1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App |
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Déjà vu — French for “already seen” — is a mental sensation of intense familiarity coupled with the awareness that the familiarity is mistaken. It’s a recognition we know is wrong, a memory we know doesn’t exist. This conflict between what we know and what we remember is why déjà vu feels so eerie — almost paranormal or out-of-body. This awareness is very common. Déjà vu is almost impossible to study — people are rarely hooked up to electrodes or undergoing internal scans when they experience it — so most information about the sensation comes from self-reports, which suggest at least two-thirds of people will experience this fleeting mental trickery at some point in their lives. People who travel often or who watch a lot of movies may be more prone to déjà vu than others who don’t. The sensation does not seem to occur before age 8-9 (or perhaps children younger than that don’t have the ability to describe it), and experiences of déjà vu become less common as we age.
But as for why we experience déjà vu at all — that’s less clear. Multiple theories attempt to explain it, with each being a potentially legitimate source of the sensation. Like a physical itch, the mental itch of déjà vu likely has many causes, experts say.
Probably the strongest theory, with some experimental backing, is that the false familiarity isn’t a sign of faulty memory, so much as it’s a sign of a well-functioning brain that actively fact-checks itself. Human memory is notoriously faulty and malleable; this theory holds that déjà vu occurs as our brains’ frontal regions evaluate our memories and flag an error.
Another explanation for déjà vu, with some experimental findings to back it up, is that our stored memories still influence our present perception even if we can’t consciously recall them. A 2012 study that immersed participants in different virtual reality scenes saw most report déjà vu when viewing a scene that appeared similar to a previous one — even if they could not directly recall the earlier scene or its similarity. They just found the new scene inexplicably familiar.
Other explanations for déjà vu are more speculative. One suggests that déjà vu occurs when a familiar object appears incongruously. Seeing known objects or people out of context or unexpectedly is when familiarity strikes us, not seeing them within the usual, expected context. For instance, seeing your building’s security guard at the gate wouldn’t feel familiar — it just is; but seeing him at a restaurant might bring feelings of familiarity, even if you can’t place him. In the moment of out-of-context perception, our brains process the familiarity of known things first, even if we don’t consciously recognize them, and that initial familiarity can color our perception of the whole otherwise-unfamiliar experience. But ultimately, the mechanisms behind the creeping been-here-done-this-before feeling are as mysterious as the sensation itself. But one thing scientists know for sure: déjà vu becomes more common when we are stressed and tired.
Q. According to the author, Deja vu is almost impossible to study because:
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Déjà vu — French for “already seen” — is a mental sensation of intense familiarity coupled with the awareness that the familiarity is mistaken. It’s a recognition we know is wrong, a memory we know doesn’t exist. This conflict between what we know and what we remember is why déjà vu feels so eerie — almost paranormal or out-of-body. This awareness is very common. Déjà vu is almost impossible to study — people are rarely hooked up to electrodes or undergoing internal scans when they experience it — so most information about the sensation comes from self-reports, which suggest at least two-thirds of people will experience this fleeting mental trickery at some point in their lives. People who travel often or who watch a lot of movies may be more prone to déjà vu than others who don’t. The sensation does not seem to occur before age 8-9 (or perhaps children younger than that don’t have the ability to describe it), and experiences of déjà vu become less common as we age.
But as for why we experience déjà vu at all — that’s less clear. Multiple theories attempt to explain it, with each being a potentially legitimate source of the sensation. Like a physical itch, the mental itch of déjà vu likely has many causes, experts say.
Probably the strongest theory, with some experimental backing, is that the false familiarity isn’t a sign of faulty memory, so much as it’s a sign of a well-functioning brain that actively fact-checks itself. Human memory is notoriously faulty and malleable; this theory holds that déjà vu occurs as our brains’ frontal regions evaluate our memories and flag an error.
Another explanation for déjà vu, with some experimental findings to back it up, is that our stored memories still influence our present perception even if we can’t consciously recall them. A 2012 study that immersed participants in different virtual reality scenes saw most report déjà vu when viewing a scene that appeared similar to a previous one — even if they could not directly recall the earlier scene or its similarity. They just found the new scene inexplicably familiar.
Other explanations for déjà vu are more speculative. One suggests that déjà vu occurs when a familiar object appears incongruously. Seeing known objects or people out of context or unexpectedly is when familiarity strikes us, not seeing them within the usual, expected context. For instance, seeing your building’s security guard at the gate wouldn’t feel familiar — it just is; but seeing him at a restaurant might bring feelings of familiarity, even if you can’t place him. In the moment of out-of-context perception, our brains process the familiarity of known things first, even if we don’t consciously recognize them, and that initial familiarity can color our perception of the whole otherwise-unfamiliar experience. But ultimately, the mechanisms behind the creeping been-here-done-this-before feeling are as mysterious as the sensation itself.
Q. Which of the following statements CANNOT be inferred from the passage?
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Déjà vu — French for “already seen” — is a mental sensation of intense familiarity coupled with the awareness that the familiarity is mistaken. It’s a recognition we know is wrong, a memory we know doesn’t exist. This conflict between what we know and what we remember is why déjà vu feels so eerie — almost paranormal or out-of-body. This awareness is very common. Déjà vu is almost impossible to study — people are rarely hooked up to electrodes or undergoing internal scans when they experience it — so most information about the sensation comes from self-reports, which suggest at least two-thirds of people will experience this fleeting mental trickery at some point in their lives. People who travel often or who watch a lot of movies may be more prone to déjà vu than others who don’t. The sensation does not seem to occur before age 8-9 (or perhaps children younger than that don’t have the ability to describe it), and experiences of déjà vu become less common as we age.
But as for why we experience déjà vu at all — that’s less clear. Multiple theories attempt to explain it, with each being a potentially legitimate source of the sensation. Like a physical itch, the mental itch of déjà vu likely has many causes, experts say.
Probably the strongest theory, with some experimental backing, is that the false familiarity isn’t a sign of faulty memory, so much as it’s a sign of a well-functioning brain that actively fact-checks itself. Human memory is notoriously faulty and malleable; this theory holds that déjà vu occurs as our brains’ frontal regions evaluate our memories and flag an error.
Another explanation for déjà vu, with some experimental findings to back it up, is that our stored memories still influence our present perception even if we can’t consciously recall them. A 2012 study that immersed participants in different virtual reality scenes saw most report déjà vu when viewing a scene that appeared similar to a previous one — even if they could not directly recall the earlier scene or its similarity. They just found the new scene inexplicably familiar.
Other explanations for déjà vu are more speculative. One suggests that déjà vu occurs when a familiar object appears incongruously. Seeing known objects or people out of context or unexpectedly is when familiarity strikes us, not seeing them within the usual, expected context. For instance, seeing your building’s security guard at the gate wouldn’t feel familiar — it just is; but seeing him at a restaurant might bring feelings of familiarity, even if you can’t place him. In the moment of out-of-context perception, our brains process the familiarity of known things first, even if we don’t consciously recognize them, and that initial familiarity can color our perception of the whole otherwise-unfamiliar experience. But ultimately, the mechanisms behind the creeping been-here-done-this-before feeling are as mysterious as the sensation itself. But one thing scientists know for sure: déjà vu becomes more common when we are stressed and tired.
Q. Which of the following is NOT one of the theories attempting to explain deja-vu?
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Déjà vu — French for “already seen” — is a mental sensation of intense familiarity coupled with the awareness that the familiarity is mistaken. It’s a recognition we know is wrong, a memory we know doesn’t exist. This conflict between what we know and what we remember is why déjà vu feels so eerie — almost paranormal or out-of-body. This awareness is very common. Déjà vu is almost impossible to study — people are rarely hooked up to electrodes or undergoing internal scans when they experience it — so most information about the sensation comes from self-reports, which suggest at least two-thirds of people will experience this fleeting mental trickery at some point in their lives. People who travel often or who watch a lot of movies may be more prone to déjà vu than others who don’t. The sensation does not seem to occur before age 8-9 (or perhaps children younger than that don’t have the ability to describe it), and experiences of déjà vu become less common as we age.
But as for why we experience déjà vu at all — that’s less clear. Multiple theories attempt to explain it, with each being a potentially legitimate source of the sensation. Like a physical itch, the mental itch of déjà vu likely has many causes, experts say.
Probably the strongest theory, with some experimental backing, is that the false familiarity isn’t a sign of faulty memory, so much as it’s a sign of a well-functioning brain that actively fact-checks itself. Human memory is notoriously faulty and malleable; this theory holds that déjà vu occurs as our brains’ frontal regions evaluate our memories and flag an error.
Another explanation for déjà vu, with some experimental findings to back it up, is that our stored memories still influence our present perception even if we can’t consciously recall them. A 2012 study that immersed participants in different virtual reality scenes saw most report déjà vu when viewing a scene that appeared similar to a previous one — even if they could not directly recall the earlier scene or its similarity. They just found the new scene inexplicably familiar.
Other explanations for déjà vu are more speculative. One suggests that déjà vu occurs when a familiar object appears incongruously. Seeing known objects or people out of context or unexpectedly is when familiarity strikes us, not seeing them within the usual, expected context. For instance, seeing your building’s security guard at the gate wouldn’t feel familiar — it just is; but seeing him at a restaurant might bring feelings of familiarity, even if you can’t place him. In the moment of out-of-context perception, our brains process the familiarity of known things first, even if we don’t consciously recognize them, and that initial familiarity can color our perception of the whole otherwise-unfamiliar experience. But ultimately, the mechanisms behind the creeping been-here-done-this-before feeling are as mysterious as the sensation itself. But one thing scientists know for sure: déjà vu becomes more common when we are stressed and tired.
Q. In the first paragraph, what is the "conflict" that the author refers to?
Read the passage and answer the following questions:
Plato was one of the first and most influential thinkers to address the problem of tyranny. He argued that democratic states are destined to collapse into tyranny. He believed that democratic forms of government create a licentious and undisciplined populace who are easy prey for smooth-talking politicians skilled in the art of pandering to their desires. He tells us that such politicians entice the masses with unhealthy promises rather than nourishing the public good.
Consider the work of the German sociologist Max Weber who developed the concept of ‘charismatic authority’ - a ‘certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities’. Charismatic leaders inspire devotion, and are regarded as prophetic figures by their followers. The rising tyrant has a special, almost magical aura. His followers believe that he can work miracles and transform their lives.
Sigmund Freud was wrestling with similar ideas focusing on the psychological dynamics of followership. There are two main themes that stand out. First, Freud argued that those who are attracted to authoritarian leaders idealise them. The leader is seen as an exemplary, heroic human being shorn of every serious flaw. Second, he argued that followers identify with the leader by substituting him for what Freud called the ego ideal. The ego ideal is a mental representation of one’s guiding values. It consists of beliefs about right and wrong, what is obligatory and what is impermissible. It is our moral compass: essentially the same as one’s conscience. In taking the place of their ego ideal, the authoritarian leader becomes the conscience of his followers, and his voice becomes the voice of their conscience.
The fact that the community of followers has a common identification with the authoritarian leader has another important consequence. The followers identify with one another as parts of a ‘movement’, and they experience themselves as merging into a collective whole. This intoxicating sense of unity, and the subordination of personal self-interest to a greater cause, is a very important component of authoritarian systems.
Religious convictions are Freud’s prime examples of delusions. They are, he wrote, ‘fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. The wishes that underpin religious belief have to do with deliverance from human helplessness. We are vulnerable to the forces of nature, such as disease, natural disasters and ultimately death, and also to the acts of other human beings who can harm us, kill us or treat us unjustly. There are clear links between Freud’s analysis of the religious impulse, and psychological forces at play in the political sphere. Politics is, explicitly, a response to human vulnerability. Our deepest hopes and fears permeate the political arena, and this makes us susceptible to political illusions, which are often clung to with such impassioned tenacity, and so refractory to reasoned argument, that they fit Freud’s characterisation of delusions. From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions. Like God himself, the leader is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. His words define the horizons of reality. He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil.
Q. Authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions in that:
Read the passage and answer the following questions:
Plato was one of the first and most influential thinkers to address the problem of tyranny. He argued that democratic states are destined to collapse into tyranny. He believed that democratic forms of government create a licentious and undisciplined populace who are easy prey for smooth-talking politicians skilled in the art of pandering to their desires. He tells us that such politicians entice the masses with unhealthy promises rather than nourishing the public good.
Consider the work of the German sociologist Max Weber who developed the concept of ‘charismatic authority’ - a ‘certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities’. Charismatic leaders inspire devotion, and are regarded as prophetic figures by their followers. The rising tyrant has a special, almost magical aura. His followers believe that he can work miracles and transform their lives.
Sigmund Freud was wrestling with similar ideas focusing on the psychological dynamics of followership. There are two main themes that stand out. First, Freud argued that those who are attracted to authoritarian leaders idealise them. The leader is seen as an exemplary, heroic human being shorn of every serious flaw. Second, he argued that followers identify with the leader by substituting him for what Freud called the ego ideal. The ego ideal is a mental representation of one’s guiding values. It consists of beliefs about right and wrong, what is obligatory and what is impermissible. It is our moral compass: essentially the same as one’s conscience. In taking the place of their ego ideal, the authoritarian leader becomes the conscience of his followers, and his voice becomes the voice of their conscience.
The fact that the community of followers has a common identification with the authoritarian leader has another important consequence. The followers identify with one another as parts of a ‘movement’, and they experience themselves as merging into a collective whole. This intoxicating sense of unity, and the subordination of personal self-interest to a greater cause, is a very important component of authoritarian systems.
Religious convictions are Freud’s prime examples of delusions. They are, he wrote, ‘fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. The wishes that underpin religious belief have to do with deliverance from human helplessness. We are vulnerable to the forces of nature, such as disease, natural disasters and ultimately death, and also to the acts of other human beings who can harm us, kill us or treat us unjustly. There are clear links between Freud’s analysis of the religious impulse, and psychological forces at play in the political sphere. Politics is, explicitly, a response to human vulnerability. Our deepest hopes and fears permeate the political arena, and this makes us susceptible to political illusions, which are often clung to with such impassioned tenacity, and so refractory to reasoned argument, that they fit Freud’s characterisation of delusions. From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions. Like God himself, the leader is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. His words define the horizons of reality. He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil.
Q. The purpose of the first three paragraphs is to
Read the passage and answer the following questions:
Plato was one of the first and most influential thinkers to address the problem of tyranny. He argued that democratic states are destined to collapse into tyranny. He believed that democratic forms of government create a licentious and undisciplined populace who are easy prey for smooth-talking politicians skilled in the art of pandering to their desires. He tells us that such politicians entice the masses with unhealthy promises rather than nourishing the public good.
Consider the work of the German sociologist Max Weber who developed the concept of ‘charismatic authority’ - a ‘certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities’. Charismatic leaders inspire devotion, and are regarded as prophetic figures by their followers. The rising tyrant has a special, almost magical aura. His followers believe that he can work miracles and transform their lives.
Sigmund Freud was wrestling with similar ideas focusing on the psychological dynamics of followership. There are two main themes that stand out. First, Freud argued that those who are attracted to authoritarian leaders idealise them. The leader is seen as an exemplary, heroic human being shorn of every serious flaw. Second, he argued that followers identify with the leader by substituting him for what Freud called the ego ideal. The ego ideal is a mental representation of one’s guiding values. It consists of beliefs about right and wrong, what is obligatory and what is impermissible. It is our moral compass: essentially the same as one’s conscience. In taking the place of their ego ideal, the authoritarian leader becomes the conscience of his followers, and his voice becomes the voice of their conscience.
The fact that the community of followers has a common identification with the authoritarian leader has another important consequence. The followers identify with one another as parts of a ‘movement’, and they experience themselves as merging into a collective whole. This intoxicating sense of unity, and the subordination of personal self-interest to a greater cause, is a very important component of authoritarian systems.
Religious convictions are Freud’s prime examples of delusions. They are, he wrote, ‘fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. The wishes that underpin religious belief have to do with deliverance from human helplessness. We are vulnerable to the forces of nature, such as disease, natural disasters and ultimately death, and also to the acts of other human beings who can harm us, kill us or treat us unjustly. There are clear links between Freud’s analysis of the religious impulse, and psychological forces at play in the political sphere. Politics is, explicitly, a response to human vulnerability. Our deepest hopes and fears permeate the political arena, and this makes us susceptible to political illusions, which are often clung to with such impassioned tenacity, and so refractory to reasoned argument, that they fit Freud’s characterisation of delusions. From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions. Like God himself, the leader is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. His words define the horizons of reality. He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil.
Q. All of the following have not been discussed in the passage except:
Read the passage and answer the following questions:
Plato was one of the first and most influential thinkers to address the problem of tyranny. He argued that democratic states are destined to collapse into tyranny. He believed that democratic forms of government create a licentious and undisciplined populace who are easy prey for smooth-talking politicians skilled in the art of pandering to their desires. He tells us that such politicians entice the masses with unhealthy promises rather than nourishing the public good.
Consider the work of the German sociologist Max Weber who developed the concept of ‘charismatic authority’ - a ‘certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities’. Charismatic leaders inspire devotion, and are regarded as prophetic figures by their followers. The rising tyrant has a special, almost magical aura. His followers believe that he can work miracles and transform their lives.
Sigmund Freud was wrestling with similar ideas focusing on the psychological dynamics of followership. There are two main themes that stand out. First, Freud argued that those who are attracted to authoritarian leaders idealise them. The leader is seen as an exemplary, heroic human being shorn of every serious flaw. Second, he argued that followers identify with the leader by substituting him for what Freud called the ego ideal. The ego ideal is a mental representation of one’s guiding values. It consists of beliefs about right and wrong, what is obligatory and what is impermissible. It is our moral compass: essentially the same as one’s conscience. In taking the place of their ego ideal, the authoritarian leader becomes the conscience of his followers, and his voice becomes the voice of their conscience.
The fact that the community of followers has a common identification with the authoritarian leader has another important consequence. The followers identify with one another as parts of a ‘movement’, and they experience themselves as merging into a collective whole. This intoxicating sense of unity, and the subordination of personal self-interest to a greater cause, is a very important component of authoritarian systems.
Religious convictions are Freud’s prime examples of delusions. They are, he wrote, ‘fulfillments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind. The wishes that underpin religious belief have to do with deliverance from human helplessness. We are vulnerable to the forces of nature, such as disease, natural disasters and ultimately death, and also to the acts of other human beings who can harm us, kill us or treat us unjustly. There are clear links between Freud’s analysis of the religious impulse, and psychological forces at play in the political sphere. Politics is, explicitly, a response to human vulnerability. Our deepest hopes and fears permeate the political arena, and this makes us susceptible to political illusions, which are often clung to with such impassioned tenacity, and so refractory to reasoned argument, that they fit Freud’s characterisation of delusions. From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions. Like God himself, the leader is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. His words define the horizons of reality. He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil.
Q. Which of the following cannot be said to be true based on the passage?
I. Submission of personal objectives for a greater collective cause is an essential feature of authoritarian regimes.
II. According to the author, oppositions of the authoritarian leader are allies of evil.
III. Followers of monotheistic religions are highly supportive of authoritarian political systems.
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Authenticity, which in its modern sense dates back to the Romantics of the late 18th century, has never had a single meaning. In much of our everyday usage, the term means something more or less analogous to the way that we speak of an object being authentic - as the genuine article, not a copy or a fake. We think of people as authentic when they’re being themselves, consistent with their own personality and without pretence or pretending.
But, as an ethical ideal...authenticity means more than self-consistency or a lack of pretentiousness. It also concerns features of the inner life that define us. While there is no one ‘essence’ of authenticity, the ideal has often been expressed as a commitment to being true to yourself, and ordering your soul and living your life so as to give faithful expression to your individuality, cherished projects and deepest convictions. Authenticity in this ethical sense also had a critical edge, standing against and challenging the utilitarian practices and conformist tendencies of the conventional social and economic order. Society erects barriers that the authentic person must break through. Finding your true self means self-reflection, engaging in candid self-appraisal and seeking ‘genuine self-knowledge’, in the words of the American philosopher Charles Guignon.
In his book The Society of Singularities (2017), the German social theorist Andreas Reckwitz argues that a larger ‘authenticity revolution’ has swept the world during the past 40 years. Authenticity has become an obligation. Reckwitz captures this conundrum with the paradoxical concept of ‘performative authenticity’. Authenticity, in this sense, is the way to be because to be ‘somebody’ is to develop your unique self, your differentness from others and your noninterchangeable life.
Performative authenticity is tied to economic success and social prestige, which means - and this is a further paradoxical feature - that your specialness and self-realisation have to be performed. In order for people to distinguish themselves, they must seek attention and visibility, and positively affect others with their self-representations, personal characteristics and quality of life. In doing so, they have to take great care that their performance isn’t perceived as staged.
Performative authenticity shares with older, inner conceptions of authenticity the notion that each of us has our own unique way of being in the world. But the concepts otherwise diverge. The inner ideal aims at a way of being that is unfeigned and without illusions. It resists the cultivation of an affirming audience, because being a ‘whole’ person, with a noninstrumental relation to self and others, is often at odds with the demands of society. In the performative mode, by contrast, this tension between self and society disappears. Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind.
Performing your difference isn’t necessarily a zero-sum game. Markets and digital technologies have greatly expanded the infrastructure of possibilities. It is, however, a competition for scarce attention that requires continuous assessment and feedback, and offers little respite. Even if you pull off a good performance, there’s a need to be flexible, to be ready to reinvent your difference. There’s always the danger of becoming inconspicuous.
Q. Which of the following best describes the reason why the author terms the concept 'performative authenticity' paradoxical?
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Authenticity, which in its modern sense dates back to the Romantics of the late 18th century, has never had a single meaning. In much of our everyday usage, the term means something more or less analogous to the way that we speak of an object being authentic - as the genuine article, not a copy or a fake. We think of people as authentic when they’re being themselves, consistent with their own personality and without pretence or pretending.
But, as an ethical ideal...authenticity means more than self-consistency or a lack of pretentiousness. It also concerns features of the inner life that define us. While there is no one ‘essence’ of authenticity, the ideal has often been expressed as a commitment to being true to yourself, and ordering your soul and living your life so as to give faithful expression to your individuality, cherished projects and deepest convictions. Authenticity in this ethical sense also had a critical edge, standing against and challenging the utilitarian practices and conformist tendencies of the conventional social and economic order. Society erects barriers that the authentic person must break through. Finding your true self means self-reflection, engaging in candid self-appraisal and seeking ‘genuine self-knowledge’, in the words of the American philosopher Charles Guignon.
In his book The Society of Singularities (2017), the German social theorist Andreas Reckwitz argues that a larger ‘authenticity revolution’ has swept the world during the past 40 years. Authenticity has become an obligation. Reckwitz captures this conundrum with the paradoxical concept of ‘performative authenticity’. Authenticity, in this sense, is the way to be because to be ‘somebody’ is to develop your unique self, your differentness from others and your noninterchangeable life.
Performative authenticity is tied to economic success and social prestige, which means - and this is a further paradoxical feature - that your specialness and self-realisation have to be performed. In order for people to distinguish themselves, they must seek attention and visibility, and positively affect others with their self-representations, personal characteristics and quality of life. In doing so, they have to take great care that their performance isn’t perceived as staged.
Performative authenticity shares with older, inner conceptions of authenticity the notion that each of us has our own unique way of being in the world. But the concepts otherwise diverge. The inner ideal aims at a way of being that is unfeigned and without illusions. It resists the cultivation of an affirming audience, because being a ‘whole’ person, with a noninstrumental relation to self and others, is often at odds with the demands of society. In the performative mode, by contrast, this tension between self and society disappears. Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind.
Performing your difference isn’t necessarily a zero-sum game. Markets and digital technologies have greatly expanded the infrastructure of possibilities. It is, however, a competition for scarce attention that requires continuous assessment and feedback, and offers little respite. Even if you pull off a good performance, there’s a need to be flexible, to be ready to reinvent your difference. There’s always the danger of becoming inconspicuous.
Q. According to Charles Guignon, finding one's true self involves all of the following, EXCEPT:
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Authenticity, which in its modern sense dates back to the Romantics of the late 18th century, has never had a single meaning. In much of our everyday usage, the term means something more or less analogous to the way that we speak of an object being authentic - as the genuine article, not a copy or a fake. We think of people as authentic when they’re being themselves, consistent with their own personality and without pretence or pretending.
But, as an ethical ideal...authenticity means more than self-consistency or a lack of pretentiousness. It also concerns features of the inner life that define us. While there is no one ‘essence’ of authenticity, the ideal has often been expressed as a commitment to being true to yourself, and ordering your soul and living your life so as to give faithful expression to your individuality, cherished projects and deepest convictions. Authenticity in this ethical sense also had a critical edge, standing against and challenging the utilitarian practices and conformist tendencies of the conventional social and economic order. Society erects barriers that the authentic person must break through. Finding your true self means self-reflection, engaging in candid self-appraisal and seeking ‘genuine self-knowledge’, in the words of the American philosopher Charles Guignon.
In his book The Society of Singularities (2017), the German social theorist Andreas Reckwitz argues that a larger ‘authenticity revolution’ has swept the world during the past 40 years. Authenticity has become an obligation. Reckwitz captures this conundrum with the paradoxical concept of ‘performative authenticity’. Authenticity, in this sense, is the way to be because to be ‘somebody’ is to develop your unique self, your differentness from others and your noninterchangeable life.
Performative authenticity is tied to economic success and social prestige, which means - and this is a further paradoxical feature - that your specialness and self-realisation have to be performed. In order for people to distinguish themselves, they must seek attention and visibility, and positively affect others with their self-representations, personal characteristics and quality of life. In doing so, they have to take great care that their performance isn’t perceived as staged.
Performative authenticity shares with older, inner conceptions of authenticity the notion that each of us has our own unique way of being in the world. But the concepts otherwise diverge. The inner ideal aims at a way of being that is unfeigned and without illusions. It resists the cultivation of an affirming audience, because being a ‘whole’ person, with a noninstrumental relation to self and others, is often at odds with the demands of society. In the performative mode, by contrast, this tension between self and society disappears. Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind.
Performing your difference isn’t necessarily a zero-sum game. Markets and digital technologies have greatly expanded the infrastructure of possibilities. It is, however, a competition for scarce attention that requires continuous assessment and feedback, and offers little respite. Even if you pull off a good performance, there’s a need to be flexible, to be ready to reinvent your difference. There’s always the danger of becoming inconspicuous.
Q. Which of the following statements is the author LEAST likely to agree with?
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Authenticity, which in its modern sense dates back to the Romantics of the late 18th century, has never had a single meaning. In much of our everyday usage, the term means something more or less analogous to the way that we speak of an object being authentic - as the genuine article, not a copy or a fake. We think of people as authentic when they’re being themselves, consistent with their own personality and without pretence or pretending.
But, as an ethical ideal...authenticity means more than self-consistency or a lack of pretentiousness. It also concerns features of the inner life that define us. While there is no one ‘essence’ of authenticity, the ideal has often been expressed as a commitment to being true to yourself, and ordering your soul and living your life so as to give faithful expression to your individuality, cherished projects and deepest convictions. Authenticity in this ethical sense also had a critical edge, standing against and challenging the utilitarian practices and conformist tendencies of the conventional social and economic order. Society erects barriers that the authentic person must break through. Finding your true self means self-reflection, engaging in candid self-appraisal and seeking ‘genuine self-knowledge’, in the words of the American philosopher Charles Guignon.
In his book The Society of Singularities (2017), the German social theorist Andreas Reckwitz argues that a larger ‘authenticity revolution’ has swept the world during the past 40 years. Authenticity has become an obligation. Reckwitz captures this conundrum with the paradoxical concept of ‘performative authenticity’. Authenticity, in this sense, is the way to be because to be ‘somebody’ is to develop your unique self, your differentness from others and your noninterchangeable life.
Performative authenticity is tied to economic success and social prestige, which means - and this is a further paradoxical feature - that your specialness and self-realisation have to be performed. In order for people to distinguish themselves, they must seek attention and visibility, and positively affect others with their self-representations, personal characteristics and quality of life. In doing so, they have to take great care that their performance isn’t perceived as staged.
Performative authenticity shares with older, inner conceptions of authenticity the notion that each of us has our own unique way of being in the world. But the concepts otherwise diverge. The inner ideal aims at a way of being that is unfeigned and without illusions. It resists the cultivation of an affirming audience, because being a ‘whole’ person, with a noninstrumental relation to self and others, is often at odds with the demands of society. In the performative mode, by contrast, this tension between self and society disappears. Self-elaboration still requires self-examination, but not necessarily of any inner or even aesthetic kind.
Performing your difference isn’t necessarily a zero-sum game. Markets and digital technologies have greatly expanded the infrastructure of possibilities. It is, however, a competition for scarce attention that requires continuous assessment and feedback, and offers little respite. Even if you pull off a good performance, there’s a need to be flexible, to be ready to reinvent your difference. There’s always the danger of becoming inconspicuous.
Q. The inner and performative modes of authenticity differ in all of the following ways, EXCEPT:
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Dinosaur and fossil aficionados are intimately familiar with the meteorite strike that drove Tyrannosaurus rex and all nonavian dinosaurs to extinction around 66 million years ago. But it is often overlooked that the impact also wiped out entire ecosystems. A new study shows how those casualties, in turn, led to another particularly profound evolutionary outcome: the emergence of the Amazon rain forest of South America, the most spectacularly diverse environment on the planet. Yet the Amazon’s bounty of tropical species and habitats now face their own existential threat because of unprecedented destruction from human activity, including land clearing for agriculture.
Modern-day rain forests are integral to life on Earth. The Amazon, in particular, plays a crucial role in regulating the planet’s freshwater cycle and climate. Yet Western European and North American palaeontologists have paid little attention to tropical forests, focusing instead on temperate latitudes. Many academic and amateur fossil hunters have also tended to write off warm, wet locales as a lost cause for finds because they have assumed that conditions there would prevent organic materials from being preserved long enough to fossilize. “It’s this combination of factors that has led us to this absence of much data in the tropics,” says Bonnie Jacobs, a paleobiologist at Southern Methodist University.
Scientists already knew that the effects of the meteorite collision and its aftermath—at least in temperate zones—varied with local conditions and distance from the Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. New Zealand forests, for example, escaped relatively unscathed. But researchers have had no idea how the event changed the tropical rain forests of Africa or, until now, those of South America.
The new study, published in Science, analyzed tens of thousands of plant fossils and "represents a fundamental advance in knowledge,” says Peter Wilf, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the research. The findings paint a picture of a sudden, cataclysmic annihilation of life after the impact—but also of a phoenix-like rebirth in the millions of years afterward. Prior to the meteorite, the authors determined, South America’s forests featured many conifers and a brightly lit open canopy supporting a lush understory of ferns. Dinosaurs likely played key roles in maintaining these Cretaceous forests by knocking down trees and clearing out vegetation, among other things. Within moments of the Chicxulub meteorite’s impact, however, this ecosystem was irrevocably altered. Fires, which likely burned for several years, engulfed South America’s southerly forests.
It took six million years for the forests to return to the level of diversity they had before the meteorite, and the species that slowly grew back were completely different than what came before. Legumes—plants that form symbiotic relationships with bacteria that allow them to fix nitrogen from the air—were the first to appear, and they enriched the formerly nutrient-poor soil. This influx of nitrogen, along with phosphorus from the meteorite’s ash, enabled other flowering plants to thrive alongside the legumes and to displace conifers. As flowering species competed for light, they formed dense canopies of leaves and created the layered Amazon rain forest we know today.
Q. Which of the following statements is definitely TRUE according to the passage?
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Dinosaur and fossil aficionados are intimately familiar with the meteorite strike that drove Tyrannosaurus rex and all nonavian dinosaurs to extinction around 66 million years ago. But it is often overlooked that the impact also wiped out entire ecosystems. A new study shows how those casualties, in turn, led to another particularly profound evolutionary outcome: the emergence of the Amazon rain forest of South America, the most spectacularly diverse environment on the planet. Yet the Amazon’s bounty of tropical species and habitats now face their own existential threat because of unprecedented destruction from human activity, including land clearing for agriculture.
Modern-day rain forests are integral to life on Earth. The Amazon, in particular, plays a crucial role in regulating the planet’s freshwater cycle and climate. Yet Western European and North American palaeontologists have paid little attention to tropical forests, focusing instead on temperate latitudes. Many academic and amateur fossil hunters have also tended to write off warm, wet locales as a lost cause for finds because they have assumed that conditions there would prevent organic materials from being preserved long enough to fossilize. “It’s this combination of factors that has led us to this absence of much data in the tropics,” says Bonnie Jacobs, a paleobiologist at Southern Methodist University.
Scientists already knew that the effects of the meteorite collision and its aftermath—at least in temperate zones—varied with local conditions and distance from the Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. New Zealand forests, for example, escaped relatively unscathed. But researchers have had no idea how the event changed the tropical rain forests of Africa or, until now, those of South America.
The new study, published in Science, analyzed tens of thousands of plant fossils and "represents a fundamental advance in knowledge,” says Peter Wilf, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the research. The findings paint a picture of a sudden, cataclysmic annihilation of life after the impact—but also of a phoenix-like rebirth in the millions of years afterward. Prior to the meteorite, the authors determined, South America’s forests featured many conifers and a brightly lit open canopy supporting a lush understory of ferns. Dinosaurs likely played key roles in maintaining these Cretaceous forests by knocking down trees and clearing out vegetation, among other things. Within moments of the Chicxulub meteorite’s impact, however, this ecosystem was irrevocably altered. Fires, which likely burned for several years, engulfed South America’s southerly forests.
It took six million years for the forests to return to the level of diversity they had before the meteorite, and the species that slowly grew back were completely different than what came before. Legumes—plants that form symbiotic relationships with bacteria that allow them to fix nitrogen from the air—were the first to appear, and they enriched the formerly nutrient-poor soil. This influx of nitrogen, along with phosphorus from the meteorite’s ash, enabled other flowering plants to thrive alongside the legumes and to displace conifers. As flowering species competed for light, they formed dense canopies of leaves and created the layered Amazon rain forest we know today.
Q. According to the passage, academic and amateur fossil hunters paid little attention to tropical forests because:
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Dinosaur and fossil aficionados are intimately familiar with the meteorite strike that drove Tyrannosaurus rex and all nonavian dinosaurs to extinction around 66 million years ago. But it is often overlooked that the impact also wiped out entire ecosystems. A new study shows how those casualties, in turn, led to another particularly profound evolutionary outcome: the emergence of the Amazon rain forest of South America, the most spectacularly diverse environment on the planet. Yet the Amazon’s bounty of tropical species and habitats now face their own existential threat because of unprecedented destruction from human activity, including land clearing for agriculture.
Modern-day rain forests are integral to life on Earth. The Amazon, in particular, plays a crucial role in regulating the planet’s freshwater cycle and climate. Yet Western European and North American palaeontologists have paid little attention to tropical forests, focusing instead on temperate latitudes. Many academic and amateur fossil hunters have also tended to write off warm, wet locales as a lost cause for finds because they have assumed that conditions there would prevent organic materials from being preserved long enough to fossilize. “It’s this combination of factors that has led us to this absence of much data in the tropics,” says Bonnie Jacobs, a paleobiologist at Southern Methodist University.
Scientists already knew that the effects of the meteorite collision and its aftermath—at least in temperate zones—varied with local conditions and distance from the Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. New Zealand forests, for example, escaped relatively unscathed. But researchers have had no idea how the event changed the tropical rain forests of Africa or, until now, those of South America.
The new study, published in Science, analyzed tens of thousands of plant fossils and "represents a fundamental advance in knowledge,” says Peter Wilf, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the research. The findings paint a picture of a sudden, cataclysmic annihilation of life after the impact—but also of a phoenix-like rebirth in the millions of years afterward. Prior to the meteorite, the authors determined, South America’s forests featured many conifers and a brightly lit open canopy supporting a lush understory of ferns. Dinosaurs likely played key roles in maintaining these Cretaceous forests by knocking down trees and clearing out vegetation, among other things. Within moments of the Chicxulub meteorite’s impact, however, this ecosystem was irrevocably altered. Fires, which likely burned for several years, engulfed South America’s southerly forests.
It took six million years for the forests to return to the level of diversity they had before the meteorite, and the species that slowly grew back were completely different than what came before. Legumes—plants that form symbiotic relationships with bacteria that allow them to fix nitrogen from the air—were the first to appear, and they enriched the formerly nutrient-poor soil. This influx of nitrogen, along with phosphorus from the meteorite’s ash, enabled other flowering plants to thrive alongside the legumes and to displace conifers. As flowering species competed for light, they formed dense canopies of leaves and created the layered Amazon rain forest we know today.
Q. Which of the following statements CAN be inferred from the passage?
I. The tropical rain forest ecosystem would not have developed had the dinosaurs not gone extinct.
II. Location of the impact crater is crucial to understanding the effects of the meteoritic collision.
III. The effects of the collision on African tropical rain forests were not known until recently.
IV. Fires caused by the meteoritic collision led to the depletion of soil nutrients.
Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:
Dinosaur and fossil aficionados are intimately familiar with the meteorite strike that drove Tyrannosaurus rex and all nonavian dinosaurs to extinction around 66 million years ago. But it is often overlooked that the impact also wiped out entire ecosystems. A new study shows how those casualties, in turn, led to another particularly profound evolutionary outcome: the emergence of the Amazon rain forest of South America, the most spectacularly diverse environment on the planet. Yet the Amazon’s bounty of tropical species and habitats now face their own existential threat because of unprecedented destruction from human activity, including land clearing for agriculture.
Modern-day rain forests are integral to life on Earth. The Amazon, in particular, plays a crucial role in regulating the planet’s freshwater cycle and climate. Yet Western European and North American palaeontologists have paid little attention to tropical forests, focusing instead on temperate latitudes. Many academic and amateur fossil hunters have also tended to write off warm, wet locales as a lost cause for finds because they have assumed that conditions there would prevent organic materials from being preserved long enough to fossilize. “It’s this combination of factors that has led us to this absence of much data in the tropics,” says Bonnie Jacobs, a paleobiologist at Southern Methodist University.
Scientists already knew that the effects of the meteorite collision and its aftermath—at least in temperate zones—varied with local conditions and distance from the Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula. New Zealand forests, for example, escaped relatively unscathed. But researchers have had no idea how the event changed the tropical rain forests of Africa or, until now, those of South America.
The new study, published in Science, analyzed tens of thousands of plant fossils and "represents a fundamental advance in knowledge,” says Peter Wilf, a geoscientist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the research. The findings paint a picture of a sudden, cataclysmic annihilation of life after the impact—but also of a phoenix-like rebirth in the millions of years afterward. Prior to the meteorite, the authors determined, South America’s forests featured many conifers and a brightly lit open canopy supporting a lush understory of ferns. Dinosaurs likely played key roles in maintaining these Cretaceous forests by knocking down trees and clearing out vegetation, among other things. Within moments of the Chicxulub meteorite’s impact, however, this ecosystem was irrevocably altered. Fires, which likely burned for several years, engulfed South America’s southerly forests.
It took six million years for the forests to return to the level of diversity they had before the meteorite, and the species that slowly grew back were completely different than what came before. Legumes—plants that form symbiotic relationships with bacteria that allow them to fix nitrogen from the air—were the first to appear, and they enriched the formerly nutrient-poor soil. This influx of nitrogen, along with phosphorus from the meteorite’s ash, enabled other flowering plants to thrive alongside the legumes and to displace conifers. As flowering species competed for light, they formed dense canopies of leaves and created the layered Amazon rain forest we know today.
Q. According to the passage, all of the following aided in the emergence of the Amazon rainforest ecosystem, EXCEPT:
DIRECTIONS for the question: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:
DIRECTIONS for the question: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) below, when properly sequenced, would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequencing of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer:
The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
The magnitude of plastic packaging that is used and casually discarded — air pillows, Bubble Wrap, shrink wrap, envelopes, bags — portends gloomy consequences. These single-use items are primarily made from polyethylene, though vinyl is also used. In marine environments, this plastic waste can cause disease and death for coral, fish, seabirds and marine mammals. Plastic debris is often mistaken for food, and microplastics release chemical toxins as they degrade. Data suggests that plastics have infiltrated human food webs and placentas. These plastics have the potential to disrupt the endocrine system, which releases hormones into the bloodstream that help control growth and development during childhood, among many other important processes.
Five jumbled-up sentences, related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out and key in the number of the sentence as your answer.
1. Over the past fortnight, one of its finest and most celebrated champions managed to match Winbeldon's grandeur again.
2. Wimbledon’s grandeur and enigma evoke a sense of timelessness and mystique.
3. At 35 years and 342 days, Roger Federer was crowned the Wimbledon champion for the 8th time thereby becoming the oldest man to win the Wimbledon singles title in the open era.
4. Once he had won the first three rounds, the semi-finals and finals witnessed the true magic of a rested Federer
5. Given that his game isn’t reliant on explosive athleticism or muscular power ball striking, both of which are vulnerable to decay with age, there is a high chance that the reign of King Federer will continue further into the future
Five jumbled-up sentences, related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out and key in the number of the sentence as your answer.
1. Quantum computing harnesses the peculiar dynamics of quantum physics to process information in novel ways.
2. Classical computing, the traditional form, operates with binary bits using 0s and 1s in a linear sequence.
3. The advent of quantum algorithms promises resolutions to complex problems unreachable by current machines.
4. These systems are revolutionizing climate study simulations with their advanced modeling.
5. In stark contrast, quantum bits, or qubits, can hold a vast amount of information, expanding computational boundaries exponentially.
Direction: Choose the most logical order of sentences from among the given choices to construct a coherent paragraph.
1. This is only partially true because while most of the fighting did take place on the continent, one of the largest and most sophisticated undertakings of the war was conducted mainly at sea.
2. While the land war certainly contributed to the Entente's (Britain, France, Italy, U.S.) victory in 1918, it was the blockade that truly broke Germany's back.
3. This operation was the British blockade from 1914-1919 which sought to obstruct Germany's ability to import goods, and thus in the most literal sense starve the Germ