CAT Exam  >  CAT Tests  >  CAT Mock Test Series 2024  >  CAT Mock Test - 20 - CAT MCQ

CAT Mock Test - 20 - CAT MCQ


Test Description

66 Questions MCQ Test CAT Mock Test Series 2024 - CAT Mock Test - 20

CAT Mock Test - 20 for CAT 2024 is part of CAT Mock Test Series 2024 preparation. The CAT Mock Test - 20 questions and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus.The CAT Mock Test - 20 MCQs are made for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for CAT Mock Test - 20 below.
Solutions of CAT Mock Test - 20 questions in English are available as part of our CAT Mock Test Series 2024 for CAT & CAT Mock Test - 20 solutions in Hindi for CAT Mock Test Series 2024 course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free. Attempt CAT Mock Test - 20 | 66 questions in 120 minutes | Mock test for CAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study CAT Mock Test Series 2024 for CAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
CAT Mock Test - 20 - Question 1

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

Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.

But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.

Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.

Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.

Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.

Q. What is the tone of the author in the last para of the passage?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test - 20 - Question 1
In the said para, the author is both stating some facts and giving his own opinions. And the tone can only be that which can suffice both the things aptly. Belligerent = hostile, aggressive, and the author is not at all being aggressive in his tone here. Condescending = patronising, but the author is not humiliating the philanthropists here. Facetious = inappropriate does not bear any relevance. Subjective = descriptive, which is the correct answer, is aptly sufficing both the facts and opinions context.
CAT Mock Test - 20 - Question 2

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

Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.

But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.

Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.

Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.

Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.

Q. Which of the following instances could comply to the words of the author in the passage where he says that the philanthropists underwrote the efforts of others?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test - 20 - Question 2
The meaning of the author's words in the passage is that the philanthropists often provide grants to the NGOs, service providers and activists, who actually do the work of taking the needful services to the required grassroots, while these philanthropists get all the name when they not even do the actual work. Both A & C will be true here because the companies (Facebook and Walmart) are reaching the grassroot levels themselves and not just giving grants to others, in turn, not doing the real work. B will not follow because it clearly shows that Pepsi just gives grants and does not engage in actually doing the work. Hence, D will be the correct answer.
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
CAT Mock Test - 20 - Question 3

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

Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.

But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.

Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.

Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.

Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.

Q. Which of the following could be the reason(s) for the basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities taking 30 years to gain acceptance even after the leading medical journal published strong evidence in support of it?

I. Even though evidence was given, the journal was not able to actively preach the importance of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities.

II. It was a substantial change in the normal practices that were being followed till the time, and so, acceptance of something this different and of this scale took time.

III. Some of the researches previously published in the said journal were later deemed false upon further investigations; hence, people were sceptical about adopting one of its advices again - the reason it took so much time.

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test - 20 - Question 3
The underlying theme of (II) is the exact context on which the last para, which contains the question, starts; hence, we can clearly say that (II) will follow. Neither we know anything about the preaching, nor about any false reports for either of (I) or (III) to be the correct answer here. Hence, B will be the answer.