CAT Mini Mock Test - 5 - CAT MCQ
30 Questions MCQ Test - CAT Mini Mock Test - 5
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Q. In the context of the sentence "Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption, " (lines 27—31) the word "aggressors " refers to:
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Q. Suppose an equal—opportunity feminist were to argue that the basic goal of feminism is to eliminate the barriers that keep women from competing with men on an equal basis. The author of the passage would most likely counter this stance by arguing that:
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Q. Adopting the author's views as presented in the passage would most likely mean acknowledging which of the following points?
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows:
In a society little dedicated to sustaining relationships, encouraging cooperation and community, recognizing the value of collaboration, or rewarding altruism rather than greed, women have historically defined, defended, and sustained a set of insights, values, and activities which, if never dominant, at least provided a counterweight and an alternative ideal to the anomie, disconnectedness, fragmentation, and commercialization of our culture.
Many of us saw women's experiences and concerns as the source of a sorely needed transformative vision—a profound commitment to the emotional and physical activities, attitudes, and ethical comportment that help people grow and develop, that nurture and empower them, affirming their strengths and helping them cope with their weaknesses, vulnerabilities and life crises.
When America's masculine—dominated, marketplace culture has not openly thwarted women's hopes and dreams, it has often tried to co—opt women's liberation. Thus, while many women have remained faithful to this vision and still struggle valiantly to make it a reality, it has been difficult for millions of others to resist a barrage of messages from corporate America and the media that define mastery and liberation in competitive, marketplace terms. Corporate America and the media have declared that feminism triumphs when women gain the opportunity to compete in what Abraham Lincoln once called the great "race of life. "
Following a classic pattern in which the victims of aggression identify with their aggressors, many prominent advocates within the highly competitive capitalist marketplace have themselves embraced this masculinized corruption. Placing competition above caring, work above love, power above empowerment, and personal wealth above human worth, corporate America has created a late—twentieth—century hybrid—a refashioned feminism that takes traditional American ideas about success and repackages them for the new female contestants in the masculine marketplace.
This hybrid is equal—opportunity feminism—an ideology that abandons transformation to adaptation, promoting male—female equality without questioning the values that define the very identity it seeks. From the equal—opportunity feminism first envisaged in The Feminine Mystique to that promoted today by Working Woman and Savvy magazines, and the dozens of primers that promote the dress—for—success philosophy that often pretends to speak for all of feminism, progress and liberation have been defined in male, market terms. While some equal—opportunity feminists pay lip service to the work of their more care—oriented sisters, claiming that they would support a broad agenda that addresses our caring needs, the overarching mission of many is to help women adapt to the realities of the masculine marketplace. In this environment, the goal of liberation is to be treated as a man's equal in a man's world. We had hoped that by going into the marketplace and taking our posts there as individuals, we would somehow subvert it.
It is, of course, true that a great many professional women are deeply concerned about the fate of personal, political and social life in modern America. They express great disenchantment but nonetheless seem caught in a gilded cage.
Many believed that our femininity would protect us, that the force of our feminism would make us invulnerable to the seductive logic of either patriarchy or capitalism. What we had not counted on was the ability of the marketplace to seduce and beguile the best and the brightest, its capacity to entrap us in its rules and entangle us in its imperatives. A few women have won great wealth and privilege. But, not unlike men in similar positions, many of them are unwilling to jeopardize what they've acquired in order to work for change. Some are so caught up in their own personal sagas that they have forgotten the women who have been left behind.
Q. Which of the following would the author most readily accept as an explanation of the fact that many professional women do not speak out about the need to care?
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Rene Descartes arrived at certain fundamental principles that could be undoubtedly considered as true by questioning everything. In his Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes focused on the problem of distinguishing between wakefulness and dreaming. How can we say what reality is if there is the possibility that we are simply dreaming it?
The French philosopher argues that there is no reliable sign to tell when we are dreaming, and when we are in fact experiencing reality. Being deeply religious, the philosopher goes on to suggest that this might be a trick of some ''cunning demon'' who tries to deceive naive souls by leading them to believe that whatever is around them is real which, in fact, is a false assumption. The question that Descartes raised roughly four hundred years ago has puzzled me and caused me to question whether it is at all rational to doubt everything we perceive through hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling. To me, such a superfluous discretion is rather unjustified and unreasonable.
We believe what we want to believe. When we choose to believe or doubt, we do it for a reason that we might not admit to ourselves or others, but there is always a reason. Thus, when we cannot think of a reason not to trust our senses, then why should we doubt it?
It is no secret that what we believe has every chance of becoming true, even if it is not already in our perceived reality. Visualization techniques, psychological training, and gestalt therapy classes that have gained tremendous popularity in the past 20-25 years all teach us to control what we think, to focus on positive thinking, and to demolish those 'inner borders' of our conscience that tell us our dreams are impossible to achieve, our skills are limited, and our opportunities are few. Let us choose to believe the opposite, and not doubt the possibility of us being the masters of our lives, so that no 'cunning demon' can distract us with false perceptions and throw us off the right path.
I think it is against the nature of our body and mind to doubt our own senses at every point in time. We were created with the five senses for a reason, whether it was by God, by nature, or some other supernatural force. It is difficult to doubt the fact that we function the way we function, and perceive the way we perceive. Let us admit that there is information that humanity does not know, millions of discoveries are yet to be made, and much more that remains undiscovered by us. Does that make our lives pointless? I do not think so. I choose to believe that what I perceive is true and what I sense is trustworthy.
Q. According to the passage, which of the following problems did Descartes focus on in Meditations on First Philosophy?
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Rene Descartes arrived at certain fundamental principles that could be undoubtedly considered as true by questioning everything. In his Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes focused on the problem of distinguishing between wakefulness and dreaming. How can we say what reality is if there is the possibility that we are simply dreaming it?
The French philosopher argues that there is no reliable sign to tell when we are dreaming, and when we are in fact experiencing reality. Being deeply religious, the philosopher goes on to suggest that this might be a trick of some ''cunning demon'' who tries to deceive naive souls by leading them to believe that whatever is around them is real which, in fact, is a false assumption. The question that Descartes raised roughly four hundred years ago has puzzled me and caused me to question whether it is at all rational to doubt everything we perceive through hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling. To me, such a superfluous discretion is rather unjustified and unreasonable.
We believe what we want to believe. When we choose to believe or doubt, we do it for a reason that we might not admit to ourselves or others, but there is always a reason. Thus, when we cannot think of a reason not to trust our senses, then why should we doubt it?
It is no secret that what we believe has every chance of becoming true, even if it is not already in our perceived reality. Visualization techniques, psychological training, and gestalt therapy classes that have gained tremendous popularity in the past 20-25 years all teach us to control what we think, to focus on positive thinking, and to demolish those 'inner borders' of our conscience that tell us our dreams are impossible to achieve, our skills are limited, and our opportunities are few. Let us choose to believe the opposite, and not doubt the possibility of us being the masters of our lives, so that no 'cunning demon' can distract us with false perceptions and throw us off the right path.
I think it is against the nature of our body and mind to doubt our own senses at every point in time. We were created with the five senses for a reason, whether it was by God, by nature, or some other supernatural force. It is difficult to doubt the fact that we function the way we function, and perceive the way we perceive. Let us admit that there is information that humanity does not know, millions of discoveries are yet to be made, and much more that remains undiscovered by us. Does that make our lives pointless? I do not think so. I choose to believe that what I perceive is true and what I sense is trustworthy.
Q. Why does the author of the passage feel that Descartes' claim was "unjustified and unreasonable"?
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Rene Descartes arrived at certain fundamental principles that could be undoubtedly considered as true by questioning everything. In his Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes focused on the problem of distinguishing between wakefulness and dreaming. How can we say what reality is if there is the possibility that we are simply dreaming it?
The French philosopher argues that there is no reliable sign to tell when we are dreaming, and when we are in fact experiencing reality. Being deeply religious, the philosopher goes on to suggest that this might be a trick of some ''cunning demon'' who tries to deceive naive souls by leading them to believe that whatever is around them is real which, in fact, is a false assumption. The question that Descartes raised roughly four hundred years ago has puzzled me and caused me to question whether it is at all rational to doubt everything we perceive through hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling. To me, such a superfluous discretion is rather unjustified and unreasonable.
We believe what we want to believe. When we choose to believe or doubt, we do it for a reason that we might not admit to ourselves or others, but there is always a reason. Thus, when we cannot think of a reason not to trust our senses, then why should we doubt it?
It is no secret that what we believe has every chance of becoming true, even if it is not already in our perceived reality. Visualization techniques, psychological training, and gestalt therapy classes that have gained tremendous popularity in the past 20-25 years all teach us to control what we think, to focus on positive thinking, and to demolish those 'inner borders' of our conscience that tell us our dreams are impossible to achieve, our skills are limited, and our opportunities are few. Let us choose to believe the opposite, and not doubt the possibility of us being the masters of our lives, so that no 'cunning demon' can distract us with false perceptions and throw us off the right path.
I think it is against the nature of our body and mind to doubt our own senses at every point in time. We were created with the five senses for a reason, whether it was by God, by nature, or some other supernatural force. It is difficult to doubt the fact that we function the way we function, and perceive the way we perceive. Let us admit that there is information that humanity does not know, millions of discoveries are yet to be made, and much more that remains undiscovered by us. Does that make our lives pointless? I do not think so. I choose to believe that what I perceive is true and what I sense is trustworthy.
Q. The author says the following about 'inner borders' EXCEPT:
Directions: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Rene Descartes arrived at certain fundamental principles that could be undoubtedly considered as true by questioning everything. In his Meditations on First Philosophy Descartes focused on the problem of distinguishing between wakefulness and dreaming. How can we say what reality is if there is the possibility that we are simply dreaming it?
The French philosopher argues that there is no reliable sign to tell when we are dreaming, and when we are in fact experiencing reality. Being deeply religious, the philosopher goes on to suggest that this might be a trick of some ''cunning demon'' who tries to deceive naive souls by leading them to believe that whatever is around them is real which, in fact, is a false assumption. The question that Descartes raised roughly four hundred years ago has puzzled me and caused me to question whether it is at all rational to doubt everything we perceive through hearing, seeing, touching, tasting, and smelling. To me, such a superfluous discretion is rather unjustified and unreasonable.
We believe what we want to believe. When we choose to believe or doubt, we do it for a reason that we might not admit to ourselves or others, but there is always a reason. Thus, when we cannot think of a reason not to trust our senses, then why should we doubt it?
It is no secret that what we believe has every chance of becoming true, even if it is not already in our perceived reality. Visualization techniques, psychological training, and gestalt therapy classes that have gained tremendous popularity in the past 20-25 years all teach us to control what we think, to focus on positive thinking, and to demolish those 'inner borders' of our conscience that tell us our dreams are impossible to achieve, our skills are limited, and our opportunities are few. Let us choose to believe the opposite, and not doubt the possibility of us being the masters of our lives, so that no 'cunning demon' can distract us with false perceptions and throw us off the right path.
I think it is against the nature of our body and mind to doubt our own senses at every point in time. We were created with the five senses for a reason, whether it was by God, by nature, or some other supernatural force. It is difficult to doubt the fact that we function the way we function, and perceive the way we perceive. Let us admit that there is information that humanity does not know, millions of discoveries are yet to be made, and much more that remains undiscovered by us. Does that make our lives pointless? I do not think so. I choose to believe that what I perceive is true and what I sense is trustworthy.
Q. Which one of the following statements best describes the crux of the passage?
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: Knowing why you procrastinate and learning how to combat it are the only ways to change your behaviour.
Paragraph: (1) _________. Procrastination can have practical consequences, such as falling behind at work or failing to achieve personal goals or to cross off errands from a to-do list. But there are also emotional or mental impacts. If you're stuck in what seems like an endless cycle of procrastination, guilt and chaos, you might be wondering, Why am I so lazy? (2) _________. Despite that common perception, laziness usually isn't the reason behind procrastination. Laziness is like, 'I have absolutely no desire to even think about this.' Procrastination is, 'It troubles me to think about this. And therefore, it's hard for me to get the job done.' That's a big difference. (3) _________. You could be the perfectionist, the dreamer, the worrier or the defier — these are all procrastination styles. (4) _________. These procrastination types aren't specific diagnoses and aren't backed by research, but they are psychological types or reasons why someone might procrastinate.
Directions: The passage given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.
The righteousness which characterises human society, if it is to be a solid and enduring one, is certainly a super-social feature. The stability of society does not rest with the society itself. It is in a principle which is super-social, just as the health of our body does not depend entirely on the food that we eat and the physical exercises that we perform, but on the way in which we live.
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: Storm surges and extreme heat can lead to power outages that knock out the technology systems critical to homes, hospitals, and industries.
Paragraph: Cities are on the front lines of the growing physical risks associated with climate change. (1) _______. They are home to more than half of the world's people, and by 2050, that figure is projected to rise to 68 percent. Urban areas are often located in places of particular climate risk, such as on coastlines, floodplains, and islands. (2) _______. Moreover, modern urban infrastructure and its operating systems are closely connected. A failure in one part of a network can affect another, multiplying the damage. (3) _______. Cities must proactively address climate risks and invest in resilient infrastructure to protect their residents and ensure sustainable development for the future. (4) _______.
Direction: Nine people in a family have to go out for dinner. There are two available cars - Car 1 and Car 2 - each of which can accommodate five persons. But there are certain conditions that need to be followed:
(i) Vats will always go in Car 1 and does not want Aks in the same car.
(ii) Exactly two out of the three children - Meh, Rey and Dan - will be in one car.
(iii) Chat and Nag will always be together in a car.
(iv) If Ana and Aks are in the same car, then Vij will also be in the same car.
(v) Any car cannot have more than five persons.
Q. If Meh and Rey are in Car 1, how many different combination are possible?
Direction: Nine people in a family have to go out for dinner. There are two available cars - Car 1 and Car 2 - each of which can accommodate five persons. But there are certain conditions that need to be followed:
(i) Vats will always go in Car 1 and does not want Aks in the same car.
(ii) Exactly two out of the three children - Meh, Rey and Dan - will be in one car.
(iii) Chat and Nag will always be together in a car.
(iv) If Ana and Aks are in the same car, then Vij will also be in the same car.
(v) Any car cannot have more than five persons.
Q. If Ana and Aks are not in the same car, then which among the following cannot be the complete list of the occupants of Car 1?
Direction: Nine people in a family have to go out for dinner. There are two available cars - Car 1 and Car 2 - each of which can accommodate five persons. But there are certain conditions that need to be followed:
(i) Vats will always go in Car 1 and does not want Aks in the same car.
(ii) Exactly two out of the three children - Meh, Rey and Dan - will be in one car.
(iii) Chat and Nag will always be together in a car.
(iv) If Ana and Aks are in the same car, then Vij will also be in the same car.
(v) Any car cannot have more than five persons.
Q. If Ana is in Car 2 which has four persons, then which of the following is definitely true?
Direction: Nine people in a family have to go out for dinner. There are two available cars - Car 1 and Car 2 - each of which can accommodate five persons. But there are certain conditions that need to be followed:
(i) Vats will always go in Car 1 and does not want Aks in the same car.
(ii) Exactly two out of the three children - Meh, Rey and Dan - will be in one car.
(iii) Chat and Nag will always be together in a car.
(iv) If Ana and Aks are in the same car, then Vij will also be in the same car.
(v) Any car cannot have more than five persons.
Q. If Chat is in Car 2, then who among the following is definitely in Car 1?
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.
At 10 am Amit left for work 90 km from his house, travelling at 45 km/hr. He reaches there at [A] pm. He can do a piece of work alone in 6 hours and Sumit can do the same work alone in 8 hours. They together finish the work in [B] hours. After finishing the work, while returning home if Amit increases his speed by 5 km/hr, then he reaches his house in [C] hours.
Q. At what time Amit reaches his work place?
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.
At 10 am Amit left for work 90 km from his house, travelling at 45 km/hr. He reaches there at [A] pm. He can do a piece of work alone in 6 hours and Sumit can do the same work alone in 8 hours. They together finish the work in [B] hours. After finishing the work, while returning home if Amit increases his speed by 5 km/hr, then he reaches his house in [C] hours.
Q. In how much time Amit and Sumit together can finish the work?
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.
At 10 am Amit left for work 90 km from his house, travelling at 45 km/hr. He reaches there at [A] pm. He can do a piece of work alone in 6 hours and Sumit can do the same work alone in 8 hours. They together finish the work in [B] hours. After finishing the work, while returning home if Amit increases his speed by 5 km/hr, then he reaches his house in [C] hours.
Q. How much time Amit took to reach his house when he increased his speed by 5 km/hr?
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.
At 10 am Amit left for work 90 km from his house, travelling at 45 km/hr. He reaches there at [A] pm. He can do a piece of work alone in 6 hours and Sumit can do the same work alone in 8 hours. They together finish the work in [B] hours. After finishing the work, while returning home if Amit increases his speed by 5 km/hr, then he reaches his house in [C] hours.
Q. If Amit alone works just for 2 hours and then leaves, then the rest of the work is completed by Sumit alone, then in how much time the remaining work gets completed?
Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given beside.
At 10 am Amit left for work 90 km from his house, travelling at 45 km/hr. He reaches there at [A] pm. He can do a piece of work alone in 6 hours and Sumit can do the same work alone in 8 hours. They together finish the work in [B] hours. After finishing the work, while returning home if Amit increases his speed by 5 km/hr, then he reaches his house in [C] hours.
Q. In how much time, same work will be completed, if Amit and Sumit work alternately for an hour each starting with Amit?
How many Prime numbers less than 1000 are divisible by 16?
Working alone, the times taken by Anu, Tanu and Manu to complete any job are in the ratio 5 : 8 : 10. They accept a job which they can finish in 4 days if they all work together for 8 hours per day. However, Anu and Tanu work together for the first 6 days, working 6 hours 40 minutes per day. Then, the number of hours that Manu will take to complete the remaining job working alone is
If A is 25% less than B, then what will be the value of (2B - A)/A ?
Two cogged wheels of which one has 32 cogs and other 54 cogs, work into each other. If the latter turns 80 times in three quarter of a minute, how often does the other turn in 8 seconds? (Assume equal size cogs and equi-spaced).
A dishonest dealer marks up the price of his goods by 20% and gives a discount of 10% to the customer. Besides, he also cheats both his supplier and his buyer by 100 grams while buying or selling 1 kilogram. Find the percentage profit earned by the shopkeeper.
A person travelled 120 km by steamer, 450 km by train and 60 km by horse. It took him 13 hours 30 minutes. If the speed of the train is 3 times that of the horse and 1.5 times that of the steamer, then what is the speed (in km/h) of the steamer?
Anil borrows Rs 2 lakhs at an interest rate of 8% per annum, compounded half-yearly. He repays Rs 10320 at the end of the first year and closes the loan by paying the outstanding amount at the end of the third year. Then, the total interest, in rupees, paid over the three years is nearest to
A bag contains 4 black, 5 yellow and 6 green balls. Three balls are drawn at random from the bag. What is the probability that all of them are yellow?
If 2 ≤ |x – 1| × |y + 3| ≤ 5 and both x and y are negative integers, find the number of possible combinations of x and y.
MCQ (Multiple Choice Questions) with solution are available for Practice, which would help you prepare for Permutation and Combination under Quantitative Aptitude. You can practice these practice quizzes as per your speed and improvise the topic. The same topic is covered under various competitive examinations like - CAT, GMAT, Bank PO, SSC and other competitive examinations.
Q. Out of 7 consonants and 4 vowels, how many words of 3 consonants and 2 vowels can be formed?
Important Questions for CAT Mini Mock Test - 5
CAT Mini Mock Test - 5 MCQs with Answers
Online Tests for CAT Mini Mock Test - 5
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
