CAT Mock Test - 15 - CAT MCQ

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

Literature-poetry, drama, fiction-can be enjoyed in two ways: haphazardly as a layman enjoys it, and methodically as a trained man does. In the one case the impression of its worth is vague, even confused; in the other it is fully accounted for. It is this latter method of enjoying that is called criticism. A critic is an ideal reader. Having 'travelled much in the realms of gold', he brings to bear a trained judgement on whatever he reads. To him no work of art is good or bad, enjoyable or unenjoyable, meaningful or meaningless, unless he has subjected it to a thorough examination. Criticism is, therefore, born of questioning; it never takes a writer or his work on trust. Where a work is held to be divinely inspired or revealed, as in the case of scriptures, there can be no criticism. For orthodox opinion will not permit a free discussion of it. It is the word of God. Hence it is that for long ages after the establishment of Christianity there was hardly any critical literature on the Bible. It was only when the Renaissance encouraged interrogation and free inquiry that it began to be examined critically. Today nothing is sacrosanct to criticism. It subjects everything to the closest scrutiny. Its approach is that of science - a disinterested application to its subject to understand and interpret it fully. For criticism therefore, as for science, to flourish, intellectual freedom is necessary. It requires an atmosphere in which questioning and inquiry are freely allowed.
It is, however, conditioned by many factors, in particular by the trend of the age and the attitude of the critic. Both these tend to limit the critic's freedom as indeed they do that of the writer himself. One is ever a slave to one's times and mental make-up. It is these limitations that make the critical approach of one age or author different from that of another and impart to it its distinctive character. Generally, each age in literary history will be found to have its own critical standards, and each critic his own individual approach. One will look for morality in literature, another for aesthetic pleasure, a third for both. Or, one will advocate conformity to the rules of the Greek and Latin classics, another a reasonable deviation from them, a third a complete freedom of action. And so on. There are, thus, no fixed principles of Criticism to be applied indiscriminately to the works of all ages and writers. What this oft-used phrase actually signifies is the contribution each age has made to critical thought and the course it has followed in so doing. Often the critical canons of one age have been discarded in another and often too, a subsequent age has revived them. So the principles of criticism are nothing more than the various interpretations of literature or literary activity, advanced from time to time. They are sometimes similar, sometimes dissimilar, and sometimes even contradictory.

Q. All of the following conform to author's point of view presented in the passage, EXCEPT:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Without getting carried away by the wide–eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what's more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot–free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water–tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in–depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub–prime mortgage quicksand but a spin–off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub–prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process.
The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip–off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant.
The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don't have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something's got to give in here.

Q. What according to the information provided in the text best establishes the point of discussion?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Without getting carried away by the wide–eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what's more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot–free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water–tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in–depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub–prime mortgage quicksand but a spin–off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub–prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process.
The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip–off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant.
The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don't have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something's got to give in here.

Q. How, according to the passage, was the system taken for a ride?
I. Aspiring home owners were granted loans they weren't eligible for.
II. Relevant disclaimers misappropriated crucial advice.
III. Loans were re–mortgaged, which was in violation of regulations.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Without getting carried away by the wide–eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what's more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot–free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water–tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in–depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub–prime mortgage quicksand but a spin–off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub–prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process.
The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip–off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant.
The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don't have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something's got to give in here.

Q. All of the following, in context of the passage, are true except:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Without getting carried away by the wide–eyed protestations of innocence by the modern day Shylocks, there is increasingly lesser doubt that banks have been complicit in precipitating the present imbroglio and what's more, the trail of evidence points towards sins not only of omission, which can be perhaps taken lightly, but explicit sins of commission which cannot be taken lightly. There is also perhaps an increasingly evident undercurrent of resentment against the money lenders within large sections of the population because even though the banks have almost certainly planted the nation head first in this bog of fiscal quagmire, so far they have been appearing to be getting away almost scot–free for their misdemeanors.
That could change pretty soon if the picture emerging from the darkness of the shadows of banking, mortgage sellers, buyers and evaluators is true, and, from the looks of it, it seems that the case is pretty water–tight. The regulators have smelt something fishy and have gone in for in–depth investigation and no, this is not the same as the sub–prime mortgage quicksand but a spin–off of the same with deeper legal ramifications. Despicable, as it may seem, banks are well within their rights to lend to sub–prime borrowers and to go in for foreclosure when regulatory obligations are fulfilled. What cooks the goose is the fact that many home mortgage lenders have resold the loans that they had granted to third and fourth parties through a bidding process.
The loans are clubbed together in a common document which contains the salient characteristics of each loan. The document is then circulated and the loans are sold to the highest bidder. In the current rip–off, the successful bidders evidently got the loans evaluated during the due diligence period and found that many of the loans sanctioned by the primary lender did not pass muster the benchmark and the guidelines set by the merchant himself and instead of bringing it to the notice of the concerned regulators, they preferred to negotiate for lower purchasing prices with the merchant.
The howler was that the secondary buyers did not bring the material information, which could have and would have affected the decision of the investors to park their money in these assets, to the notice of the investors who were buying into these loans and now we have a situation where everyone involved has tried in some manner or the other to keep the next link in the chain in the dark. Here we are, with loans granted without due diligence, being sold to investors who don't have complete information about the same. Had it been based on pure ethical considerations, it might have slid past with just a rap on the knuckles for the offenders but something's got to give in here.

Q. The author's stance on the possibility of financial institutions being found guilty can best be described as

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

Over one-third of the population of the globe has done away with capitalist social relations and has either built or is building socialism. Progressive forces in all the advanced capitalist countries are working for socialism. More and more nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, just emerged from colonial and semi-colonial oppression, rejected the capitalist way and set their sights on socialism. Capitalism stands exposed as a social system that has brought mankind immense calamities.
Exploitation of millions upon millions of working people by a handful of financial and industrial magnates; colonialism, ruthlessly oppressing and decimating the population of the colonies; two World Wars, which took tens of millions of human lives, and a third World War being prepared by the ultra-reactionary circles of the capitalist states which threatens mankind with disastrous consequences - such is the face of capitalism as it stands in the dock of history. Today's broad and mighty movement towards socialism is a natural and inevitable process, which explains the tremendous interest we find all over the globe in scientific socialist theory.
Lenin's writings gives readers the opportunity to find out about the main propositions of scientific socialism and to understand the transition from pre-Marxian unscientific utopian socialist views to the science worked out by Marx, whose conclusions are backed up by profound and comprehensive theoretical analysis of social relations and have been borne out by the whole course of history.
What then is socialism? The term was first used by the French utopian socialist Pierre Leroux in 1833. Socialism is a society based on social property in the means of production, without antagonistic classes or exploitation. Visions of such a society had tantalised the minds of men long before Leroux wrote about it, and were a reflection of the passionate protest of the oppressed and exploited masses against their intolerable condition.
Humanity's best minds - Thomas Moore in the 16th century, Tommaso Campanella in the 17th century, Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Alexander Herzen and Nikolai Chernyshevsky in the 19th century - proclaimed the need to restructure society along socialist lines. Many of their projections are naive and unacceptable in the light of our own day, but they have also made some brilliant predictions.
The weakest side of these utopian socialist doctrines was how to go about realising this social ideal and whether it was at all possible. There the utopian socialists proved to be quite helpless. They held that all the defects of capitalism sprang from private property, and they were quite right. But they had no answer as to how private property came to be established in human society, or how it was to be eliminated. They confined themselves to spreading socialist ideas, appealing to the powers that be, and so on. The main flaw of the utopian socialism was the inability to find the way to socialism and failure to realise that the struggle for socialism must rest on a definite social force. "Utopian socialism", said Lenin, "criticised capitalist society. It had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation. But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution".
Where was it to be found? There was only one answer: the forces and means of transforming society were to be sought in society itself. But this required an understanding of the laws which govern society, in general, and capitalist society in particular.

Q. Each of the following can be considered the view of the author of this passage EXCEPT:

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

Over one-third of the population of the globe has done away with capitalist social relations and has either built or is building socialism. Progressive forces in all the advanced capitalist countries are working for socialism. More and more nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, just emerged from colonial and semi-colonial oppression, rejected the capitalist way and set their sights on socialism. Capitalism stands exposed as a social system that has brought mankind immense calamities.
Exploitation of millions upon millions of working people by a handful of financial and industrial magnates; colonialism, ruthlessly oppressing and decimating the population of the colonies; two World Wars, which took tens of millions of human lives, and a third World War being prepared by the ultra-reactionary circles of the capitalist states which threatens mankind with disastrous consequences - such is the face of capitalism as it stands in the dock of history. Today's broad and mighty movement towards socialism is a natural and inevitable process, which explains the tremendous interest we find all over the globe in scientific socialist theory.
Lenin's writings gives readers the opportunity to find out about the main propositions of scientific socialism and to understand the transition from pre-Marxian unscientific utopian socialist views to the science worked out by Marx, whose conclusions are backed up by profound and comprehensive theoretical analysis of social relations and have been borne out by the whole course of history.
What then is socialism? The term was first used by the French utopian socialist Pierre Leroux in 1833. Socialism is a society based on social property in the means of production, without antagonistic classes or exploitation. Visions of such a society had tantalised the minds of men long before Leroux wrote about it, and were a reflection of the passionate protest of the oppressed and exploited masses against their intolerable condition.
Humanity's best minds - Thomas Moore in the 16th century, Tommaso Campanella in the 17th century, Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Alexander Herzen and Nikolai Chernyshevsky in the 19th century - proclaimed the need to restructure society along socialist lines. Many of their projections are naive and unacceptable in the light of our own day, but they have also made some brilliant predictions.
The weakest side of these utopian socialist doctrines was how to go about realising this social ideal and whether it was at all possible. There the utopian socialists proved to be quite helpless. They held that all the defects of capitalism sprang from private property, and they were quite right. But they had no answer as to how private property came to be established in human society, or how it was to be eliminated. They confined themselves to spreading socialist ideas, appealing to the powers that be, and so on. The main flaw of the utopian socialism was the inability to find the way to socialism and failure to realise that the struggle for socialism must rest on a definite social force. "Utopian socialism", said Lenin, "criticised capitalist society. It had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation. But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution".
Where was it to be found? There was only one answer: the forces and means of transforming society were to be sought in society itself. But this required an understanding of the laws which govern society, in general, and capitalist society in particular.

Q. According to the passage, where did the real solution of the problem lie that utopian socialism could not indicate?

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

Over one-third of the population of the globe has done away with capitalist social relations and has either built or is building socialism. Progressive forces in all the advanced capitalist countries are working for socialism. More and more nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, just emerged from colonial and semi-colonial oppression, rejected the capitalist way and set their sights on socialism. Capitalism stands exposed as a social system that has brought mankind immense calamities.
Exploitation of millions upon millions of working people by a handful of financial and industrial magnates; colonialism, ruthlessly oppressing and decimating the population of the colonies; two World Wars, which took tens of millions of human lives, and a third World War being prepared by the ultra-reactionary circles of the capitalist states which threatens mankind with disastrous consequences - such is the face of capitalism as it stands in the dock of history. Today's broad and mighty movement towards socialism is a natural and inevitable process, which explains the tremendous interest we find all over the globe in scientific socialist theory.
Lenin's writings gives readers the opportunity to find out about the main propositions of scientific socialism and to understand the transition from pre-Marxian unscientific utopian socialist views to the science worked out by Marx, whose conclusions are backed up by profound and comprehensive theoretical analysis of social relations and have been borne out by the whole course of history.
What then is socialism? The term was first used by the French utopian socialist Pierre Leroux in 1833. Socialism is a society based on social property in the means of production, without antagonistic classes or exploitation. Visions of such a society had tantalised the minds of men long before Leroux wrote about it, and were a reflection of the passionate protest of the oppressed and exploited masses against their intolerable condition.
Humanity's best minds - Thomas Moore in the 16th century, Tommaso Campanella in the 17th century, Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Alexander Herzen and Nikolai Chernyshevsky in the 19th century - proclaimed the need to restructure society along socialist lines. Many of their projections are naive and unacceptable in the light of our own day, but they have also made some brilliant predictions.
The weakest side of these utopian socialist doctrines was how to go about realising this social ideal and whether it was at all possible. There the utopian socialists proved to be quite helpless. They held that all the defects of capitalism sprang from private property, and they were quite right. But they had no answer as to how private property came to be established in human society, or how it was to be eliminated. They confined themselves to spreading socialist ideas, appealing to the powers that be, and so on. The main flaw of the utopian socialism was the inability to find the way to socialism and failure to realise that the struggle for socialism must rest on a definite social force. "Utopian socialism", said Lenin, "criticised capitalist society. It had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation. But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution".
Where was it to be found? There was only one answer: the forces and means of transforming society were to be sought in society itself. But this required an understanding of the laws which govern society, in general, and capitalist society in particular.

Q. According to the passage, pre-Marxian sociology was considered unscientific because

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

Over one-third of the population of the globe has done away with capitalist social relations and has either built or is building socialism. Progressive forces in all the advanced capitalist countries are working for socialism. More and more nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, just emerged from colonial and semi-colonial oppression, rejected the capitalist way and set their sights on socialism. Capitalism stands exposed as a social system that has brought mankind immense calamities.
Exploitation of millions upon millions of working people by a handful of financial and industrial magnates; colonialism, ruthlessly oppressing and decimating the population of the colonies; two World Wars, which took tens of millions of human lives, and a third World War being prepared by the ultra-reactionary circles of the capitalist states which threatens mankind with disastrous consequences - such is the face of capitalism as it stands in the dock of history. Today's broad and mighty movement towards socialism is a natural and inevitable process, which explains the tremendous interest we find all over the globe in scientific socialist theory.
Lenin's writings gives readers the opportunity to find out about the main propositions of scientific socialism and to understand the transition from pre-Marxian unscientific utopian socialist views to the science worked out by Marx, whose conclusions are backed up by profound and comprehensive theoretical analysis of social relations and have been borne out by the whole course of history.
What then is socialism? The term was first used by the French utopian socialist Pierre Leroux in 1833. Socialism is a society based on social property in the means of production, without antagonistic classes or exploitation. Visions of such a society had tantalised the minds of men long before Leroux wrote about it, and were a reflection of the passionate protest of the oppressed and exploited masses against their intolerable condition.
Humanity's best minds - Thomas Moore in the 16th century, Tommaso Campanella in the 17th century, Henri de Saint-Simon and Charles Fourier, Robert Owen and Alexander Herzen and Nikolai Chernyshevsky in the 19th century - proclaimed the need to restructure society along socialist lines. Many of their projections are naive and unacceptable in the light of our own day, but they have also made some brilliant predictions.
The weakest side of these utopian socialist doctrines was how to go about realising this social ideal and whether it was at all possible. There the utopian socialists proved to be quite helpless. They held that all the defects of capitalism sprang from private property, and they were quite right. But they had no answer as to how private property came to be established in human society, or how it was to be eliminated. They confined themselves to spreading socialist ideas, appealing to the powers that be, and so on. The main flaw of the utopian socialism was the inability to find the way to socialism and failure to realise that the struggle for socialism must rest on a definite social force. "Utopian socialism", said Lenin, "criticised capitalist society. It had visions of a better order and endeavoured to convince the rich of the immorality of exploitation. But utopian socialism could not indicate the real solution".
Where was it to be found? There was only one answer: the forces and means of transforming society were to be sought in society itself. But this required an understanding of the laws which govern society, in general, and capitalist society in particular.

Q. Which of the following would appear to be definitely out of sync with the present time?

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

The expansion of the concept of "person" was perhaps always inevitable. Like the creative definitions of gambling in at least some U.S. states—designed to carve out a legal niche for riverboat casinos while prohibiting the same activity on terra firma—legal personhood for nonhumans was an available loophole that someone was always bound to try to jump through. If you are looking to secure protections for certain beings or environmental features that are otherwise at risk of exploitation, winning the status of person for them is a good way to get what you want.
For a long time, the only way under the law to protect an animal from wanton abuse was to characterize the abuse as harm to property, essentially no different from the sort of law that prevents you from smashing your neighbor's wheelbarrow. As for morality, if it was to enter into question at all, it was indirect incitement to moral depravity brought on by abuse of animals that justified any prohibition on harming them. Thus, philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted it is indeed wrong to harm domestic animals, but this still does not require us to suppose these animals are, as he would say, "ends in themselves." They can only ever be means to distinctly human ends while a child who grows up torturing these "means" is, at worst, going to be more prone to abusing human beings later in life—animal torture as a gateway to human torture—or, at best, is going to be stunted in his or her overall moral development.
In any case, such indirect protection generally only extends to domestic animals while the vast majority of animals belonging to the category we call "wildlife" cannot be protected as property because, by definition, they do not belong to anyone. Over the course of the 20th century, significant subcategories of wildlife would come to be legally protected as part of large-scale conservationist efforts. But the concern here was at the population level rather than the individual and typically implied no commitment to the irreducible worth, however that may be conceived, of any individual member of a given protected species.
For example, gorillas, it appears to many, are sufficiently like human beings in deserving not to be harmed for the same reasons we deserve not to be harmed: not because we belong to someone else and not because our species is at risk of disappearing but because we are—however one might wish to flesh this out in theoretical, metaphysical, or even religious terms—intrinsically worthy beings. The best way to recognize this apparent truth in law has been to reclassify gorillas—perhaps to "promote" them to the status of person as has been done with varying degrees of success in several European countries.
So far, this is the easy part. Again, the case for gorilla personhood has typically been made on the basis of an evident similitude of internal capacities they share with us. Even hippos have what appear to be big smiling faces and plainly love to eat, so they come across as relatable. But no one, at least no one directly involved in modern states' law-making institutions, will make a similar argument for rivers and mountains. Rivers, it is generally believed, have no internal capacities at all. They are not subjects. Yet today, at least some rivers have been reclassified as persons too. To bring such a river harm is to harm a person, a being that ought to be considered an end in itself with inalienable rights and intrinsic worth.

Q. Why does the author state in the first paragraph that the expansion of the concept of person was "inevitable"?

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

The expansion of the concept of "person" was perhaps always inevitable. Like the creative definitions of gambling in at least some U.S. states—designed to carve out a legal niche for riverboat casinos while prohibiting the same activity on terra firma—legal personhood for nonhumans was an available loophole that someone was always bound to try to jump through. If you are looking to secure protections for certain beings or environmental features that are otherwise at risk of exploitation, winning the status of person for them is a good way to get what you want.
For a long time, the only way under the law to protect an animal from wanton abuse was to characterize the abuse as harm to property, essentially no different from the sort of law that prevents you from smashing your neighbor's wheelbarrow. As for morality, if it was to enter into question at all, it was indirect incitement to moral depravity brought on by abuse of animals that justified any prohibition on harming them. Thus, philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted it is indeed wrong to harm domestic animals, but this still does not require us to suppose these animals are, as he would say, "ends in themselves." They can only ever be means to distinctly human ends while a child who grows up torturing these "means" is, at worst, going to be more prone to abusing human beings later in life—animal torture as a gateway to human torture—or, at best, is going to be stunted in his or her overall moral development.
In any case, such indirect protection generally only extends to domestic animals while the vast majority of animals belonging to the category we call "wildlife" cannot be protected as property because, by definition, they do not belong to anyone. Over the course of the 20th century, significant subcategories of wildlife would come to be legally protected as part of large-scale conservationist efforts. But the concern here was at the population level rather than the individual and typically implied no commitment to the irreducible worth, however that may be conceived, of any individual member of a given protected species.
For example, gorillas, it appears to many, are sufficiently like human beings in deserving not to be harmed for the same reasons we deserve not to be harmed: not because we belong to someone else and not because our species is at risk of disappearing but because we are—however one might wish to flesh this out in theoretical, metaphysical, or even religious terms—intrinsically worthy beings. The best way to recognize this apparent truth in law has been to reclassify gorillas—perhaps to "promote" them to the status of person as has been done with varying degrees of success in several European countries.
So far, this is the easy part. Again, the case for gorilla personhood has typically been made on the basis of an evident similitude of internal capacities they share with us. Even hippos have what appear to be big smiling faces and plainly love to eat, so they come across as relatable. But no one, at least no one directly involved in modern states' law-making institutions, will make a similar argument for rivers and mountains. Rivers, it is generally believed, have no internal capacities at all. They are not subjects. Yet today, at least some rivers have been reclassified as persons too. To bring such a river harm is to harm a person, a being that ought to be considered an end in itself with inalienable rights and intrinsic worth.

Q. From the passage, it can be inferred that none of the following are true according to Immanuel Kant's view to harm domestic animals EXCEPT that:

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

The expansion of the concept of "person" was perhaps always inevitable. Like the creative definitions of gambling in at least some U.S. states—designed to carve out a legal niche for riverboat casinos while prohibiting the same activity on terra firma—legal personhood for nonhumans was an available loophole that someone was always bound to try to jump through. If you are looking to secure protections for certain beings or environmental features that are otherwise at risk of exploitation, winning the status of person for them is a good way to get what you want.
For a long time, the only way under the law to protect an animal from wanton abuse was to characterize the abuse as harm to property, essentially no different from the sort of law that prevents you from smashing your neighbor's wheelbarrow. As for morality, if it was to enter into question at all, it was indirect incitement to moral depravity brought on by abuse of animals that justified any prohibition on harming them. Thus, philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted it is indeed wrong to harm domestic animals, but this still does not require us to suppose these animals are, as he would say, "ends in themselves." They can only ever be means to distinctly human ends while a child who grows up torturing these "means" is, at worst, going to be more prone to abusing human beings later in life—animal torture as a gateway to human torture—or, at best, is going to be stunted in his or her overall moral development.
In any case, such indirect protection generally only extends to domestic animals while the vast majority of animals belonging to the category we call "wildlife" cannot be protected as property because, by definition, they do not belong to anyone. Over the course of the 20th century, significant subcategories of wildlife would come to be legally protected as part of large-scale conservationist efforts. But the concern here was at the population level rather than the individual and typically implied no commitment to the irreducible worth, however that may be conceived, of any individual member of a given protected species.
For example, gorillas, it appears to many, are sufficiently like human beings in deserving not to be harmed for the same reasons we deserve not to be harmed: not because we belong to someone else and not because our species is at risk of disappearing but because we are—however one might wish to flesh this out in theoretical, metaphysical, or even religious terms—intrinsically worthy beings. The best way to recognize this apparent truth in law has been to reclassify gorillas—perhaps to "promote" them to the status of person as has been done with varying degrees of success in several European countries.
So far, this is the easy part. Again, the case for gorilla personhood has typically been made on the basis of an evident similitude of internal capacities they share with us. Even hippos have what appear to be big smiling faces and plainly love to eat, so they come across as relatable. But no one, at least no one directly involved in modern states' law-making institutions, will make a similar argument for rivers and mountains. Rivers, it is generally believed, have no internal capacities at all. They are not subjects. Yet today, at least some rivers have been reclassified as persons too. To bring such a river harm is to harm a person, a being that ought to be considered an end in itself with inalienable rights and intrinsic worth.

Q. Which of the following best states the flaw in conservation efforts aimed at 'wildlife' initiated during the 20th century?

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

The expansion of the concept of "person" was perhaps always inevitable. Like the creative definitions of gambling in at least some U.S. states—designed to carve out a legal niche for riverboat casinos while prohibiting the same activity on terra firma—legal personhood for nonhumans was an available loophole that someone was always bound to try to jump through. If you are looking to secure protections for certain beings or environmental features that are otherwise at risk of exploitation, winning the status of person for them is a good way to get what you want.
For a long time, the only way under the law to protect an animal from wanton abuse was to characterize the abuse as harm to property, essentially no different from the sort of law that prevents you from smashing your neighbor's wheelbarrow. As for morality, if it was to enter into question at all, it was indirect incitement to moral depravity brought on by abuse of animals that justified any prohibition on harming them. Thus, philosopher Immanuel Kant insisted it is indeed wrong to harm domestic animals, but this still does not require us to suppose these animals are, as he would say, "ends in themselves." They can only ever be means to distinctly human ends while a child who grows up torturing these "means" is, at worst, going to be more prone to abusing human beings later in life—animal torture as a gateway to human torture—or, at best, is going to be stunted in his or her overall moral development.
In any case, such indirect protection generally only extends to domestic animals while the vast majority of animals belonging to the category we call "wildlife" cannot be protected as property because, by definition, they do not belong to anyone. Over the course of the 20th century, significant subcategories of wildlife would come to be legally protected as part of large-scale conservationist efforts. But the concern here was at the population level rather than the individual and typically implied no commitment to the irreducible worth, however that may be conceived, of any individual member of a given protected species.
For example, gorillas, it appears to many, are sufficiently like human beings in deserving not to be harmed for the same reasons we deserve not to be harmed: not because we belong to someone else and not because our species is at risk of disappearing but because we are—however one might wish to flesh this out in theoretical, metaphysical, or even religious terms—intrinsically worthy beings. The best way to recognize this apparent truth in law has been to reclassify gorillas—perhaps to "promote" them to the status of person as has been done with varying degrees of success in several European countries.
So far, this is the easy part. Again, the case for gorilla personhood has typically been made on the basis of an evident similitude of internal capacities they share with us. Even hippos have what appear to be big smiling faces and plainly love to eat, so they come across as relatable. But no one, at least no one directly involved in modern states' law-making institutions, will make a similar argument for rivers and mountains. Rivers, it is generally believed, have no internal capacities at all. They are not subjects. Yet today, at least some rivers have been reclassified as persons too. To bring such a river harm is to harm a person, a being that ought to be considered an end in itself with inalienable rights and intrinsic worth.

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

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

1. Mutual aid is met with even amidst the lowest animals, and we must be prepared to learn some day, from the students of microscopic pond-life, facts of unconscious mutual support, even from the life of micro-organisms.

2. The first thing which strikes us as soon as we begin studying the struggle for existence under both its aspects - direct and metaphorical - is the abundance of facts of mutual aid, not only for rearing progeny, but also for the safety of the individual, and for providing it with the necessary food.

3. Of course, our knowledge of the life of the invertebrates, save the termites, the ants, and the bees, is extremely limited; and yet, even as regards the lower animals, we may glean a few facts of well-ascertained cooperation.

4. The numberless associations of locusts, cicadae, and so on, are practically quite unexplored; but the very fact of their existence indicates that they must be composed on about the same principles as the temporary associations of ants or bees for purposes of migration.

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

When it comes to enjoying life and making full use of it, there is no use looking at the ugly side of things, or grumbling about things not going fine. Instead, rejoice over whatever good things are happening in your life. Even at the age of 80, late actor Dev Anand, used to tell his fans that one should not let oneself be bogged down by the sorrows of life, and instead one must live one's life knowing that it is running out. What matters is your attitude towards the many developments in your daily life. If you take them as challenges, you are a winner; and if you shy away from accepting hard tasks, then you are letting yourself get into a pit that will consume you without letting you do anything good in life.

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: The Covid-19 pandemic gave added urgency to pandemic preparedness and the Indonesian presidency in 2022 made it the major focus.

Paragraph: Health needs to be a central agenda for the G20 2023. The G20 now has health finance in its financial stream and health systems development in the Sherpa stream. ___(1)___. The Indian presidency needs to advance these agendas. Health systems strengthening has engaged the global community in thinking through the content and directions - what is to be strengthened, and how? ___(2)___. The concept of Universal Health Coverage (UHC) was born in the 2000s to prevent catastrophic medical expenditures due to secondary and tertiary level hospital services by universalising health insurance coverage. ___(3)___. The UHC has been the big global approach for health systems strengthening since 2010, also adopted in 2015 as the strategy for Sustainable Development Goal-3 on ensuring healthcare for all at all ages. ___(4)___. However, the limited impact of this narrow strategy was soon evident, with expenditures on outdoor services becoming catastrophic for poor households and preventing access to necessary healthcare and medicines.

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

Writing for peace of mind and to reflect life in order to showcase its plus points and failings is the endeavour of every writer. Every writer has to go through this 'mission'. Writing is an instrument to seek solace in the difficult course of life that needs some 'crutches' for survival. When you sit to write, you are lost in a world that may be real or illusionary, and yet, for those moments, their utility in keeping you busy, and at times in sheer ecstasy, can't be undermined. Writing is the propeller of life that never fails to conquer the tide.

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

1. It is worth noting that, in doing so, a teacher will have to swim against the stream.

2. Any educators interested in or devoted to opening up the world to their students should consider wonder essential to the task, and will do their utmost to foster students' sense of wonder.

3. Wonder epitomises what education is about i.e. opening up the world.

4. Under the current system, an educational climate is created that is inhospitable to instigating a sense of wonder in students.

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

Although almost all climate scientists agree that the Earth is gradually warming, they have long been of two minds about the process of rapid climate shifts within larger periods of change. Some have speculated that the process works like a giant oven or freezer, warming or cooling the whole planet at the same time. Others think that shifts occur on opposing schedule in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, like exaggerated seasons. Recent research in Germany examining climate patterns in the Southern Hemisphere at the end of the last Ice Age strengthens the idea that warming and cooling occurs at alternate times in the two hemispheres. A more definitive answer to this debate will allow scientists to better predict when how quickly the next climate shift will happen.

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

1. This holds true even if more extensive physiological measures than body temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate or facial movements are monitored.

2. Our emotions cannot be inferred from physiological measures stripped bare of contextual information.

3. This is why we have not been able to create technological systems that can infer what you or I feel at a given moment and why we may never be able to build these all-reading all-knowing systems.

4. Scientists like psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett are finding that—contrary to long held belief—even emotions like sadness and anger are not universal.

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: But beyond such instances of moral emulation, at the heart of this pedagogic agenda was also a model of how humans are born: they emerge in a new womb carrying along with them all the deeds and knowledge from their previous lives.

Paragraph: The locus of virtue in Puranic stories lay not in ritual or rank but in sustaining commitment to an ideal that demanded some form of sacrifice. ___(1)___. When faced with morally complex situations in their own lives, the listeners could theoretically ask themselves: 'What would Shravana the filial son do?' ___(2)___. As a young boy, Mahatma Gandhi had seen a play about the legendary truthful king Harishchandra - a man who sacrifices everything for the sake of truth-telling. ___(3)___. He later wrote about the impact of that story in his life. ___(4)___. The role of these stories is therefore more than just simple moralising: by emulating the actions they prescribe, the stories help cleanse the mind, like a previously used but unwashed utensil, and help improve our abilities to choose better in life.

Directions: The following state-wise demographic information is available for the different states in North-East India. This demographic findings is conducted every 5 years, and the latest one was conducted this year in 2016.

Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males.

Birth Rate is the number of live births per 1000 population in a year

Literacy Rate is the percentage of the population who have the ability to read and write.

Each of these figures have been rounded off to the nearest integer.

The Government of India wants to track all these parameters and note key areas where the states have improved in the past 5 years. A higher sex ratio, higher literacy rate, and lower birth rate across this period is what the Government of India wants from these states.

Q. How many states were able to make the Government of India pleased on all three parameters?

Directions: The following state-wise demographic information is available for the different states in North-East India. This demographic findings is conducted every 5 years, and the latest one was conducted this year in 2016.

Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males.

Birth Rate is the number of live births per 1000 population in a year

Literacy Rate is the percentage of the population who have the ability to read and write.

Each of these figures have been rounded off to the nearest integer.

The Government of India wants to track all these parameters and note key areas where the states have improved in the past 5 years. A higher sex ratio, higher literacy rate, and lower birth rate across this period is what the Government of India wants from these states.

Q. What is the approximate average literacy rate for the states of North-East India in 2016 if the ratio of the populations of the states listed in alphabetical order is 1 : 1 : 1 : 2 : 3 : 1 : 2 : 4?

Directions: The following state-wise demographic information is available for the different states in North-East India. This demographic findings is conducted every 5 years, and the latest one was conducted this year in 2016.

Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males.

Birth Rate is the number of live births per 1000 population in a year

Literacy Rate is the percentage of the population who have the ability to read and write.

Each of these figures have been rounded off to the nearest integer.

The Government of India wants to track all these parameters and note key areas where the states have improved in the past 5 years. A higher sex ratio, higher literacy rate, and lower birth rate across this period is what the Government of India wants from these states.

Q. How many of these states saw an increase in the sex ratio figure by more than 3% during the 2011-2016 period?

Directions: The following state-wise demographic information is available for the different states in North-East India. This demographic findings is conducted every 5 years, and the latest one was conducted this year in 2016.

Sex Ratio is defined as the number of females per 1000 males.

Birth Rate is the number of live births per 1000 population in a year

Literacy Rate is the percentage of the population who have the ability to read and write.

Each of these figures have been rounded off to the nearest integer.

The Government of India wants to track all these parameters and note key areas where the states have improved in the past 5 years. A higher sex ratio, higher literacy rate, and lower birth rate across this period is what the Government of India wants from these states.

Q. If the population of Meghalaya increased by 20% during this period 2011-2016, then by how much approximate percent did the population of women increase by in that state?

Directions: The pie charts below show the distribution of yearly expenses of a family for the years 2015-16 and 2014-15.

Total annual expense for the year 2014-15 was 19.2 lakhs and for the year 2015-16 was 25 lakhs.

Q. What is the % change in transportation cost for the family in the financial year 2015-16 compared to the previous year?

Directions: The pie charts below show the distribution of yearly expenses of a family for the years 2015-16 and 2014-15.

Total annual expense for the year 2014-15 was 19.2 lakhs and for the year 2015-16 was 25 lakhs.

Q. What is the % increase in Housing expenditure for the year 2015-16?