding to commands rather than object words," the researchers wrote in their study.
The researchers cautioned, however, that these results do not prove that dogs actually understand the meaning of the words. They could respond to various words uttered by humans due to operant or classical conditioning, such as that present in basic dog training (the sounds that form the word 'sit' are eventually associated with a reward). Dogs may also learn to associate certain sounds that form words with events or objects more passively by learning the association between them through repeated pairings, a process scientists call statistical learning.
"With additional research, our tool could become an efficient, effective, and economical research instrument for mapping out some of their competences and perhaps help predict early the potential of individual dogs for various professions," they added.

Q. ''The researchers cautioned, however, that these results do not prove that dogs actually understand the meaning of the words''.
Which of the following, if true, would help the most in strengthening this statement of the author?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the given question.

Dogs, likely the first domesticated animal, and humans share a strong bond that stretches back thousands of years. Over time, dogs were selected for traits that made them more sociable, loyal, and cooperative. Early on, domesticated canines proved useful in hunting, but nowadays they occupy a wide range of specialized roles, such as search and rescue, agriculture, police, and scent detection. Their ability to fulfill these roles hinges, for the most part, on their responsiveness to human social cues. Often these cues are verbal commands and basic utterances during various contexts but also non-verbal cues such as gestures.
As early as the 1920s, scientists sought to assess dogs' ability to comprehend human speech. One study from 1928 documented the ability of Fellow, a young male German Shepherd, to respond to verbal commands uttered by his owner. Fellow could recognize 68 words and phrases, including phrases such as Go outside and wait for me. More recently, a 2004 study found that Rico, a Border Collie, could identify and retrieve over 200 items, such as various different balls and stuffed toys, when the owner uttered each item's unique name. These studies show that dogs can respond consistently and differently to spoken words and phrases, something not at all surprising even to first-time dog owners. But the Canadian researchers wanted to investigate more closely and empirically the extent to which typical dogs respond to words.
In order to quantify the number of words a dog could comprehend, the researchers employed virtually the same tool that psychologists use to assess infants' understanding and development of early language MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory. A total of 165 owners of a variety of dog breeds were surveyed about the different words and phrases that their pets seemed to understand. Each owner was also asked questions about themselves that were relevant to the study, such as dog training experience and household member composition, as well as about their dogs. On average, dog owners identified 89 terms that their pets responded to consistently, half of which were classed as commands. There were outliers, of course, with one clever dog reporting to respond to 215 words. The least responsive dog responded to only 15 words. The current study is consistent with existing research suggesting that dogs may be particularly adept at responding to commands rather than object words," the researchers wrote in their study.
The researchers cautioned, however, that these results do not prove that dogs actually understand the meaning of the words. They could respond to various words uttered by humans due to operant or classical conditioning, such as that present in basic dog training (the sounds that form the word 'sit' are eventually associated with a reward). Dogs may also learn to associate certain sounds that form words with events or objects more passively by learning the association between them through repeated pairings, a process scientists call statistical learning.
"With additional research, our tool could become an efficient, effective, and economical research instrument for mapping out some of their competences and perhaps help predict early the potential of individual dogs for various professions," they added.

Q. The author will agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:

Directions: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. The consumer food price index rose to 1.87 per cent in November, up from 0.85 per cent in October, driven by essential commodities such as cereals, meat, fish and eggs, milk and fruits.

2. The disaggregated data shows that while non-food inflation has risen over the past few months, food inflation is also now beginning to rise.

3. This suggests perhaps the likely pass-through of higher costs - data released by the government on Tuesday showed that the wholesale price index (WPI) rose to an all-time high of 14.23 per cent in November.

4. Core inflation has also remained elevated - price pressures appeared to be more broad-based with spurts observed in clothing and footwear, household goods and services, and recreation and amusement.

Directions: There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide in which blank (option 1, 2, 3, or 4), the following sentence would best fit.

Sentence: This capability could be the final step towards the widespread use of renewable energy all over the world.

Paragraph: Li-ion batteries present promising opportunities for expansion in a number of sectors. ___(1)___. In the field of renewable energy, for example, energy storage in Li-ion batteries is a potential solution to the intermittency of solar and wind energy sources - that is, the fact that energy is produced only when the sun shines or the wind blows. ___(2)___. If excess energy produced during these times could be stored in Li-ion batteries, the energy could be later fed into the grid to compensate for the break in energy production during the night, for example. ___(3)___. In addition, the improvement of the energy-storage capability of Li-ion batteries could increase the single-charge range of electric vehicles, which is one of the determining factors in the mainstreaming of this green technology. ___(4)___.

Directions: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. Peatlands make up 2.8% of the total land surface area of our planet, the bulk of which are in Asia and North America.

2. As soon as the soil is drier, the peat can be blown away in the wind, or get compacted, and once air gets into the structure, microbes start to thrive and rot it away.

3. Peatlands have been preserved by being totally water-logged for thousands of years.

4. Just drain away some of that water and you have a perfect growing medium - but of course, there is a catch.

Directions: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. England and Australia, with robust domestic structures, leave it to their players to find the balance between lucrative club contracts and national duty.

2. Cooling off makes sense in sensitive areas such as the military or government to prevent conflicts of interest, but not in cricket.

3. It's a realistic approach as the peak earning potential for a cricketer is limited to a few years and offers from mushrooming T20 leagues are getting harder to ignore.

4. Media reports indicate that a section of BCCI even wants to subject retired players to a cooling off phase before they look for overseas opportunities.

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Consider this question – if the harm we have experienced leads us to a life dominated by unresolved anger, a negative image of ourselves, and an inability to trust, are we not allowing the perpetrator to continue to have power over us? When we have sleepless nights cycling and recycling thoughts about old hurts, when we seethe with anger, when we ask questions repetitively that seem to have no answers, we continue to suffer the consequences of being hurt. Perhaps our goal should be to find a way to free ourselves from the damage and to reclaim our lives for ourselves.

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

While the workman concentrates his faculties more and more upon the study of a single detail, the master surveys an extensive whole, and the mind of the latter is enlarged in proportion as that of the former is narrowed. In a short time, the one will require nothing but physical strength without intelligence; the other stands in need of science, and almost of genius to ensure success. This man resembles more and more the administrator of a vast empire; that man, a brute.
The master and the workman have then here no similarity, and their differences increase every day. Each of them fills the station which is made for him, and which he does not leave; the one is continually, closely and necessarily dependent upon the other and seems as much born to obey as that other is to command. What is this but aristocracy?

Directions: There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide in which blank (option 1, 2, 3, or 4), the following sentence would best fit.

Sentence: As Einstein showed through his theory of general relativity, the gravity of any mass can distort the structure of the spacetime surrounding it.

Paragraph: ___(1)___. Despite the massless nature of light, the paths of photons passing close to a massive object can be distorted. In astronomy, the principle is particularly important to consider when observing distant galaxies, whose light passes close to more local galaxies. ___(2)___. Here, the nearby galaxy acts as a 'lens' which bends this background light towards Earth - making distant galaxies appear brighter and closer. In the most extreme cases, this process known as 'gravitational lensing' can stretch background light into striking arcs, named 'Einstein rings'. ___(3)___. In most cases, the effect is not nearly as dramatic, but weak gravitational lensing is nonetheless a powerful tool for studying local galaxies. ___(4)___. By measuring the magnification of background galaxies while also considering their known distances from Earth, astronomers can assess the overall mass of the nearby galaxy.

Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Yes, but someone will say to me that this design of making use of oneself as a subject to write about would be excusable in great and famous men, who by their reputation had aroused some desire to know them. That is certain, I confess it, and know very well that an artisan will scarcely lift his eyes from his work to see a man of the common sort, whereas men forsake workshops and stores to see a great and prominent person arrive in a city. It will become any other to make himself known except him who has qualities worthy of imitation and whose life and opinions may serve as a model.