XAT Mock Test - 5 (New Pattern) - CAT MCQ

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.

The attitude adopted by the author of the passage can be said to be which out of the following:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.

The author of the passage is most likely to believe that

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

A few years ago Zine el Abidine Ben Ali looked set to be president of Tunisia for life, having ruled since 1987. Instead, on Wednesday, a Tunisian military court sentenced him to prison for life, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of demonstrators during the revolution that began the Arab spring. In practice, this seems likely to mean exile for life in Saudi Arabia, the country the 75-year-old former ruler fled to with his family after the deaths of more than 100 protesters failed to stop the popular uprising. The two trials that concluded on Wednesday were far from ideal, even if several of his most senior officials were convicted, and some acquitted. Ben Ali's absence from Tunisia meant his trial was conducted in absentia. So for him justice has still not been served, although all of his co-defendants were present. If he did ever return to the country he should be entitled to a new hearing. There appears little chance of that at present, with the current Tunisian government making only the most desultory requests of the Saudis. The Tunisian prime minister has said the issue of Ben Ali's extradition is "minor". The trial also took place in a military court, which automatically raises concerns about independence. Military justice should be limited to prosecuting military personnel for strictly military issues, and trials for killing civilians belong in ordinary courts. Although significant reforms in military justice took place after the revolution, bringing in some civilian judges and allowing the victims of crimes to participate in trials as full parties, problems remain. A senior civilian judge told me in Tunis a few weeks ago: "The military judges now wear robes, but underneath they still have their uniforms and their ranks" - meaning that the judges are still subject to military hierarchy. The defence minister still appoints military judges. Despite these problems, what is going on in Tunisia should be recognised as significant. It was not just Ben Ali who was convicted on Wednesday but several other senior figures, including his former minister of the interior Rafik Hadj Kacem. And although the lawyers for the victims and the defendants did appear to have well-founded complaints about their ability to access some of the evidence, in our monitoring of the hearings we found little evidence of serious violations of the right to a fair trial. Indeed the court acquitted others, including Ali Seriati, former head of the presidential guard, to the great disgust of many. But the prosecution had not presented evidence that Seriati or his forces were present during the relevant shootings, or that he gave orders to shoot demonstrators.

The author believes that the trial of Ben Ali was far from ideal for all of the following reasons EXCEPT :

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.

Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.

As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.

Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?

The primary purpose of the author of the passage is:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.

Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.

As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.

Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?

Rupert Murdoch and his views showcase that:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.

Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.

As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.

Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?

The author of the passage uses the statistic published by Daily Mail in order to:

(refer to the last paragraph of the passage)

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.

Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.

As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.

Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it, that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?

All of the following can be inferred from the passage except:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.

Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.

As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.

Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?

The author is most likely to agree with all of the following statements EXCEPT.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Last Thursday, the venerable Rupert Murdoch took to Twitter to issue his early verdict on the Olympics. The influence of his Chinese wife was perhaps evident, as was his education at the fee-paying Geelong grammar school in south-eastern Australia. "No wonder China leading in medals while US and UK mainly teach competitive sport a bad thing," he said. "How many champions state school background?" Since then, he has seemingly been too preoccupied to say anything about the gold medals won by such British athletes as Andy Murray, Bradley Wiggins, Helen Glover, Victoria Pendleton, Jessica Ennis, Greg Rutherford and Mo Farah, so it falls to me to make the point: they are all champions from a state school background.

Sporting successes and failures are always cast as stories that supposedly speak deep truths about the national condition, and if you're the host country, the tangle of socio-political subtexts - imaginary or real - around races and games will be huge. The first week of the Olympics has produced a perfect example: a great mountain of nonsense talked about state schools and sport - pretty much all of it from the mouths of the privately-educated. Yet Murdoch is hardly alone. Just before the Murdoch tweet, Colin Moynihan - a former Tory minister, alumnus of Monmouth school and chair of the British Olympic Association - cited the fact that 50% of Britain's gold-medal winners at the Beijing Olympics were from private schools as "one of the worst statistics in British sport". No matter that those numbers were skewed by the fact that the British team won only one gold in track and field: the Tory backbencher Charlotte Leslie soon weighed in, suggesting that if private schools were doing better at sport, it might have something to do with "culture". Our old Etonian prime minister has spouted similar opinions in the recent past, highlighting the self-same stupid prejudice: the idea that thanks to the influence of the leftie teaching establishment, kids at comprehensive schools are more likely to be found singing Blowin' in the Wind and growing mung bean plants than experiencing the character-building wonders of proper sport.

As someone who was scarred by a twice-weekly ritual in which I was forced to develop a sporting side of my character that did not actually exist (cigarettes and guitars were my salvation), celebrating the contribution to sport of state schools - or, to be more specific, comprehensives - feels rather weird. But the point needs making: the idea that they are run by sports-phobic softies is up there with all the guff talked about immigration, health and safety and the rest. Yes, there are some real issues at play here, not least the awful imbalance between often paltry facilities at state schools and the money lavished on grounds and equipment in the independent sector (access to which for the great unwashed is something successive governments have done nothing about). But this weekend's rapturous scenes should blow apart any suggestion that comprehensive schools and top-class sport are mutually exclusive.

Still, the myth has been bubbling away for at least 25 years. In 1987, the Thatcher government went as far as commissioning an inquiry into the issue, which reported no evidence of "any philosophy that is against competition", and so it has remained, with a pronounced increase in sporting participation towards the end of the last decade. Thanks to the cuts, the Department for Education's School Sports Survey was axed in late 2010, but we know this much: the total number of British pupils taking part in competitive sport at their school was 78% for the years 2009-10, up from 58% in 2006-07, and the average secondary school now offers participation in around 25 sporting disciplines. Four years ago, a typical piece in the Daily Mail bemoaned the fact that 438 state schools no longer had annual sports days - not mentioning that they represented just 2% of the total. On close inspection, most of what we've heard in the last week dissolves into cant. Strange, isn't it,that the same voices that peddle these myths had so little to say about the last Tory government's sale of around 10,000 school playing fields?

Read the following points and answer the question that follows

A. Opinion of Etonian Prime Minister

B. Rupert Murdoch's verdict on the Olympics

C. Inquiry by the Thatcher government in 1987

D. Department for Education's School Sports Survey

E. Statistics published by Daily Mail

Which of the above mentioned points are in support of the fact that the competitive spirit and participation in sports of students is not decreasing?

If there is a generally a disruption in the supply of wheat and rice in the international market resulting in higher international prices, the domestic prices for these commodities in India also tends to increase. This is despite the fact that India produces most of its own wheat and rice and imports hardly any quantity of these two commodities.

Which one of the following conclusions is best supported by the above argument? (Enter the conclusion number in the space provided)

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Every living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a single cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the union of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally understood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life on the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as life remains on the globe. The corollaries of this fact are of great importance.

Early investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a product of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was natural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character of the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious hypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in the germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers of his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who have not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is conceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which produces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so on.

But a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann, professor of zoölogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made himself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so effectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every biologist. Weismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is produced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception of the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated germ-plasm, not only continuous but (potentially at least) immortal. The body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the germ-cells produce the body.

The basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration of the reproduction of very simple organisms. "Death is the end of life," is the belief of many other persons than the Lotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must eventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for example, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two, and each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the original cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to survive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go through the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the process will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be called potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.

The immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed by the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could destroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and is dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are favorable, it can live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner or later, as is Man. "It dies from accident often, from old age never." Now the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the single-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been carried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men reproduce in the same way - by simple fission - as the Infusorian and other one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much the same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be expected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable circumstances?

August Weismann's ideas can be said to be:

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Every living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a single cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the union of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally understood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life on the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as life remains on the globe. The corollaries of this fact are of great importance.

Early investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a product of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was natural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character of the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious hypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in the germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers of his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who have not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is conceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which produces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so on.

But a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann, professor of zoölogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made himself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so effectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every biologist. Weismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is produced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception of the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated germ-plasm, not only continuous but (potentially at least) immortal. The body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the germ-cells produce the body.

The basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration of the reproduction of very simple organisms. "Death is the end of life," is the belief of many other persons than the Lotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must eventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for example, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two, and each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the original cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to survive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go through the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the process will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be called potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.

The immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed by the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could destroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and is dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are favorable, it can live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner or later, as is Man. "It dies from accident often, from old age never." Now the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the single-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been carried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men reproduce in the same way - by simple fission - as the Infusorian and other one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much the same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be expected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable circumstances?

Which one of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Every living creature was at some stage of its life nothing more than a single cell. It is generally known that human beings result from the union of an egg-cell and a sperm-cell, but it is not so universally understood that these germ-cells are part of a continuous stream of germ-plasm which has been in existence ever since the appearance of life on the globe, and which is destined to continue in existence as long as life remains on the globe. The corollaries of this fact are of great importance.

Early investigators tended naturally to look on the germ-cells as a product of the body. Being supposedly products of the body, it was natural to think that they would in some measure reproduce the character of the body which created them; and Darwin elaborated an ingenious hypothesis to explain how the various characters could be represented in the germ-cell. The idea held by him, in common with most other thinkers of his period, is still held more or less unconsciously by those who have not given particular attention to the subject. Generation is conceived as a direct chain: the body produces the germ-cell which produces another body which in turn produces another germ-cell, and so on.

But a generation ago this idea fell under suspicion. August Weismann, professor of zoölogy in the University of Freiburg, Germany, made himself the champion of the new idea, about 1885, and developed it so effectively that it is now a part of the creed of nearly every biologist. Weismann caused a general abandonment of the idea that the germ-cell is produced by the body in each generation, and popularized the conception of the germ-cell as a product of a stream of undifferentiated germ-plasm, not only continuous but (potentially at least) immortal. The body does not produce the germ-cells, he pointed out; instead, the germ-cells produce the body.

The basis of this theory can best be understood by a brief consideration of the reproduction of very simple organisms. "Death is the end of life," is the belief of many other persons than the Lotus Eaters. It is commonly supposed that everything which lives must eventually die. But study of a one-celled animal, an Infusorian, for example, reveals that when it reaches a certain age it pinches in two, and each half becomes an Infusorian in all appearance identical with the original cell. Has the parent cell then died? It may rather be said to survive, in two parts. Each of these daughter cells will in turn go through the same process of reproduction by simple fission, and the process will be continued in their descendants. The Infusorian can be called potentially immortal, because of this method of reproduction.

The immortality, as Weismann pointed out, is not of the kind attributed by the Greeks to their gods, who could not die because no wound could destroy them. On the contrary, the Infusorian is extremely fragile, and is dying by millions at every instant; but if circumstances are favorable, it can live on; it is not inevitably doomed to die sooner or later, as is Man. "It dies from accident often, from old age never." Now the single-celled Infusorian is in many respects comparable with the single-celled germ of the higher animals. The analogy has often been carried too far; yet it remains indisputable that the germ-cells of men reproduce in the same way - by simple fission - as the Infusorian and other one-celled animals and plants, and that they are organized on much the same plan. Given favorable circumstances, the germ-cell should be expected to be equally immortal. Does it ever find these favorable circumstances?

The author of the passage would agree with the statement:

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The treatment of probability has been confused by mathematicians. From the beginning there was an ambiguity in dealing with the calculus of probability. When the Cehvalier de Mere consulted Pascal on the problems involved in the games of dice, the great mathematician should have frankly told his friend the truth, namely, that mathematics could not be of any use to the gambler in a game of pure chance. Instead he wrapped his answer in the symbolic language of mathematics. What could easily be explained in a few sentences of mundane speech was expressed in a terminology which was unfamiliar to the immense majority and therefore regarded with reverential awe. People suspected that the puzzling formulae contain some important revelations, hidden to the uninitiated; they got the impression that a scientific method of gambling exists and that the esoteric teachings of mathematics provide a key to winning. The heavenly mystic Pascal unintentionally became the patron saint of gambling. The textbooks of the calculus of probability gratuitously propagandize for the gambling casinos precisely because they are sealed books to the layman.

There are two entirely different instances of probability; we may call them class probability (or frequency probability) and case probability (or the specific understanding of the sciences of human action). The field for the application of the former is the field of the natural sciences, entirely ruled by causality; the field for the application of the latter is the field of the sciences of human action, entirely ruled by teleology.

Class probability means: We know or assume to know, with regard to the problem concerned, everything about the behavior of a whole class of events or phenomena; but about the actual singular events or phenomena we know nothing but that they are elements of this class. We know, for instance, that there are ninety tickets in a lottery and that five of them will be drawn. Thus we know all about the behavior of the whole class of tickets. But with regard to the singular tickets we do not know anything but that they arc elements of this class of tickets

Case probability means: We know, with regard to a particular event, some of the factors which determine its outcome; but there are other determining factors about which we know nothing. Case probability has nothing in common with class probability but the incompleteness of our knowledge. In every other regard the two are entirely different

There are, of course, many instances in which men try to forecast a particular future event on the basis of their knowledge about the behavior of the class. A doctor may determine the chances for the full recovery of his patient if he knows that 70 per cent of those afflicted with the same disease recover. If he expresses his judgment correctly, he will not say more than that the probability of recovery is 0.7, that is, out of ten patients not more than three on the average die. All such predictions about external events, i.e., events in the field of the natural sciences, are of this character. They are in fact not forecasts about the issue of the case in question, but statements about the frequency of the various possible outcomes. They arc based either on statistical information or simply on the rough estimate of the frequency derived from nonstatistical experience.

As far as such types of probable statements are concerned, we are not faced with case probability. In fact we do not know anything about the case in question except that it is an instance of a class the behavior of which we know or think we know.

A surgeon tells a patient who considers submitting himself to an operation that thirty out of every hundred undergoing such an operation die. If the patient asks whether this number of deaths is already full, he has misunderstood the sense of the doctor's statement. He has fallen prey to the error known as the "gambler's fallacy." Like the roulette player who concludes from a run often red in succession that the probability of the next turn being black is now greater than it was before the run, he confuses case probability with class probability.

Which of the following is an example of case probability?

Directions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The treatment of probability has been confused by mathematicians. From the beginning there was an ambiguity in dealing with the calculus of probability. When the Cehvalier de Mere consulted Pascal on the problems involved in the games of dice, the great mathematician should have frankly told his friend the truth, namely, that mathematics could not be of any use to the gambler in a game of pure chance. Instead he wrapped his answer in the symbolic language of mathematics. What could easily be explained in a few sentences of mundane speech was expressed in a terminology which was unfamiliar to the immense majority and therefore regarded with reverential awe. People suspected that the puzzling formulae contain some important revelations, hidden to the uninitiated; they got the impression that a scientific method of gambling exists and that the esoteric teachings of mathematics provide a key to winning. The heavenly mystic Pascal unintentionally became the patron saint of gambling. The textbooks of the calculus of probability gratuitously propagandize for the gambling casinos precisely because they are sealed books to the layman.

There are two entirely different instances of probability; we may call them class probability (or frequency probability) and case probability (or the specific understanding of the sciences of human action). The field for the application of the former is the field of the natural sciences, entirely ruled by causality; the field for the application of the latter is the field of the sciences of human action, entirely ruled by teleology.

Class probability means: We know or assume to know, with regard to the problem concerned, everything about the behavior of a whole class of events or phenomena; but about the actual singular events or phenomena we know nothing but that they are elements of this class. We know, for instance, that there are ninety tickets in a lottery and that five of them will be drawn. Thus we know all about the behavior of the whole class of tickets. But with regard to the singular tickets we do not know anything but that they arc elements of this class of tickets

Case probability means: We know, with regard to a particular event, some of the factors which determine its outcome; but there are other determining factors about which we know nothing. Case probability has nothing in common with class probability but the incompleteness of our knowledge. In every other regard the two are entirely different

There are, of course, many instances in which men try to forecast a particular future event on the basis of their knowledge about the behavior of the class. A doctor may determine the chances for the full recovery of his patient if he knows that 70 per cent of those afflicted with the same disease recover. If he expresses his judgment correctly, he will not say more than that the probability of recovery is 0.7, that is, out of ten patients not more than three on the average die. All such predictions about external events, i.e., events in the field of the natural sciences, are of this character. They are in fact not forecasts about the issue of the case in question, but statements about the frequency of the various possible outcomes. They arc based either on statistical information or simply on the rough estimate of the frequency derived from nonstatistical experience.

As far as such types of probable statements are concerned, we are not faced with case probability. In fact we do not know anything about the case in question except that it is an instance of a class the behavior of which we know or think we know.

A surgeon tells a patient who considers submitting himself to an operation that thirty out of every hundred undergoing such an operation die. If the patient asks whether this number of deaths is already full, he has misunderstood the sense of the doctor's statement. He has fallen prey to the error known as the "gambler's fallacy." Like the roulette player who concludes from a run often red in succession that the probability of the next turn being black is now greater than it was before the run, he confuses case probability with class probability.

Which of the following is not true about case probability and class probability?

Which launch vehicle was used to deploy the XPoSat into space?

What is the primary goal of the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme (ABSS) announced by Indian Railways?

What are coronal holes on the Sun primarily characterized by?

What is Guillain-Barré Syndrome primarily characterized by?

What principle was established in the landmark case of Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab regarding the application of the death penalty in India?

What is the primary goal of Arunachal Pradesh's Dulari Kanya Scheme?

What is the primary purpose of the contract signed between the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL)?

What is the expected production timeline for the BrahMos NG missile system?

Which of the following statements regarding Bima-ASBA is correct?

What significant achievement did India's Aditya-L1 mission accomplish regarding solar observation?

What is the primary purpose of the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) as proposed in the 2025 Income Tax Bill?

What has contributed to the significant decline in cotton cultivation area in Punjab over the past three decades?