CAT Mock Test- 6 - CAT MCQ

In the passage, the author comments on a human fallacy. They are more excited about the 'oomph' factor associated with comprehending an idea and are less concerned about analysing the idea's quality, as it's laborious and often unrewarding. This often results in people misinterpreting the true value/usefulness of the idea.
Option A is a distortion as the passage does not state that people are primarily motivated by an idea's ability to disrupt the prevalent worldview.
Option B talks about gratification, which is tangential to the discussion. 
Option C conveys the above inference. People are drawn to ideas, but they are often reluctant to carry out a qualitative analysis, leading to false impressions about the true worth of these ideas. Option C is the answer.
Option D has not been implied in the passage.

"We allow ideas' psychological effects on us rather their logical qualities to determine how we receive them. Unfortunately, given the way human minds work, bad ideas are more likely to have these attractive psychological effects than good ones." Statement I can be inferred from these lines. Hence, the author is likely to agree with it.
Statement II has not been implied in the passage. In the penultimate paragraph, the author comments that the feeling of gaining new knowledge and perspective clouds our ability to judge the quality of the ideas, including the bad ones. Furthermore, the statement is in sharp contrast to what the author discusses. To conclude that an idea is bad or good, people must assess its quality.  But according to the author, people almost always avoid this exercise. Hence, Statement II is wrong.
The author states the following about new ideas- {Indeed they do allow us to see the world differently. But while that shift in perspective generates a feeling of insight, that is not in itself evidence that we are now seeing things as they truly are.} So, the author does believe in an idea's ability to generate a fresh perspective but wants people to carry out a qualitative evaluation before confirming it. Hence, the author will agree with Statement III.
Statement IV is a distortion. The author states, "Unfortunately, most ideas are bad - wrong, misleading, dangerous, or of very limited use or relevance. " But he is also worried about the dreadful consequences of bad ideas, like conspiracy theories. So, though of little value, these ideas can have a big impact on the functioning of the world. Statement IV does not align with the author's view.
Statement II and IV are not likely to receive the author's approval. Hence, Option B is the answer. 

"Consider the perennial attraction of conspiracy theories (and most religions), which offer an alternative simplified way of making sense of the strange and unwelcome things happening in the world by turning them into a meaningful story with ourselves at the centre. This has the benefit of reducing the cognitive burdens of understanding the world." Option B can be inferred from these lines.
"In addition, the structure of these theories is distinctly flattering to believers: since the conspiracists are trying so hard to fool us, we must be important after all; since we can see through their ploys, we must be more powerful than we seemed." Option C can be inferred as well.
"This, in turn, gives you the feeling of gaining genuinely new and important knowledge, of enlightenment: of seeing further and truer than you did before and than all those other people still stuck in their dark cave." Option D can be inferred from these lines.
Option A has not been implied. The author does not assert that believing in conspiracy theories causes people to look down on or belittle others. Therefore, Option A is the correct answer.

"....getting an idea is just a matter of understanding it (or thinking that you do) and this is just as easy in the case of bad ideas as it is for good ones..." Thus, the author opines that both good ideas and bad ideas require a similar intellectual effort to understand them. However, since they are classified in the passage as good and bad by the author, they differ in quality by default.
Option A is a distortion. It is not possible to conclude that these ideas are understood equally by all. There could always be a subjective element involved.
Option B is wrong. They are distinguishable and are not of equal quality.
Option C conveys the author's position correctly and is the answer.
Option D has not been implied in the passage. It can be eliminated.

Let us pay heed to the following excerpt: {"...it might force the victim to reconcile with the perpetrator in an effort to end the behaviour, even if the victim doesn’t know why they’re apologizing..."} The author claims that the victims of ostracism might apologise to reconcile with the perpetrator despite being unaware of their mistake (unable to pinpoint them). However, the author doesn't establish a corollary to the same, which suggests that the perpetrators are at fault and are not justified in their treatment of the victims, hence undeserving of an apology. Hence, Option A is not true as per the passage. 
"...Some people may not even consciously choose it at all..." - this line from the passage makes Option B true.
"...The silent treatment might be employed by passive personality types to avoid conflict and confrontation..." - this line from the passage makes option D true as well.
"One study found that social rejection provoked a response in its victims similar to that of victims of physical abuse; the anterior cingulate cortex area of the brain—the area thought to interpret emotion and pain—was active in both instances." The silent treatment is a form of social rejection. Hence, option C is true.
Hence, Option A is the correct choice. 

"The silent treatment is a particularly insidious form of abuse because it might force the victim to reconcile with the perpetrator in an effort to end the behavior, even if the victim doesn’t know why they’re apologizing. “It’s especially controlling because it deprives both sides from weighing in,” Williams said." From these lines, it is clear that both the victim and the perpetrator may not be entirely approving of the manner of reconciliation. But nevertheless, the author does not assert that the perpetrators reject these reconciliatory efforts in most cases. Further evidence is required to validate this claim. Hence, option A cannot be inferred. 
It is mentioned in the passage that giving the silent treatment may become addictive for the perpetrator, but it is not enough for us to infer whether the extent of addiction is the same as that associated with the consumption of hard drugs. Option C cannot be inferred.
In the passage, it has been mentioned that not only does the victim get harmed, but also the perpetrator himself. But, from this, we cannot infer the relative degree of harm caused. Option D cannot be inferred.
From the fifth paragraph, we can infer that the perpetrator can either consciously or unintentionally give someone a silent treatment. If the choice was made consciously, then the reasons would vary with different personality types. But it does not matter to the victim. What matters to him is that he feels abandoned. So, option B can be inferred.

In the last paragraph, the author makes the following observation - "Humans are predisposed to reciprocate social cues, so ignoring someone goes against our nature, Williams said. The perpetrator is therefore forced to justify the behaviour in order to keep doing it; they keep in mind all the reasons they’re choosing to ignore someone."
So, the perpetrators are forced to justify their behaviour because it goes against inherent human nature. Comparing the options, option B captures this idea correctly and is the answer.
Options A and C have not been implied in the passage and can be safely eliminated.
Though the silent treatment can be addictive, the author does not discuss the link between justification and prolonging the addiction in the passage. Option D can be eliminated as well.

The reason behind this labelling can be found in the following excerpt: { Worse, the silent treatment can become addictive. The father who couldn’t force himself to speak to his son again suffered the way many addicts suffer—through repeating an activity despite knowing its harm. “Most people who start giving the silent treatment never intend for it to go on for as long as it does, but it can be very difficult to stop,” Williams told me. “It’s psychological quicksand.” } The author highlights the detriment that silent treatment causes to the perpetrators - it becomes difficult to escape such behaviour. A quicksand often appears to be deceptively solid to tread; however, the moment you step on it, it entraps you and makes it nearly impossible to escape. Thus, from the above lines, it is evident that the 'psychological quicksand' is a metaphor for the addictive and non-abating nature of ostracism. On comparing the given options, we notice that Option C is closest to this interpretation.
The other options are tangential to the discussion and do not convey the point discussed above:
Option A: The focus is on the perpetrators and not on the victims. Thus, Option A can be eliminated.
Option B: The statement here partially captures the idea but fails to fails to hit the nail on the head. "What kind of behavioural transformation occurs?" - This question needs to be answered. The option, in this case, does not tell us about the manner of this psychological change and hence, can be discarded. 
Option D: This contains a distortion of the vicious cycle and thus can be eliminated.
Hence, Option C is the correct answer.

The author explains the relevance of the statement using the American example, which has tried, albeit without success, to regulate the usage of guns. This is because, even though nearly two-thirds of the population favours gun regulation, they are not entirely devoted to this one cause. On the contrary, the minority, which voices the gun's role in protecting personal freedom, is almost exclusively devoted to this cause. Comparing the options, option D conveys this inference correctly.
All other options are either distorted or do not convey the inference elucidated above. Option A talks about short-term and long-term objectives, which is a distortion. 
Option B adds the distortion of homogenous and heterogeneous groups. The passage does not say that the group for guns is homogenous or the one opposed is heterogeneous. 
Option C is a stretch. It cannot be concluded based on the passage that strength due to number is irrelevant. Further, focus on one cause cannot be equated to depth.

"In fact, there are nearly as many motor-vehicle deaths each year in this country as there are firearm deaths, but far more people have access to cars on a daily basis than to guns." Even though the frequency of access to firearms is much lesser than the access to cars, the number of deaths is almost equal. So, option A is wrong.
"..fight for the right to life, as it is called, which, has, through small-bore actions, effectively curtailed abortion rights throughout the South, particularly for low-income women and women of colour. This is a repellent parallel for progressives..."  From these lines, it can be inferred that progressives are against the curtailment of abortion rights, but it cannot be concluded that women of colour and low-income women back progressive measures. Option B can be eliminated.
".. big change happens through incremental measures." The author backs this statement with the help of the abortion rights and motor-vehicle regulation examples, where incremental actions have led to significant developments. Hence, option C can be inferred.
"..And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts.." The phrase is not categorical. It seldom matters but could matter in some cases, nevertheless. Hence, it cannot be concluded that the origin is inconsequential or irrelevant in all cases
Option C is the answer.

"And, as reformers well know, it does not always matter where the reform starts—if it starts at all, it magnetizes other reforms toward it." So, once one reform movement starts, it could expand to include under its umbrella other reform movements as well. Option A can be inferred.
In the antepenultimate paragraph, the author discusses how state and local level regulations have resulted in a decrease in motor-vehicle incidents. Also, in the third paragraph, the author points out that states with strong gun laws have significantly fewer gun deaths. Hence, the author would agree with option B.
"The truth of reform is that it can begin anywhere, on any scale, and, once begun, it tends to be self-renewing." Reform, once it has begun, can be self-renewing. Hence, option c can be inferred.
Option D runs contrary to the author's efforts in the passage. The author mentions Yglesias' counsel and says that this is a policy of despair. In fact, he argues in the subsequent paragraphs that we need not resign ourselves to this policy. Hence, the author is not likely to argue for heeding the counsel.
Therefore, Option D is the correct answer. 

The author makes the analogy in the fourth paragraph. He is prompted to do so to counter the analogy between guns and alcohol. Yglesias argued that banning guns would be as ineffective as banning alcohol. The author disagrees and instead puts forward the analogy between guns and cars - similar to guns, cars when used irresponsibly can kill people. The author then uses the example of cars to drive home two points - given their potential for deadly harm, access to cars is heavily regulated with licenses and training. Similarly, local and state-level regulations, that have been effective in the case of cars, can also be effective for gun control. Thus, the overall purpose of making the analogy is to argue that gun control is not futile as argued by Yglesias. Car regulations show that gun control reforms are possible. Option B which captures this is the right answer.
Option A is an exaggeration. The author does not extend his argument for all instruments of action with potential deadly use. Moreover, the focus is not on the fact that both are instruments of action but on making the case for gun control reforms.
Option C is beyond the scope of the passage. The author does not discuss which level of regulation is more effective.
Option D is a distortion of what is given in the passage. The author never says that limiting access to guns is less important. The author says that even though cars are more accessible than guns, the number of deaths caused by cars is lesser due to regulation. Thus, the author does not say that one form of gun control is more important than another.

Option A cannot be inferred from the passage. In the third paragraph, the author states that there existed a tension between speed and accuracy and that intellectuals paid hefty sums for timely and accurate information. Hence, quick and prompt reporting need not necessarily compromise accuracy.
Option B is a distortion. Promulgation of falsehoods and rumours have always followed the same basic steps - discovery and amplification.  But, from the printing press to social media, different channels have been employed.
Option C cannot be inferred from the passage. The author does not say that the newspapers took any such action with the intention of protecting trust.
{"Early journalists were far from perfect, and many of the first newspapers competed for attention by aggressively peddling false, outrageous, or nakedly partisan stories, gruesome crime coverage in particular."}  Option D can be inferred from this line.
Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

In the first paragraph, the author makes the following observation- 
{Many of these stories were consequence-free, such as the widely believed report in 1569 of a Leicestershire woman who was “confirmed” to have given birth to a cat. Others led to tragedy and horror, such as viral rumours that the Black Plague was caused by Jews poisoning wells, which led to executions and violent pogroms throughout Europe} Thus, the consequences of rumours were not always serious but, on occasions, have attracted tragedy and horror. Comparing the options, Option A conveys this inference correctly.
Option B: deceives the author's tone in the passage. The author is wary of the consequences of peddling fake news. Option B is more of a reassuring statement, which is not the author's intention. Additionally, the author doesn't talk about the repercussions with a time span in his mind; instead, his focus is on the severity of the outcome. Option B can be eliminated.
Option C: Although the examples discussed led to consequences that fall on either end of the spectrum, this cannot be generalised. This is not the author's main intention.
Option D: comes close but contains 2 distortions. The author does not say that the pogroms against the Jews were unexpected. Also, the degree has been altered from 'many' to 'most' when it comes to the number of cases that are harmless.
Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

In the passage, the author advocates the need for verifying the content that's circulated online and is wary of the pace and scale at which misinformation is promulgated in the absence of a friction mechanism.
Option A is in line with the author's concern. It would slow down the pace of information exchange and sharing. It would also nudge people to evaluate the content before sharing. Similarly, Options C and D do not contradict the author's viewpoint. They serve to render requisite friction (the option to verify content) and thereby reduce the spread of misinformation.
In the last paragraph, the author mentions that "Reduced friction has enabled important new voices to be heard". The author is more concerned about the veracity of the information and not the source of it. The measure described in Option B may stifle genuine information from sources that wish to be anonymous, and hence, the author might be reluctant to agree with such a proposition.
Hence, Option B is the correct choice. 

Statement I has not been implied in the passage (no mention of established facts being refuted) and hence, cannot be inferred.
"Newsmen added “friction” to the process of sharing knowledge, painstakingly validating stories through second-and third-hand sources before they published—lest they lose their reputation and sponsors." Statement II can be inferred from this line.
In the fourth paragraph, the author states, "We learned to trust journalists, largely because they fact-check rumours." But this has not been laid out as the sole reason. The author does not negate the role the publishing of authentic information plays in generating trust. Hence, statement III cannot be inferred.
Statement IV is a distortion. In the second paragraph, the author states, "Widespread belief in certain types of viral rumours poses a threat to institutions that we rely on, including democracy itself." But this observation cannot be equated to the "amendment of the core values." Misinformation campaigns undermine the institution itself. Statement IV cannot be inferred.
Hence, statements I, III and IV can not be inferred from the passage - Option C is the correct answer.

The passage talks about the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue coupled with the joint military exercises between the United States, India, Japan, and Australia. The author mentions that this was initiated as a response to China's growing economic and militaristic strength. Statement 2  cites the origin of this initiative, thereby being the introductory comment. Statement 1 follows 2 as 'the dialogue' in 1 refers to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue introduced earlier. The additional element to this joint drill is further stated (military exercises). Statement 4 presents the rationale behind the aforementioned enterprise (Quad Security dialogue + military exercises) - the intention was to counteract or respond to China's growing economic and military strength. Statement 3 concludes the discussion by depicting China's response (in the form of diplomatic protests) to this alliance. Hence, 2-1-4-3 forms a coherent paragraph. 

The passage discusses the lack of knowledge concerning the microbiome at the ISS and how this aspect is being dealt with. Sentence 4 is the starting sentence because it sets the context. It mentions the presence of about 100 trillion microorganisms (carried mainly by astronauts to space), many of which can jeopardise human health. Sentence 3 will follow 4 as it states that despite the fact stated in 4, we are still in the dark about how these microorganisms react to microgravity. Sentence 2 resonates with the idea in 3 and highlights the intention to change the status quo (by undertaking new studies). Sentence 1 elaborates on one such 'new study'. Therefore, we notice that 4-3-2-1 forms a coherent paragraph.

At first glance, either 1 or 3 would make a suitable opening sentence; but on looking through all the sentences, it becomes clear that sentence 1 encapsulates the main topic of the paragraph (the distribution of camelids) better, and so makes for a better first sentence. Sentences 3 and 5 then follow from 1, as they talk about the origin and spread of camelids, respectively, in chronological order. Sentence 2 states that the original camelids of North America disappeared; and sentence 4 lists the species groups of camelids that survived on other continents. Thus, 2 and 4 illustrate the point stated in the first sentence – that the current distribution of camelids is the reverse of their origin – and therefore, together, they conclude the paragraph. Hence, 13524.

To determine the correct placement of the sentence, we need to consider the overall flow and coherence of the paragraph. Let's analyze each option:

- Option 1: Placing the sentence as the first sentence of the paragraph would provide a clear introduction to the topic of mental health being a taboo. It sets the context for the following sentences that discuss the causes and challenges related to mental health. This option is correct.

- Option 2: Placing the sentence as the second sentence of the paragraph disrupts the flow. It would jump straight into discussing the causes of mental health issues without introducing the topic of mental health being a taboo. This option is incorrect.

- Option 3: Placing the sentence as the third sentence of the paragraph would disrupt the flow. It would discuss awareness campaigns and access to professional help without establishing the context of mental health being a taboo. This option is incorrect.

- Option 4: Placing the sentence as the last sentence of the paragraph would disrupt the flow. It would conclude the paragraph without addressing the challenges related to mental health and the need to overcome prejudices. This option is incorrect.

Therefore, the correct answer is option A: 1.

The sentence introducing the concept of Mars colonization fits perfectly after the initial mention of space exploration's general goals, setting a specific context before discussing technological advancements in broader terms.

The passage discusses social media’s dual nature, emphasizing its dangerous potential during crises due to misinformation. Option B correctly identifies this challenge, suggesting solutions like increased digital literacy and regulation, reflecting the passage’s nuanced stance. Other options are either overly positive, negate the problem discussed, or completely miss the passage’s main point.

This passage highlights the promising aspects of "smart cities" but devotes significant attention to the potential downsides and criticisms. Option B is correct because it captures this balance and the essence of the critique without either glorifying or outright dismissing the concept. Other options misinterpret the passage, leaning too heavily towards the benefits or the negatives, or inaccurately describing modern urban planning.

The passage emphasizes the ethical concerns and environmental impacts surrounding space tourism, advocating for regulations. Option B captures this essence, discussing both the need for mitigating environmental harm and addressing the economic aspects. The other options either disregard key points or present inaccurate affirmations.

Throughout the passage, the author explains that the candle provides a personal touch that lamps are not capable of providing. By stating that a lamp can never compete with the power of the candle, the author does not imply that lamps are not as powerful as candles. Rather, he emphasizes that lamps can never provide the touch that the candles are capable of providing. 

We can eliminate option A since the author is not worried about the anachronistic comparison. Nowhere has the author mentioned that the comparison is between the light sources of different eras. Options B and C can be eliminated since the author has not compared the power of the lamp or the nature of the light it produces to that of the candle. The author believes that the comparison undermines the intimacy that the candle provides to the reader and hence, option D is the right answer.

The author mentions that the Pleiades have a profound impact. They are not profound in the night-sky. The author mentions that they sometimes vanish from the vision and are barely visible at other times. 

Option A can be eliminated since the author explains the philosophical aspects of the light from the Pleiades. The author does not reduce the significance of the Pleiades to their utility. Therefore, we can eliminate option A.

Option B can be eliminated since it mentions that the stars are invisible. They are barely visible and vanish from the vision sometimes.

We can eliminate option D since it mentions that the Pleiades are profound in the night-sky.
Only option C is correct (the Pleiades are at times not visible to the human eye) and hence, it is the right answer.

The author mentions that the light for a bed-book should accord with it. He states that the coarse lamp cannot compete with the intimacy that the candle light provides. 

Let us evaluate the options.

Option A mentions that a coarse lamp cannot keep the evil at bay. The author refers to the shadows and darkness as the monstrous specters. Therefore, he does not refer to a ghost or spirit using the term and hence, we can eliminate option A. 

Option B states that the self-illuminating stories do away with the need for an external light source. The author just mentions that the glow should accompany the story of the book. Also, the author recommends having a candle and hence, we can eliminate option B.

Option D can be eliminated since the author uses the term 'douse' to indicate that coarse lamps do not have a character and undermine the story. He does not use the term literally and hence, we can eliminate option D as well. 

Option C captures the fact that the coarse lamp lacks the personal touch of a candle flame and this is the reason why the author is against coarse lamps. Therefore, option C is the right answer.

Nowhere has it been mentioned that the author was frightened on hearing the shriek. We can eliminate option D.

It has been given in the first passage that the candle flame jumps on the shriek. Also, the groaning noise slowly rises to a shriek. It is unlikely for a candle flame to shudder due to noise. The shriek should have been caused due to the flow of the wind and the candle should have shuddered due to the wind (not due to the noise). Therefore, option B is the right answer. 

None of the options can be inferred from the passage. The passage is about the author's preference for candlelight while reading a book in bed, and does not provide any information about academic administrators, professors, or motivators of productivity in an academic setup.

(a) The Etre speedometer is the costliest among the four brands of speedometer.
(g) Tajaj engines are the cheapest among the four engine brands.
(c) Chelin tires can be fitted only with Abco brakes and Tajaj engine.
(e) The costliest brakes are neither of Cando nor of Losa brand.
(f) Abco brakes and Lanta speedometer are used on the same bike.

(b) Losa brakes can be fitted only with Kapollo tires.
(h) Dale speedometer cannot be used with Chelin and Kapollo tires.
(d) NRF tires cannot be fitted with Genfield engine, and Zeat tires can be fitted only with Kamaha engine.

Possibility 1

Possibility 2