Test: Logical Reasoning - 1


30 Questions MCQ Test Logical Reasoning for CLAT | Test: Logical Reasoning - 1


Description
This mock test of Test: Logical Reasoning - 1 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 30 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Test: Logical Reasoning - 1 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Test: Logical Reasoning - 1 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Test: Logical Reasoning - 1 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Test: Logical Reasoning - 1 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Passage - 1

The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance. 
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]

The argument presented in the first paragraph can be best described as:

Solution:

The author claims that imposing death penalty is steadily declining. The author justifies this claim by positing that secularization, evolving of moral standards and other things have resulted in the decline. Here, the author uses a cause and effect reasoning. The key indicator to identify the causal reasoning is "have resulted in" which clearly suggests a cause and effect relation. Incorrect Answers (b), (c), and (d) - These are not the reasoning used by the author.

QUESTION: 2

Passage - 1

The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance. 
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument presented in the second paragraph?

Solution:

You are asked to identify the statement which weakens the argument in the second paragraph. In the second paragraph, the author claims that the death penalty has been disproportionately imposed on the marginalized people. The author indicates biasness as the reason for the same. The argument can be weakened by showing that biasness may not be the cause. What if there are a greater number of marginalized people who committed these crimes. For instance, let's say that someone accuses CLAT to be biased against people from a state X - out of the 1000 NLU graduates only 50 (5%) are from state X. But, what if out of the 50,000 who take the CLAT, only 2500 (5%) are from state X. This calls into question the original claim that CLAT is biased. It is just that lesser percentage of students from state X take the CLAT and therefore lesser percentage of students from state X get admitted to NLU. Answer choice (b) weakens the argument based on a similar reasoning. Answer choice (b), if true, would weaken the argument. 80% of all who committed crimes eligible for death penalty, are poor and uneducated. This would mean that prejudice may not be the cause. The reason is that they commit these crimes disproportionately and therefore get death penalty disproportionately. Incorrect Answers (a) and (c) give data that support the argument. Both give data where there is a disproportionate number of death sentences being awarded to people of colour. (d) - This is irrelevant information. Even if the statement given in (d) is true, it would not impact the argument in any way since it talks about robbery and assault. Answer choice (d) does not address the issue of death penalty.

QUESTION: 3

Passage – 1

The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance. 
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]

Why does the author say that "he who lives by the sword need not die by it"?

Solution:

The author's argument is that "life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes." So, someone who committed murder need not be given death penalty because an alternative punishment exists - life imprisonment without the possibility of release. This makes answer choice the correct answer. Incorrect Answers (a)- There is no mention of reformation of criminals. (b)- It is mentioned in the passage that the family of victims needs solace. However, that is not the reason as to why the author says that the criminal need not die. The criminal need not die because life imprisonment is an adequate punishment which in turn can provide solace. (d)- What the author says is that death penalty lacks retributive justification, however it may have some retributive function. So, to say that death penalty does not have retributive function would be incorrect.

QUESTION: 4

Passage – 1

The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance. 
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]

Which of the following is similar to the line of reasoning of the author in the last paragraph?

Solution:

This is a parallel reasoning question - you are asked to identify the answer choice which has a similar reasoning to that of the argument presented in the last paragraph. The argument in the passage is that life imprisonment without a possibility of release is an alternative to death penalty because it is an adequate punishment and death penalty does not have a justification. This can be represented as - An alternative A is chosen over B because A is adequate, and B is not justified. This reasoning can be found in answer choice (a). An alternative veganism (A) is chosen over animal products (B), because veganism (A) is nutritious (adequate) and animals are harmed (not justified). Incorrect Answers (b), (c) and (d) - These do not evaluate two alternatives and choose one of them. The line of reasoning in the last paragraph is about evaluating two alternatives and choosing one.

QUESTION: 5

Passage – 1

The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance. 
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]

Which of the following can be inferred as a view that the author will most definitely agree with?

1. We must protect the rights of society's marginalized.
2. Opposing the death penalty does not indicate a lack of sympathy for murder victims.

Solution:

The author would agree with both the statements. (1) - In the second paragraph the author presents how the society treats those who are viewed as inferior and marginalized. The author makes his disapproval of society's biasness clear. Therefore, author would agree with statement (1) (2)- In the last paragraph, the author rejects death penalty and chooses life imprisonment without the possibility of release as an adequate alternative. The author goes on to say that it will give some measure of solace to the families of the victims. Therefore, the author clearly holds the view that opposing death penalty does not indicate a lack of sympathy for murder victims.

QUESTION: 6

Passage - 2

The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]

Which of the following situations is similar in nature to the intuitive decisions mentioned in the passage?

Solution:

As per the passage, intuition draws from decades of diverse experience and decisions are based on hunch rather than a rational analysis. In answer choice (b), the career counsellor suggests a career based on someone’s reading habits. This would be based on an intuition.

Incorrect Answers

(a)- Here, the counsellor is basing the decision on psychometric assessment. The decision is being made based on a rational process.

(c)- Here, the counsellor seems to have an ulterior motive to recommend the law school since there is a monetary incentive to making that decision. This is not based on intuition.

(d)- Here, the counsellor consults seniors. S/he is relying on outside expertise and therefore, this is not an example of intuition.

QUESTION: 7

Passage - 2

The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]

Which of the following is LEAST consistent with the author's reasoning in the passage?

Solution:

The passage states that "Intuition is now considered

simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics". No less valuable would be equally valuable. The author does not suggest that the intuition is far more valuable than traditional analytics. Since the statement in answer choice (d) is not consistent with the author's reasoning, it is the correct answer to the question. Incorrect Answers

(a)- This is consistent with the passage. The author says that intuition is faster than rational thought. So, intuition would be faster than traditional analytics which in turn would mean that traditional analytics is a slower process than intuition.

(b)- This is consistent with the passage. The author mentions that ".. .your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.)" Intuition is based on experience. This is suggested as something that is contrary to traditional analytics. So, it can be inferred that traditional analytics would be relying less on experience. Answer choice (b) is consistent with the passage.

(c)- This is consistent with the passage. The author claims that intuition is another kind of data. So, intuition relies on data though it is different from the data that is relied on by traditional analytics.

QUESTION: 8

Passage - 2

The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]

Which one of the following is NOT consistent with intuition?

(1) Knowledge by acquaintance
(2) Perceived from experience
(3) Immediate insight

Solution:

All the three are consistent with intuition.

(1) - Intuitions runs on those sets of subconscious memory or knowledge one that has acquired through experience. Since acquaintance means experience of something, this would be constituent with intuition.

(2)- Intuition drives on decades of qualitative experience. Therefore, intuition is something that is perceived from experience.

(3)- Intuition is based on a hunch and therefore it is an immediate insight.

QUESTION: 9

Passage - 2

The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]

Which one of the following if true, most weakens the argument made by the author?

Solution:

The author in the passage talks about two kinds of decision making - one based on rational thinking and the other based on intuition. The author states that intuition is based on experience-one that can be developed through diverse qualitative experience. It is differentiated from rational thought which is slower than intuition. If answer choice (a) is true, then rational thinking ability is necessary to develop intuition. Without rational thinking ability, the ability to intuition is not possible. This answer choice, by making rational thinking necessary for intuition, weakens the author argument.

Incorrect Answers

(b)- This supports author's argument. The author says that intuition is developed through experience which is what answer choice (b) also says.

(c)- This answer choice is specific to crisis situations. The answer choice says that in such a situation both intuition and analysis is important. This is not inconsistent with the views of the author and does not weaken the author's argument.

(d)- Answer choice (d), even if true, does not impact the argument. All that this answer choice says is that organisation requires good leadership. This does not address any of the arguments presented by the author.

QUESTION: 10

Passage - 2

The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]

Which of following is a/are logical corollary(ies) based on the information given on somatic markers?

(1) A mother seeing her child smiling just after taking the CLAT, believes that her child has done well in the CLAT.
(2) A man encountering a feared object like a snake may initiate the fight-or-flight response and cause fear.
(3) A student is feeling very confident before the exam because she has put in considerable hours studying for the exam

Solution:

Somatic markers are those which give an instant sense that something is right or wrong. In (1) and (2) there are somatic markers that give an instant sense. In (1) - the smile gives the sense that something is right and in (2) the snake gives the sense of fear. However, (3) is not based on any instant sense. The student is feeling confident based on hours of effort.

QUESTION: 11

Passage - 3

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]

Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?

Solution:

The author's argument that ".defining feature of

sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech." This is captured accurately in option (b).

Incorrect Answers

(a)- The author does not address the motive for misuse. This answer choice suggests that the motive is furthering the political agenda. This is not mentioned in the passage.

(c)- The problem with this answer choice is that this alleges a motive as to why the clauses are the way they are. This answer choice attacks the motivation of the law commission - something that is not suggested by the author. All that the author says that subjective nature of the clause creates a problem.

(d)- Firstly, Salman Rushdie's quote is a supporting detail of the argument and not the main conclusion. Secondly, the author does not give any indication that 'many authors' have highlighted it.

QUESTION: 12

Passage - 3

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]

Answer the question considering only the following two statements from the passage:

(1) The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable.
(2) The [Law Commission] report says that [hate] speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion.

The relation between the above two statements can be best described as follows:

Solution:

In the statement (1), the author claims that right to offend and hate speech are impossible to separate (or inextricable). (2) acts as a support for that claim. In the Law Commission report, hate speech is something that is offensive. So, (2) is the premise and (1) is the conclusion. The argument can be written as follows Premise: Law commission report says that hate speech is something that is offensive (2) Conclusion: Therefore, right to offend and hate speech are impossible to separate (1). (1) is the conclusion; (2) is the evidence used to justify the conclusion. Incorrect Answer (a), (b), and (d) - Each of these answer choices identifies the components incorrectly.

QUESTION: 13

Passage - 3

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]

The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:

Solution:

Assumption is something that is necessary for the argument and so assumption when denied or made negative will make the argument void. [NEGATION TEST] Applying the negation test to answer choice (d) - If subjective interpretation DOES NOT lead to confusion, then the author's argument becomes void. The author says that the term hate speech sounds like a farrago (or confusion). The reason suggested is that it has subjectivity. So, the author is assuming that subjective interpretation can lead to confusion. Incorrect Answers (a)- What the author states is that the features of sentiment are subjective. These are - abusive, insulting, intimidating etc. The author is NOT suggesting that terms such as race and religion are subjective. (b)- The problem with this answer choice is the word "only". This is not necessary for the argument. Misuse is one of the ways of suppressing free speech - that would be the assumption. Not that misuse is the only way to suppress free speech. (c)- This completely contradicts the author's position and therefore cannot be an assumption.

QUESTION: 14

Passage - 3

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]

Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?

Solution:

Both (a) and (b) strengthen the author's argument. The author argues that that hate speech suppresses free speech. Author is making a case for a society where freedom of expression must be upheld. Answer choice (a), if true, would mean that people have a right to offend. That weakens the case for hate speech - something that the author believes is misused. Answer choice (b), if true, would strengthen the argument. Sine qua non (literal: without which nothing) means an essential condition. If right to dissent is an essential condition, then the logic of hate speech is no longer applicable. This supports the author's claim.

QUESTION: 15

Passage - 3

"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]

Supreme Court of India on March 2014 dismissed a PIL seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex Court said ""We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above:

Solution:

The author's argument is that freedom of speech should not be suppressed. Answer choice (a) accurately identifies that reason. Incorrect Answers (b)- It is clearly mentioned in the passage that hate speech does not have any legal definition. So, the reason cannot be that the Apex Court has made a correct interpretation of hate speech clauses. (c) and (d) - These are irrelevant reasons - something that is not addressed by the author in the passage.

QUESTION: 16

Passage - 4

Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.

The guiding principle of Passage A is that:

Solution:

The author of passage A argues that a trade war incentivizes conflict which is regarded as unethical. So, the principle (or the assumption) here is that we should avoid conflict and promote free trade. That is something that is ethical. This is captured in answer choice (c). Incorrect Answers (a) and (d) - The issue whether values are aligned is not something that the author of Passage A addresses. So, answer choices (a) and (d) are incorrect. (b)- The author of Passage A argues that trade war negatively impacts standard of living and so, it should be avoided. Avoiding such a thing therefore is ethical. Answer choice (b) holds a contrary view stating it is unethical.

QUESTION: 17

Passage - 4

Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.

The guiding principle of Passage B is that:

Solution:

The author of Passage B argues that Chinese regime has used trading relationship to promote policies that are against liberal values that US holds. The principle (or assumption) here is that if an entity is antithetical to liberal values, then we should avoid cooperation which such an entity. This is captured in answer choice (d). Incorrect Answers (a)- This is in direct contradiction with the views held by the author of Passage B. For author of the Passage B, encouraging cooperation with those who have conflicting values would be unethical. (b) and (c) - standard of living and avoiding conflict are not addressed by the author of Passage B. These are things that are addressed by the author of Passage A.

QUESTION: 18

Passage - 4

Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.

Both the author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would agree with which one of the following?

Solution:

Author of Passage A has clearly stated that the trade war would create conflict. Author of Passage B has clearly stated that there could be short-term pain. So, both the authors would agree with the statement that the trade war will create negative impact in the short-term, Incorrect Answers (a)- Author of Passage A will disagree with this statement while author of Passage B will agree with this statement. (c)- This is addressed only by author of Passage A. The author of Passage B does not discuss standard of living of US citizens. Hence, we cannot say for certain whether the author of Passage B will agree or disagree with the statement. (d)- Discussions between the two countries is not addressed by either of the authors.

QUESTION: 19

Passage - 4

Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan decided to suspend trade relations with India in a five-point plan, in response to India's move to end special status for Jammu & Kashmir and split it into two union territories. If the above statements are true, based on the reasoning of the author of Passage A, which one of the following would be INCORRECT?

Solution:

Answer choice (c) claims that this will lessen the burden of India. This is something positive for India. However, the author of Passage A has a negative view on trade war. Since answer (c) is inconsistent with the views of the author of Passage A, it is the correct answer. Incorrect Answers The author of Passage A would agree with (a), (b) and (d). (a)- The author of Passage A argues that trade war negatively impacts standard of living. This is consistent with (a). (b)- A good trade relation is good for global order and therefore, a trade war will have a negative impact on the global order. This is consistent with answer choice (b) that the move would less likely benefit the cause of global order. (d)- The author has argued that trade war would incentivize conflict. This is consistent with answer choice (d)

QUESTION: 20

Passage - 4

Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.

U.S. imposed six waves of tariffs on a number of imports of China. The US' losses mounted steadily over the year, as each wave of tariffs affected additional countries and products from washing machines to steel and aluminum. The US' losses hit the hardest after the sixth wave, when the U.S. levied $200 billion in Chinese imports with a 10 percent tariff.

If the above statements are true, based on the reasoning of the author of Passage B:

Solution:

The author of Passage B claims that even though disconnecting Chinese and US economies could have short term pain, it is ethical in the long term. So, the author of Passage B will consider these negative impacts as short term pains. This makes answer choice (d) the correct answer. Incorrect Answers (a)- There is nothing in the statements that suggest that China suffered loss. (b)and (c) - The author would consider the action as justifiable.

QUESTION: 21

Calculators have great potential in concept development for children of age group four to eight. For example, what happens when you multiply or divide a number by 10 or 100? These generalisations are spectacularly demonstrated and discovered with a calculator, which frees students to ask more questions about number patterns.

The reasoning in the argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

Solution:

The argument claims that calculators have great potential in concept development. To support that claim the argument states that certain number patterns can be discovered using calculators and the students get more time to explore those number patterns. For the argument to be valid, the assumption needed is that children can identify number patterns. If the children cannot identify the pattern, then the argument would be void. This is addressed in answer choice (a) Incorrect Answers (b)- The argument claims that calculators have great potential in concept development. The argument does not suggest that mental calculations have no potential. (c)- This is not a flaw. It is true that the author illustrates his or her claim by citing one example - multiplying and diving a number by 10 or 100. However, the argument does not depend only on that particular example. (d)- There is no ambiguity with the term "concept development".

QUESTION: 22

If you do not have a disciplined approach, you will not be able to prepare for the exam. If you do not prepare well for the exam, then you will not get high grades. Getting high grades is necessary to move to the next level.

If the above statements are true, then which of the following must be true?

Solution:

bThis is a question on condition syllogism.

[1 If you do not have a disciplined approach, you will not be able to prepare for the exam.] [2 If you do not prepare well for the exam, then you will not get high grades.] [3 Getting high grades is necessary to move to the next level.]

Disciplined approach : DA

Prepare for the exam : PE

High grades : HG

Next level : NL [Not is represented using the symbol ~]

1. ~DA ^ ~PE

2. ~PE ^ ~HG

3. ~HG ^ ~NL

The above three can be combined as ~DA ^ ~PE ^ ~HG ^ ~NL The valid contrapositive is:

NL HG PE DA

That would mean that NL ^ DA

So, if someone moved to the next level, then they

had a disciplined approach

Incorrect Answers

(a)- This is incorrect

~DA ^ ~PE ^ ~HG ^ ~NL

What can be concluded is ~DA ^ ~NL

However, one cannot conclude that DA ^ NL

[If P, then Q does not mean If not P, then not Q or

vice versa]

(c)- This is incorrect DA ~PE ~HG ~NL What can be concluded is ~PE ^ ~NL That does not mean that PE ^ NL

QUESTION: 23

In each of the questions below, you are provided with a statement and two assumptions numbered I and II. Read each statement and determine which assumption or assumptions are implicit in the statement.

Statement: Anger is best viewed as a tool that helps us read and respond to upsetting social situations Assumption I: Anger is instigated by upsetting social situations.

Assumption II: There are at least some ways in which one can respond to upsetting social situations

Solution:

Only II is implied.

I - Not implied. The statement says that anger is the best tool to respond to upsetting social situations. The statement does not suggest anything about what instigates anger.

II - Implied. The statement says that anger helps us respond to upsetting social situations. Therefore, it is implied that it is possible to respond to upsetting social situations.

QUESTION: 24

Statement: It's not just fringe conspiracy theorists that can start believing the Earth is flat; many different types of people can be swayed by the arguments of flat Earth.

Assumption I: The arguments of flat earth are persuasive enough for some to consider the case that the earth is flat.

Assumption II: The arguments of flat earth theory is a valid argument that can sway many people.

Solution:

Only I is implied

I - Implied. Many types of people are swayed by the arguments of flat Earth. It is implied that the argument is persuasive for some.

II - Not implied. The problem is "valid argument". A valid argument is based on truth and reason. The author does not suggest that the flat earth argument is a valid one, only that it can sway people.

QUESTION: 25

Statement: We should travel by the metro rail instead of the car because we have to get there on time. Assumption I: T ravelling by metro is more convenient than travelling by car.

Assumption II: There is a metro rail service available for at least part of the distance to destination.

Solution:

Only II is implied

I - Not Implied. The statement talks about saving time and not about convenience. It may very well be true that car is more convenient to travel. In any case, convenience is irrelevant to the statement.

II - Implied. In order to travel in metro rail service, there must be a metro rail service available.

QUESTION: 26

Five people Aditi, Bhavya, Chitra, Disha and Ekta live in a building having five floors numbered 1 to 5 sequentially from bottom to top.

  • Chitra lives on a floor immediately above the floor on which Bhavya lives.

  • Aditi does not live on the first floor.

  • Disha does not live immediately below the floor on which Bhavya lives.

  • Ekta lives either on the first floor or the fifth floor.

If Aditi lives of the topmost floor, which one the following must be true?

Solution:

Disha lives on floor 4

Considering the information given in the passage and the additional information given in the question:

Aditi lives on floor 5.

Ekta lives on either floor 1 or floor 5, and since Aditi lives on floor 5. Ekta will be on floor 1

Chitra's floor is just above Bhavya's floor and Disha's floor is not just below Bhavya's floor. Divya, Chitra and Bhavya must occupy floors, 4, 3 and 2 respectively.

QUESTION: 27

Five people Aditi, Bhavya, Chitra, Disha and Ekta live in a building having five floors numbered 1 to 5 sequentially from bottom to top.

  • Chitra lives on a floor immediately above the floor on which Bhavya lives.
  • Aditi does not live on the first floor.
  • Disha does not live immediately below the floor on which Bhavya lives.
  • Ekta lives either on the first floor or the fifth floor.

If Aditi lives on floor 3, which one the following could be true?

Solution:

Bhavya lives on floor 1

Considering the information given in the passage and the additional information given in the question: Aditi lives on floor 3.

This will give two cases: Ekta can live on either

floor 1 or floor 5

Case 1: Ekta lives on floor 1

Since Chitra lives on the floor just above Bhavya,

the only positions they can occupy is 5 and 4

respectively. Disha will take floor 2

Case 2: Ekta lives on floor 5 Since Chitra lives on the floor just above Bhavya, the only positions they can occupy is 2 and 1 respectively. Disha will take floor 4

Based on the two cases, among the answer choices, the one that could be true is that Bhavya lives on floor 1

QUESTION: 28

Five people Aditi, Bhavya, Chitra, Disha and Ekta live in a building having five floors numbered 1 to 5 sequentially from bottom to top.

  • Chitra lives on a floor immediately above the floor on which Bhavya lives.
  • Aditi does not live on the first floor.
  • Disha does not live immediately below the floor on which Bhavya lives.
  • Ekta lives either on the first floor or the fifth floor.

Who among the following can live on any of the five floors?

Solution:

Disha Aditi cannot live on floor 1 Bhavya cannot live on floor 5 since Chitra lives one floor above her. Chitra cannot live on floor 1 since Bhavya lives one floor below her.

QUESTION: 29

In a Law School, 100 students are divided into four batches - J, K, L and M. Four subjects -Accounting, Business Law, Criminal Law, and Drafting - are taught during four days of a week, starting from Monday through Thursday. There is a faculty member for each subject and a faculty can take only one session in a day. On any given day, sessions for all the four batches should run in parallel.

The following facts are known:

  • Batch J has Criminal Law on Thursday
  • Batch K has Accounting on Tuesday
  • Batch L has Criminal Law on Wednesday and Drafting on Thursday

An effective way to handle this logical game is to play it like Sudoku.

Let's code the subjects using numbers

Accounting - 1

Business Law - 2

Criminal Law - 3

Drafting - 4

Base on the fact given following can be captured.

Since each faculty takes a different subject and faculty can only one session per day, there cannot be any repetition of subjects (or the numbers)

Which subject is taken on Monday for batch J?

Solution:
QUESTION: 30

The subjects taken for batch M from Monday through Thursday respectively are:

Solution:

Related tests