Test: Odd One Out- 1 - CAT MCQ

3145 is the correct order. Option 3 introduces the topic, which speaks of the priesthood in Egypt and their qualities. Option 1 speaks of how priests were treated. Option 4 explains which subjects the priests dedicated their life to while Option 5 concludes by explaining the importance of the priesthood in ancient Egypt. Option 2 is incorrect because it explains why temples were constructed in Egypt-this is not what the paragraph is concerned with. Moreover, the noun "such rites" has no antecedent in any of the other sentences.

Sentences 1 and 3 talk about the importance of having a good educational system and sentence 4 gives the result of not having a good one. Thus, 1, 3, and 4 form a coherent passage with the right sequence as 3-1-4. Sentence 2 talks about the positive impact progress of society has caused. Thus, 2 is the odd one out.

Sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5 talk about the riddles or problems that philosophers have set out to solve and sentence 1 describes the shortcomings of the methods the philosophers have used to represent their data. Thus, sentence 1 is the odd one out. The proper sequence of the given sentences is 3-2-5-4.

It is evident that 2 should be the part of the passage since it introduces the subjects- Mexico and Peru. It talks about the greatness of Mexico and Peru. Sentence 4 continues the same idea stating that a philosophical student might feel inclined to study more about these nations who emerged from barbarism to place themselves on a higher point. Between 1 and 3, former is a better choice for the passage because 1 talks about how despite being similar to each other in extent of civilization, these countries were different. This will make a better link with 4. But 3 is a very specific remark about topographical aspects of these countries which abruptly takes the attention to a different topic. So, the answer should be C.

It is evident that the passage is talking about either Independent sales agent or Insurance sales agent. Both 2 and 3 cannot fit into the same passage. 2 talks about potential for income and career advancements. 4 starts with ‘though there are benefits’ indicating that it should follow 2. 3 talks about benefit of being an Independent sales agent and will offer a better transition to 1 than what 2 will provide. Thus, the answer is B.

The sentences 1,2,3 and 5 talk about the importance of raising children with a strong will. Sentence 4 talks about changing the habits of a strong willed and obstinate child. Thus, sentence 4 is the odd one out. The correct order of the sentences is 5-1-3-2.

Sentence 1 is the best opening sentence as it introduces a topic which is being discussed in the other sentences. Sentence 4 should follow sentence 1 as it elaborates on the point mentioned in sentence 1. i.e how history of naval war has been repeatedly presented to the users. Sentence 3 fits better after sentence 4 as it continues the idea presented in sentence 4 and moves to the specific type of writing style. i.e. monograms. Sentence 2 which talks about works of authors but is very generic in nature and hence sentence 3 is a better choice to follow sentence 4. So option 2 is out of context.

Sentence 2 and 4 cannot be the starting sentences as sentence 4 starts with “ it has cleared”, so it is not clear what is it referring to. Similarly, sentence 2 starts with “and the result is” so it is talking about the result of some event. Sentence 3 and 4 form a pair as sentence 3 talks about what mankind has done over the years and sentence 4 goes on to explain the same point in detail. Sentence 2 logically follows sentence 4 as it discusses the impact of the work which has been done by the mankind. So, 342 forms a logical sequence. Sentence one which talks about how machinery has improved the production capacity does not fit in the above sequence as it talks impact of machines on the production capacity of humans. It can be a part of a subsequent paragraph but it does not fit the context of this paragraph. So the correct answer is option 1.

Statement 4 talks about the fact that war has entered into its fourth year. In the statement I the author says that no one can predict that how long will it last. So statement 4 and 1 are related. Statement 2 goes on to explain the point mentioned in statement 1 that why is it difficult to forecast the duration of the war. Hence sentences 412 form a logical sequence. Statement 3 talks about plans of evolution and education which is nowhere related to the other three sentences. Hence statement 3 is out of context.

Sentences 4351 form a coherent paragraph about how to make the world a better place whereas sentence 2 talks about reducing the dependence on fuel sources which have a negative effect on the environment. Thus sentence 2 is the odd one out.

Sentence 2 is the odd one out because it introduces a term, "theory of mind," and discusses scholars' preferences for alternative terms like "mentalizing" or "mindreading." Unlike the other sentences, which focus on explaining and elaborating on the concept of understanding others' mental states, sentence 2 provides more of a meta-discussion about the terminology used to describe this capacity rather than directly contributing to the explanation of the topic.

The other sentences contribute to the substantive discussion of the capacity to perceive and interpret other people's behavior in terms of their mental states, making sentence 2 the odd one out in the context of forming a coherent paragraph.

Sentence 2 is the odd one out because it introduces a broader statement about attempts to ban books and silence authors, while the other sentences are specifically focused on the banning and challenging of books in the US. Sentences 1, 3, 4, and 5 collectively form a coherent paragraph discussing the banning of Northern Lights and the escalation of book challenges in the US, while Sentence 2 introduces a different perspective that doesn't directly contribute to the flow of the paragraph regarding the specific incidents and trends mentioned in the other sentences.

Sentence 3 is the odd one out because it introduces a different topic compared to the other sentences. While the other sentences focus on the naming patterns of numbers in English, especially the irregularities and variations in the system, sentence 3 shifts the focus to the learning process of children and their understanding of the differences between numbers like "fourteen" and "forty." The other sentences contribute to the discussion about the intricacies of English number naming, making sentence 3 less aligned with the central theme of the paragraph.

Sentence 3 is the odd one out because it introduces a different perspective. While the other sentences discuss the negative outcomes associated with self-care in children, Sentence 3 suggests a need to consider that the bulk of research has yet to track long-term consequences. This sentence introduces a more neutral or balanced viewpoint that doesn't align with the general theme of the other sentences, which focus on the negative aspects of self-care for children.

The remaining sentences (1, 2, 4, and 5) can be put together to form a coherent paragraph discussing the concept of self-care in relation to children, particularly those referred to as "Latchkey children."

Sentence 2 is the odd one out because it does not directly contribute to the theme of a shift in hiring priorities towards soft skills. Sentences 1, 3, 4, and 5 all discuss changes in hiring practices, the importance of soft skills, and the response to the pandemic, creating a coherent narrative. In contrast, Sentence 2 introduces a more general idea about redefining the ideal candidate without specifically addressing the shift towards prioritizing soft skills, making it the odd one out in the context of the paragraph's focus.

The given collection of statements focuses on predatory journals. The author begins by mentioning the subject {Statement 1} in a grim tone. He highlights the kind of claims that these journals state: presence in 'influential databases', quality 'editorial boards' and a 'rigorous peer-review structure' {Statement 4}. On the surface, 'they are exactly like any reputed journal' {Statement 3}. However, the ground reality is starkly different: paying money allows you to publish anything in such predatory journal {Statement 2}. Hence, arrangement 1432 forms a coherent paragraph with predatory journals as the centre of attention. 

Statement 5 deviates from this subject. Although the topic seems to be about academic publishing, the focus is no longer on predatory journals, but instead, it becomes a bit broader. 

Hence, Statement 5 as the odd one out. 

The sentences have been taken from Harvard's Justice, and have been modified considerably. Since a paragraph has not been directly taken here, the better way of elimination here would be to evaluate the major points of each sentence and see which one runs tangent to the discussion at hand. (During the examination, one must try both ways to solve: arranging and eliminating.)

1. Using the debate on biotechnology to evaluate moral arguments.

2. Why is bioengineering disputed?

3. The promise of bioengineering.

4. Ethics of bioengineering based on theology.

5. The theological argument.

We can see here that the last four sentences try to examine why bioengineering is disputed in spite of its huge potential. Then reasons are given about the question on its ethicality, and how it is closely associated with theology on the matter.

1 however runs tangential to the discussion. The main focus is bioengineering while 1 aims to shift the focus and use the debate on the matter as a stepping stone to reach another goal: evaluating/formulating moral arguments.

Hence, option 1 is the odd one out here.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph must be about the disparity in the representation of different genders. Sentences 1,2,3, and 5 are concerned with the problems that arise when the representation of females is less.  

4, however, runs tangent to the discussion at hand. It talks about 'structural inequalities'. This sentence, if included in the paragraph, would render it incomplete as all the other sentences talk about gender inequality and not structural inequality.

Hence, option 4 is out of context here.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph is about the inadequacy of laws about commercial activities in space in the wake of rapid technological developments in the same field. All sentences, other than 4, talk about this inadequacy or highlight why the laws are inadequate.

Option 4 is out of context here, as it talks about the US disrespecting international law. It does not relate to the inadequacy of space law for commercial activities, and hence, is the answer.

A brief reading of the sentences tells us that the paragraph is about Chinese business schools and how they stand in comparison to their western counterparts. 2 mentions that thought they have a similar outlook, Chinese business schools have a different curriculum and are also different in what they have to offer. 1, 4, and 5 further talk about the peculiarity of the Chinese schools.

3, however, runs tangent to the discussion. It shifts the focus from Chinese schools and describes western schools.

Hence,option 3 is out of the context here.