CAT  >  CAT Mock Test Series  >  Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 Download as PDF

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1


Test Description

24 Questions MCQ Test CAT Mock Test Series | Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 for CAT 2022 is part of CAT Mock Test Series preparation. The Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 questions and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus.The Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 MCQs are made for CAT 2022 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 below.
Solutions of Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 questions in English are available as part of our CAT Mock Test Series for CAT & Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 solutions in Hindi for CAT Mock Test Series course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free. Attempt Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 | 24 questions in 40 minutes | Mock test for CAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study CAT Mock Test Series for CAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you?
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 1

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The difference between Cezanne and Gauguin is subtle but goes very deep. For both the ultimate and internal significance of what they painted counted for more than the significance which is momentary and external. Cezanne saw in a tree, a heap of apples, a human face, a group of bathing men or women, something more abiding than either photography or impressionist painting could present. He painted the "treeness" of the tree, as a modern critic has admirably expressed it. But in everything he did he showed the architectural mind of the true Frenchman. His landscape studies were based on a profound sense of the structure of rocks and hills, and being structural, his art depends essentially on reality. Though he did not scruple, and rightly, to sacrifice accuracy of form to the inner need, the material of which his art was composed was drawn from the huge stores of actual nature.

Gauguin has greater solemnity and fire than Cezanne. His pictures are tragic or passionate poems. He also sacrifices conventional form to inner expression, but his art tends ever towards the spiritual, towards that profounder emphasis which cannot be expressed in natural objects nor in words. True his abandonment of representative methods did not lead him to an abandonment of natural terms of expression - that is to say human figures, trees and animals do appear in his pictures. But that he was much nearer a complete rejection of representation than was Cezanne is shown by the course followed by their respective disciples.

The generation immediately subsequent to Cezanne, Herbin, Vlaminck, Friesz, Marquet, etc., do little more than exaggerate Cezanne's technique, until there appear the first signs of Cubism. These are seen very clearly in Herbin. Objects begin to be treated in flat planes. A round vase is represented by a series of planes set one into the other, which at a distance blend into a curve. This is the first stage.

The real plunge into Cubism was taken by Picasso, who, nurtured on Cezanne, carried to its perfectly logical conclusion the master's structural treatment of nature. Representation disappears. Starting from a single natural object, Picasso and the Cubists produce lines and project angles till their canvases are covered with intricate and often very beautiful series of balanced lines and curves. They persist, however, in giving them picture titles which recall the natural object from which their minds first took flight.

With Gauguin the case is different. The generation of his disciples which followed him - I put it thus to distinguish them from his actual pupils at Pont Aven, Serusier and the rest - carried the tendency further. One hesitates to mention Derain, for his beginnings, full of vitality and promise, have given place to a dreary compromise with Cubism, without visible future, and above all without humour. But there is no better example of the development of synthetic symbolism than his first book of woodcuts. Here is work which keeps the merest semblance of conventional form, which gives its effect by startling masses of black and white, by sudden curves, but more frequently by sudden angles.

In the process of the gradual abandonment of natural form the "angle" school is paralleled by the "curve" school, which also descends wholly from Gauguin. The best known representative is Maurice Denis. But he has become a slave to sentimentality, and has been left behind. Matisse is the most prominent French artist who has followed Gauguin with curves. In Germany a group of young men, who form the Neue Kunstlevereinigung in Munich, work almost entirely in sweeping curves, and have reduced natural objects purely to flowing, decorative units.

But while they have followed Gauguin's lead in abandoning representation both of these two groups of advance are lacking in spiritual meaning. Their aim becomes more and more decorative, with an undercurrent of suggestion of simplified form. Anyone who has studied Gauguin will be aware of the intense spiritual value of his work. The man is a preacher and a psychologist, universal by his very unorthodoxy, fundamental because he goes deeper than civilization. In his disciples this great element is wanting. Kandinsky has supplied the need. He is not only on the track of an art more purely spiritual than was conceived even by Gauguin, but he has achieved the final abandonment of all representative intention. In this way he combines in himself the spiritual and technical tendencies of one great branch of Post-Impressionism.

Q. What, according to the author, was the principal difference in the styles of Cezanne and Gauguin?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 1

The author states that Cezanne “did not scruple, and rightly, to sacrifice accuracy of form to the inner need, the material of which his art was composed was drawn from the huge stores of actual nature.” Gauguin, on the other hand, “was much nearer a complete rejection of representation than was Cezanne”. Hence, from the first two paragraphs, we can infer that though both rejected external representation, Cezanne did not reject accuracy of form. The option that best captures this difference is option B.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 2

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The difference between Cezanne and Gauguin is subtle but goes very deep. For both the ultimate and internal significance of what they painted counted for more than the significance which is momentary and external. Cezanne saw in a tree, a heap of apples, a human face, a group of bathing men or women, something more abiding than either photography or impressionist painting could present. He painted the "treeness" of the tree, as a modern critic has admirably expressed it. But in everything he did he showed the architectural mind of the true Frenchman. His landscape studies were based on a profound sense of the structure of rocks and hills, and being structural, his art depends essentially on reality. Though he did not scruple, and rightly, to sacrifice accuracy of form to the inner need, the material of which his art was composed was drawn from the huge stores of actual nature.

Gauguin has greater solemnity and fire than Cezanne. His pictures are tragic or passionate poems. He also sacrifices conventional form to inner expression, but his art tends ever towards the spiritual, towards that profounder emphasis which cannot be expressed in natural objects nor in words. True his abandonment of representative methods did not lead him to an abandonment of natural terms of expression - that is to say human figures, trees and animals do appear in his pictures. But that he was much nearer a complete rejection of representation than was Cezanne is shown by the course followed by their respective disciples.

The generation immediately subsequent to Cezanne, Herbin, Vlaminck, Friesz, Marquet, etc., do little more than exaggerate Cezanne's technique, until there appear the first signs of Cubism. These are seen very clearly in Herbin. Objects begin to be treated in flat planes. A round vase is represented by a series of planes set one into the other, which at a distance blend into a curve. This is the first stage.

The real plunge into Cubism was taken by Picasso, who, nurtured on Cezanne, carried to its perfectly logical conclusion the master's structural treatment of nature. Representation disappears. Starting from a single natural object, Picasso and the Cubists produce lines and project angles till their canvases are covered with intricate and often very beautiful series of balanced lines and curves. They persist, however, in giving them picture titles which recall the natural object from which their minds first took flight.

With Gauguin the case is different. The generation of his disciples which followed him - I put it thus to distinguish them from his actual pupils at Pont Aven, Serusier and the rest - carried the tendency further. One hesitates to mention Derain, for his beginnings, full of vitality and promise, have given place to a dreary compromise with Cubism, without visible future, and above all without humour. But there is no better example of the development of synthetic symbolism than his first book of woodcuts. Here is work which keeps the merest semblance of conventional form, which gives its effect by startling masses of black and white, by sudden curves, but more frequently by sudden angles.

In the process of the gradual abandonment of natural form the "angle" school is paralleled by the "curve" school, which also descends wholly from Gauguin. The best known representative is Maurice Denis. But he has become a slave to sentimentality, and has been left behind. Matisse is the most prominent French artist who has followed Gauguin with curves. In Germany a group of young men, who form the Neue Kunstlevereinigung in Munich, work almost entirely in sweeping curves, and have reduced natural objects purely to flowing, decorative units.

But while they have followed Gauguin's lead in abandoning representation both of these two groups of advance are lacking in spiritual meaning. Their aim becomes more and more decorative, with an undercurrent of suggestion of simplified form. Anyone who has studied Gauguin will be aware of the intense spiritual value of his work. The man is a preacher and a psychologist, universal by his very unorthodoxy, fundamental because he goes deeper than civilization. In his disciples this great element is wanting. Kandinsky has supplied the need. He is not only on the track of an art more purely spiritual than was conceived even by Gauguin, but he has achieved the final abandonment of all representative intention. In this way he combines in himself the spiritual and technical tendencies of one great branch of Post-Impressionism.

Q. Which of the following statements can be inferred from the information given in the passage?
I) Picasso maintained accuracy of form even though he rejected external representation of objects
II) Gauguin’s work is less spiritual in nature than Kandinsky’s
III) If not for the title, one would not be able to recognize the natural object that inspired the art of a Cubist

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 2

The author states that the principal difference between Cezanne and Gauguin was that though both rejected representation, the former stuck to the accuracy of form and this trait was carried forward by his disciples including Picasso. Hence, we can infer statement I. The author states that Kandinsky is “on the track of an art more purely spiritual than was conceived even by Gauguin.” Hence, we can infer statement II. Though the passage states that Cubists abandon all representation, we cannot say if the end product is not even reminiscent of the original inspiration. Hence, we cannot infer statement III. Hence, option B.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 3

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The difference between Cezanne and Gauguin is subtle but goes very deep. For both the ultimate and internal significance of what they painted counted for more than the significance which is momentary and external. Cezanne saw in a tree, a heap of apples, a human face, a group of bathing men or women, something more abiding than either photography or impressionist painting could present. He painted the "treeness" of the tree, as a modern critic has admirably expressed it. But in everything he did he showed the architectural mind of the true Frenchman. His landscape studies were based on a profound sense of the structure of rocks and hills, and being structural, his art depends essentially on reality. Though he did not scruple, and rightly, to sacrifice accuracy of form to the inner need, the material of which his art was composed was drawn from the huge stores of actual nature.

Gauguin has greater solemnity and fire than Cezanne. His pictures are tragic or passionate poems. He also sacrifices conventional form to inner expression, but his art tends ever towards the spiritual, towards that profounder emphasis which cannot be expressed in natural objects nor in words. True his abandonment of representative methods did not lead him to an abandonment of natural terms of expression - that is to say human figures, trees and animals do appear in his pictures. But that he was much nearer a complete rejection of representation than was Cezanne is shown by the course followed by their respective disciples.

The generation immediately subsequent to Cezanne, Herbin, Vlaminck, Friesz, Marquet, etc., do little more than exaggerate Cezanne's technique, until there appear the first signs of Cubism. These are seen very clearly in Herbin. Objects begin to be treated in flat planes. A round vase is represented by a series of planes set one into the other, which at a distance blend into a curve. This is the first stage.

The real plunge into Cubism was taken by Picasso, who, nurtured on Cezanne, carried to its perfectly logical conclusion the master's structural treatment of nature. Representation disappears. Starting from a single natural object, Picasso and the Cubists produce lines and project angles till their canvases are covered with intricate and often very beautiful series of balanced lines and curves. They persist, however, in giving them picture titles which recall the natural object from which their minds first took flight.

With Gauguin the case is different. The generation of his disciples which followed him - I put it thus to distinguish them from his actual pupils at Pont Aven, Serusier and the rest - carried the tendency further. One hesitates to mention Derain, for his beginnings, full of vitality and promise, have given place to a dreary compromise with Cubism, without visible future, and above all without humour. But there is no better example of the development of synthetic symbolism than his first book of woodcuts. Here is work which keeps the merest semblance of conventional form, which gives its effect by startling masses of black and white, by sudden curves, but more frequently by sudden angles.

In the process of the gradual abandonment of natural form the "angle" school is paralleled by the "curve" school, which also descends wholly from Gauguin. The best known representative is Maurice Denis. But he has become a slave to sentimentality, and has been left behind. Matisse is the most prominent French artist who has followed Gauguin with curves. In Germany a group of young men, who form the Neue Kunstlevereinigung in Munich, work almost entirely in sweeping curves, and have reduced natural objects purely to flowing, decorative units.

But while they have followed Gauguin's lead in abandoning representation both of these two groups of advance are lacking in spiritual meaning. Their aim becomes more and more decorative, with an undercurrent of suggestion of simplified form. Anyone who has studied Gauguin will be aware of the intense spiritual value of his work. The man is a preacher and a psychologist, universal by his very unorthodoxy, fundamental because he goes deeper than civilization. In his disciples this great element is wanting. Kandinsky has supplied the need. He is not only on the track of an art more purely spiritual than was conceived even by Gauguin, but he has achieved the final abandonment of all representative intention. In this way he combines in himself the spiritual and technical tendencies of one great branch of Post-Impressionism.

Q. Which of the following statements is the author least likely to agree with?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 3

The author says that early signs of cubism were seen in the works of Herbin, but the first leap into Cubism was made by Picasso. Thus, we can infer that he is unlikely to agree with statement D. Options B and C are given directly in the passage. We can infer option A from the author’s tone when he says Denis “has become a slave to sentimentality.”

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 4

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

The difference between Cezanne and Gauguin is subtle but goes very deep. For both the ultimate and internal significance of what they painted counted for more than the significance which is momentary and external. Cezanne saw in a tree, a heap of apples, a human face, a group of bathing men or women, something more abiding than either photography or impressionist painting could present. He painted the "treeness" of the tree, as a modern critic has admirably expressed it. But in everything he did he showed the architectural mind of the true Frenchman. His landscape studies were based on a profound sense of the structure of rocks and hills, and being structural, his art depends essentially on reality. Though he did not scruple, and rightly, to sacrifice accuracy of form to the inner need, the material of which his art was composed was drawn from the huge stores of actual nature.

Gauguin has greater solemnity and fire than Cezanne. His pictures are tragic or passionate poems. He also sacrifices conventional form to inner expression, but his art tends ever towards the spiritual, towards that profounder emphasis which cannot be expressed in natural objects nor in words. True his abandonment of representative methods did not lead him to an abandonment of natural terms of expression - that is to say human figures, trees and animals do appear in his pictures. But that he was much nearer a complete rejection of representation than was Cezanne is shown by the course followed by their respective disciples.

The generation immediately subsequent to Cezanne, Herbin, Vlaminck, Friesz, Marquet, etc., do little more than exaggerate Cezanne's technique, until there appear the first signs of Cubism. These are seen very clearly in Herbin. Objects begin to be treated in flat planes. A round vase is represented by a series of planes set one into the other, which at a distance blend into a curve. This is the first stage.

The real plunge into Cubism was taken by Picasso, who, nurtured on Cezanne, carried to its perfectly logical conclusion the master's structural treatment of nature. Representation disappears. Starting from a single natural object, Picasso and the Cubists produce lines and project angles till their canvases are covered with intricate and often very beautiful series of balanced lines and curves. They persist, however, in giving them picture titles which recall the natural object from which their minds first took flight.

With Gauguin the case is different. The generation of his disciples which followed him - I put it thus to distinguish them from his actual pupils at Pont Aven, Serusier and the rest - carried the tendency further. One hesitates to mention Derain, for his beginnings, full of vitality and promise, have given place to a dreary compromise with Cubism, without visible future, and above all without humour. But there is no better example of the development of synthetic symbolism than his first book of woodcuts. Here is work which keeps the merest semblance of conventional form, which gives its effect by startling masses of black and white, by sudden curves, but more frequently by sudden angles.

In the process of the gradual abandonment of natural form the "angle" school is paralleled by the "curve" school, which also descends wholly from Gauguin. The best known representative is Maurice Denis. But he has become a slave to sentimentality, and has been left behind. Matisse is the most prominent French artist who has followed Gauguin with curves. In Germany a group of young men, who form the Neue Kunstlevereinigung in Munich, work almost entirely in sweeping curves, and have reduced natural objects purely to flowing, decorative units.

But while they have followed Gauguin's lead in abandoning representation both of these two groups of advance are lacking in spiritual meaning. Their aim becomes more and more decorative, with an undercurrent of suggestion of simplified form. Anyone who has studied Gauguin will be aware of the intense spiritual value of his work. The man is a preacher and a psychologist, universal by his very unorthodoxy, fundamental because he goes deeper than civilization. In his disciples this great element is wanting. Kandinsky has supplied the need. He is not only on the track of an art more purely spiritual than was conceived even by Gauguin, but he has achieved the final abandonment of all representative intention. In this way he combines in himself the spiritual and technical tendencies of one great branch of Post-Impressionism.

Q. What is the tone of the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 4

The author’s tone is objective and neutral in nature. Hence, we can eliminate the negative tone options A and C. The author is trying to analyze objectively the works of Cezanne and Gauguin and their disciples. Hence, option D.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 5

Read the passage carefully and answer the following question:

Certain forms of personal righteousness have become to a majority of the humans almost automatic. It is as easy for most of us to keep from stealing our dinners as it is to digest them, and there is quite as much voluntary morality involved in one process as in the other. To steal would be for us to fall sadly below the standard of habit and expectation which makes virtue easy. In the same way we have been carefully reared to a sense of family obligation, to be kindly and considerate to the members of our own households, and to feel responsible for their well-being. As the rules of conduct have become established in regard to our self-development and our families, so they have been in regard to limited circles of friends. If the fulfillment of these claims were all that a righteous life required, the hunger and thirst would be stilled for many good men and women, and the clew of right living would lie easily in their hands.

But we all know that each generation has its own test, the contemporaneous and current standard by which alone it can adequately judge of its own moral achievements, and that it may not legitimately use a previous and less vigorous test. The advanced test must indeed include that which has already been attained; but if it includes no more, we shall fail to go forward, thinking complacently that we have "arrived" when in reality we have not yet started.

To attain individual morality in an age demanding social morality, to pride one's self on the results of personal effort when the time demands social adjustment, is utterly to fail to apprehend the situation. It is perhaps significant that a German critic has of late reminded us that the one test which the most authoritative and dramatic portrayal of the Day of Judgment offers, is the social test. The stern questions are not in regard to personal and family relations, but did ye visit the poor, the criminal, the sick, and did ye feed the hungry?

All about us are men and women who have become unhappy in regard to their attitude toward the social order itself; toward the dreary round of uninteresting work, the pleasures narrowed down to those of appetite, the declining consciousness of brain power, and the lack of mental food which characterizes the lot of the large proportion of their fellow-citizens. These men and women have caught a moral challenge raised by the exigencies of contemporaneous life; some are bewildered, others who are denied the relief which sturdy action brings are even seeking an escape, but all are increasingly anxious concerning their actual relations to the basic organization of society. 

The test which they would apply to their conduct is a social test. They fail to be content with the fulfillment of their family and personal obligations, and find themselves striving to respond to a new demand involving a social obligation; they have become conscious of another requirement, and the contribution they would make is toward a code of social ethics.

Q. According to the passage, which is the least suitable statement about "righteousness" mentioned in the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 5

Option A: It is clearly mentioned in the first paragraph that individual righteousness or a sense of obligation to our friends and family comes naturally to us. Hence, A can be inferred.

Option B: The passage mentions that each generation has its own code of ethics. Righteousness should always be redefined, and people must adjust to the new values; otherwise, we will fail to go forward as a society(Para 2). Hence, B can be inferred.

Option C: We have become discontent with our existing lifestyle and our attitude towards social obligations. However, it cannot be inferred that our current life has made it harder to fulfil our social obligations. Thus, statement C cannot be inferred from the information given in the passage.

Option D: In the first paragraph, the author mentions that if righteous life required only fulfilling individual obligation, people would have easily attained it. But it also needs fulfilment of social obligations. Only then a righteous life can be achieved. Hence, D can be inferred.

As, A, B and D can be inferred from the passage, option C represents the least suitable statement.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 6

Read the passage carefully and answer the following question:

Certain forms of personal righteousness have become to a majority of the humans almost automatic. It is as easy for most of us to keep from stealing our dinners as it is to digest them, and there is quite as much voluntary morality involved in one process as in the other. To steal would be for us to fall sadly below the standard of habit and expectation which makes virtue easy. In the same way we have been carefully reared to a sense of family obligation, to be kindly and considerate to the members of our own households, and to feel responsible for their well-being. As the rules of conduct have become established in regard to our self-development and our families, so they have been in regard to limited circles of friends. If the fulfillment of these claims were all that a righteous life required, the hunger and thirst would be stilled for many good men and women, and the clew of right living would lie easily in their hands.

But we all know that each generation has its own test, the contemporaneous and current standard by which alone it can adequately judge of its own moral achievements, and that it may not legitimately use a previous and less vigorous test. The advanced test must indeed include that which has already been attained; but if it includes no more, we shall fail to go forward, thinking complacently that we have "arrived" when in reality we have not yet started.

To attain individual morality in an age demanding social morality, to pride one's self on the results of personal effort when the time demands social adjustment, is utterly to fail to apprehend the situation. It is perhaps significant that a German critic has of late reminded us that the one test which the most authoritative and dramatic portrayal of the Day of Judgment offers, is the social test. The stern questions are not in regard to personal and family relations, but did ye visit the poor, the criminal, the sick, and did ye feed the hungry?

All about us are men and women who have become unhappy in regard to their attitude toward the social order itself; toward the dreary round of uninteresting work, the pleasures narrowed down to those of appetite, the declining consciousness of brain power, and the lack of mental food which characterizes the lot of the large proportion of their fellow-citizens. These men and women have caught a moral challenge raised by the exigencies of contemporaneous life; some are bewildered, others who are denied the relief which sturdy action brings are even seeking an escape, but all are increasingly anxious concerning their actual relations to the basic organization of society. 

The test which they would apply to their conduct is a social test. They fail to be content with the fulfillment of their family and personal obligations, and find themselves striving to respond to a new demand involving a social obligation; they have become conscious of another requirement, and the contribution they would make is toward a code of social ethics.

Q. The main purpose of the passage is to

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 6

The author starts of by stating that individual righteousness comes naturally to us, but each new generation has the responsibility to push the envelope when it comes to morality. Then the author goes on to explain that we also need to fulfil our social obligations of morality. The author ends the passage by discussing how the new social order has thrown up a moral challenge to the new generation and how this has created a need for a new code of social ethics. Thus, through the passage, the author is arguing for a new code of social ethics that should be adopted by the current generation. Hence, option D is the right answer.
Option A: Although the author discusses a need for modifying the definition of righteousness, the main purpose is not to teach what righteousness is.
Option B:The author has just mentioned two kinds of obligations and how people want to adjust their behavior to lead a more righteous life.The main purpose of passage is not to discuss different forms of obligations. Hence this option can be rejected.
Option C: The social test mentioned is only to provide a way to fulfil social obligations for people who want to contribute to a code of social ethics. 

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 7

Read the passage carefully and answer the following question:

Certain forms of personal righteousness have become to a majority of the humans almost automatic. It is as easy for most of us to keep from stealing our dinners as it is to digest them, and there is quite as much voluntary morality involved in one process as in the other. To steal would be for us to fall sadly below the standard of habit and expectation which makes virtue easy. In the same way we have been carefully reared to a sense of family obligation, to be kindly and considerate to the members of our own households, and to feel responsible for their well-being. As the rules of conduct have become established in regard to our self-development and our families, so they have been in regard to limited circles of friends. If the fulfillment of these claims were all that a righteous life required, the hunger and thirst would be stilled for many good men and women, and the clew of right living would lie easily in their hands.

But we all know that each generation has its own test, the contemporaneous and current standard by which alone it can adequately judge of its own moral achievements, and that it may not legitimately use a previous and less vigorous test. The advanced test must indeed include that which has already been attained; but if it includes no more, we shall fail to go forward, thinking complacently that we have "arrived" when in reality we have not yet started.

To attain individual morality in an age demanding social morality, to pride one's self on the results of personal effort when the time demands social adjustment, is utterly to fail to apprehend the situation. It is perhaps significant that a German critic has of late reminded us that the one test which the most authoritative and dramatic portrayal of the Day of Judgment offers, is the social test. The stern questions are not in regard to personal and family relations, but did ye visit the poor, the criminal, the sick, and did ye feed the hungry?

All about us are men and women who have become unhappy in regard to their attitude toward the social order itself; toward the dreary round of uninteresting work, the pleasures narrowed down to those of appetite, the declining consciousness of brain power, and the lack of mental food which characterizes the lot of the large proportion of their fellow-citizens. These men and women have caught a moral challenge raised by the exigencies of contemporaneous life; some are bewildered, others who are denied the relief which sturdy action brings are even seeking an escape, but all are increasingly anxious concerning their actual relations to the basic organization of society. 

The test which they would apply to their conduct is a social test. They fail to be content with the fulfillment of their family and personal obligations, and find themselves striving to respond to a new demand involving a social obligation; they have become conscious of another requirement, and the contribution they would make is toward a code of social ethics.

Q. Which of the following statement can be inferred from the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 7

Option A: The passage mentions that individual righteousness comes easily to people than social righteousness. However, it is not mentioned that righteousness comes easily to some people more than others.
Option B: If we design a less vigorous test, we may fail to go forward as a society. However, people may still find it difficult to be content with the ethics of society.
Option C: Paragraph 3 mentions the social test which asks questions to individuals if they have been considerate towards poor, sick and hungry members of the society. Hence, those who only fulfil personal obligations would fail the personal test. Thus, option C can be inferred.
Option D: People finding work uninteresting is not a consequence of their attitude towards social obligations. Hence this option can be rejected.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 8

Read the passage carefully and answer the following question:

Certain forms of personal righteousness have become to a majority of the humans almost automatic. It is as easy for most of us to keep from stealing our dinners as it is to digest them, and there is quite as much voluntary morality involved in one process as in the other. To steal would be for us to fall sadly below the standard of habit and expectation which makes virtue easy. In the same way we have been carefully reared to a sense of family obligation, to be kindly and considerate to the members of our own households, and to feel responsible for their well-being. As the rules of conduct have become established in regard to our self-development and our families, so they have been in regard to limited circles of friends. If the fulfillment of these claims were all that a righteous life required, the hunger and thirst would be stilled for many good men and women, and the clew of right living would lie easily in their hands.

But we all know that each generation has its own test, the contemporaneous and current standard by which alone it can adequately judge of its own moral achievements, and that it may not legitimately use a previous and less vigorous test. The advanced test must indeed include that which has already been attained; but if it includes no more, we shall fail to go forward, thinking complacently that we have "arrived" when in reality we have not yet started.

To attain individual morality in an age demanding social morality, to pride one's self on the results of personal effort when the time demands social adjustment, is utterly to fail to apprehend the situation. It is perhaps significant that a German critic has of late reminded us that the one test which the most authoritative and dramatic portrayal of the Day of Judgment offers, is the social test. The stern questions are not in regard to personal and family relations, but did ye visit the poor, the criminal, the sick, and did ye feed the hungry?

All about us are men and women who have become unhappy in regard to their attitude toward the social order itself; toward the dreary round of uninteresting work, the pleasures narrowed down to those of appetite, the declining consciousness of brain power, and the lack of mental food which characterizes the lot of the large proportion of their fellow-citizens. These men and women have caught a moral challenge raised by the exigencies of contemporaneous life; some are bewildered, others who are denied the relief which sturdy action brings are even seeking an escape, but all are increasingly anxious concerning their actual relations to the basic organization of society. 

The test which they would apply to their conduct is a social test. They fail to be content with the fulfillment of their family and personal obligations, and find themselves striving to respond to a new demand involving a social obligation; they have become conscious of another requirement, and the contribution they would make is toward a code of social ethics.

Q. Which of the following is not a consequence of the consciousness towards the demand of a social obligation?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 8

Option A: In 4th paragraph, it has been mentioned that people are dissatisfied with their current lifestyle and seeking an escape.
Option B: People are losing interest in their work. That's why they are trying to respond to a demand for social obligation. This might be a reason and not the consequence.
Option C: Consider the sentence: "These men and women.............. but all are increasingly anxious concerning their actual relations to the basic organization of society." It shows that people have become concerned about their attitude towards their relations to the society.
Option D: It can be directly inferred from the last para.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 9

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

We don’t live in that same world anymore where we can turn a corner and be eaten by a giant cat. We need our long-term higher-order creative thinking. We need it pretty much all the time.Prolonging fight-or-flight into a chronic condition means that neurons in the brain related to things like learning, memory, and judgment all suffer the consequences, thanks to the wide-ranging effects of double-edged sword stress hormones called glucocorticoids. Recent research has even shown a constantly stressed out brain appears to lead to a kind of hardening of neural pathways. Essentially, feeling chronic stress makes it harder to not perceive stress, creating a vicious cycle of unending stress.

Aside from the many health issues like diabetes and cardiac disease that chronic stress leads to, it also causes behavioral changes as people reach for levers of control to reduce stress. These levers include among others, self-medication and displacement aggression.

Self-medication is self-explanatory, it’s pretty much any addictive substance or behavior you can think of, but displacement aggression is a special something among mammals. It turns out that we can reduce our stress by picking on those below us in our social hierarchies. In other words, this is where anti-social behaviors like bullying, racism, and anti-immigrant xenophobia are born. You know, those same things that fuel fascism.

So to solve these problems, we need to go to the root, which is what’s causing the stress in the first place. What’s the most common cause of stress? It’s money. Whether it be the lack of sufficient money, or money that is too irregular or infrequent, or money that feels like the flow of it could stop at any moment. There are a lot of reasons to stress about money, and it all comes down to the fact that we built a system that requires money for our continued survival.

Unconditional basic income cuts to the root by ending our existential money-based fears. With UBI, no matter what happens, our ability to secure our basic needs is guaranteed, from birth to death. That feeling of emancipatory security is transformative in the most profound of ways. It creates trust.

What happened in the Great Depression? The amount of resources and energy were unchanged. The manufacturing capacity was unchanged. The amount of human labor willing to work to produce what was needed was unchanged. And yet the system essentially ground to a halt. Why? Because there was insufficient money in most people’s hands and thus a lack of trust.

Nothing was stopping anyone from exchanging goods and services. As Alan Watts has described the situation, it was like everyone showed up on Monday to build a house, and they were told there would be no work that day, not because of a lack of wood or hammers or nails or cement, but because they were all out of inches. Money doesn’t really exist like we think it does. It’s just a tool of measurement built on trust.

So what are we doing hoarding so much of an imaginary construct in some places, and preventing any of it from reaching other places? Why have we invented something out of thin air, and then pretended it is a finite resource?
The answer is because we didn’t create enough democracy. We didn’t make citizens equal enough. We didn’t free citizens enough to engage in and grow democracy. And we weren’t able to do that because we didn’t implement unconditional basic income to free people from the imposition of survival work. It’s a catch-22. Its two sides of a coin. We need UBI for democracy, and we need democracy for UBI. It’s a feedback loop for prosperity…

Q. What is the primary purpose of the author?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 9

The passage begins by explaining the consequences of stress. It then introduces its primary source, money. The author explains the concept of money and then explains why UBI is important to combat stress and become a more prosperous state. Thus, through the passage, the author is making the case for Universal basic income. 

So, we can see that Option D is the most suitable option as it captures this point.

Option A is incorrect as it incorrectly identifies the focal point of the passage. The author has talked about "trust" to explain why UBI would lead to a more robust economy. Option C suffers from a similar flaw. Though the author mentions how stress leads to fascism, this is not the focal point of the passage.

Option B is incorrect because it excludes the concept of UBI which is central to the passage. Democracy is only a part of the final paragraph.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 10

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

We don’t live in that same world anymore where we can turn a corner and be eaten by a giant cat. We need our long-term higher-order creative thinking. We need it pretty much all the time.Prolonging fight-or-flight into a chronic condition means that neurons in the brain related to things like learning, memory, and judgment all suffer the consequences, thanks to the wide-ranging effects of double-edged sword stress hormones called glucocorticoids. Recent research has even shown a constantly stressed out brain appears to lead to a kind of hardening of neural pathways. Essentially, feeling chronic stress makes it harder to not perceive stress, creating a vicious cycle of unending stress.

Aside from the many health issues like diabetes and cardiac disease that chronic stress leads to, it also causes behavioral changes as people reach for levers of control to reduce stress. These levers include among others, self-medication and displacement aggression.

Self-medication is self-explanatory, it’s pretty much any addictive substance or behavior you can think of, but displacement aggression is a special something among mammals. It turns out that we can reduce our stress by picking on those below us in our social hierarchies. In other words, this is where anti-social behaviors like bullying, racism, and anti-immigrant xenophobia are born. You know, those same things that fuel fascism.

So to solve these problems, we need to go to the root, which is what’s causing the stress in the first place. What’s the most common cause of stress? It’s money. Whether it be the lack of sufficient money, or money that is too irregular or infrequent, or money that feels like the flow of it could stop at any moment. There are a lot of reasons to stress about money, and it all comes down to the fact that we built a system that requires money for our continued survival.

Unconditional basic income cuts to the root by ending our existential money-based fears. With UBI, no matter what happens, our ability to secure our basic needs is guaranteed, from birth to death. That feeling of emancipatory security is transformative in the most profound of ways. It creates trust.

What happened in the Great Depression? The amount of resources and energy were unchanged. The manufacturing capacity was unchanged. The amount of human labor willing to work to produce what was needed was unchanged. And yet the system essentially ground to a halt. Why? Because there was insufficient money in most people’s hands and thus a lack of trust.

Nothing was stopping anyone from exchanging goods and services. As Alan Watts has described the situation, it was like everyone showed up on Monday to build a house, and they were told there would be no work that day, not because of a lack of wood or hammers or nails or cement, but because they were all out of inches. Money doesn’t really exist like we think it does. It’s just a tool of measurement built on trust.

So what are we doing hoarding so much of an imaginary construct in some places, and preventing any of it from reaching other places? Why have we invented something out of thin air, and then pretended it is a finite resource?
The answer is because we didn’t create enough democracy. We didn’t make citizens equal enough. We didn’t free citizens enough to engage in and grow democracy. And we weren’t able to do that because we didn’t implement unconditional basic income to free people from the imposition of survival work. It’s a catch-22. Its two sides of a coin. We need UBI for democracy, and we need democracy for UBI. It’s a feedback loop for prosperity…

Q. Why does the author call the stress hormones a ‘double-edged sword’?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 10

The meaning of "double-edged sword" refers to something that can have both favourable and unfavourable effects. In the given paragraph, the author talks about how prolonged exposure to stress hormones can lead to a wide-range of problems including poor decision making. Thus, the author is trying to say that the stress hormones which help us deal with stress in a situation where our survival is threatened (like being eaten by a cat) can cause a lot of damage with prolonged exposure. Thus, of the given options, only option B captures the point that stress hormones have both positive and negative effects on people. 
Hence, option B.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 11

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

We don’t live in that same world anymore where we can turn a corner and be eaten by a giant cat. We need our long-term higher-order creative thinking. We need it pretty much all the time.Prolonging fight-or-flight into a chronic condition means that neurons in the brain related to things like learning, memory, and judgment all suffer the consequences, thanks to the wide-ranging effects of double-edged sword stress hormones called glucocorticoids. Recent research has even shown a constantly stressed out brain appears to lead to a kind of hardening of neural pathways. Essentially, feeling chronic stress makes it harder to not perceive stress, creating a vicious cycle of unending stress.

Aside from the many health issues like diabetes and cardiac disease that chronic stress leads to, it also causes behavioral changes as people reach for levers of control to reduce stress. These levers include among others, self-medication and displacement aggression.

Self-medication is self-explanatory, it’s pretty much any addictive substance or behavior you can think of, but displacement aggression is a special something among mammals. It turns out that we can reduce our stress by picking on those below us in our social hierarchies. In other words, this is where anti-social behaviors like bullying, racism, and anti-immigrant xenophobia are born. You know, those same things that fuel fascism.

So to solve these problems, we need to go to the root, which is what’s causing the stress in the first place. What’s the most common cause of stress? It’s money. Whether it be the lack of sufficient money, or money that is too irregular or infrequent, or money that feels like the flow of it could stop at any moment. There are a lot of reasons to stress about money, and it all comes down to the fact that we built a system that requires money for our continued survival.

Unconditional basic income cuts to the root by ending our existential money-based fears. With UBI, no matter what happens, our ability to secure our basic needs is guaranteed, from birth to death. That feeling of emancipatory security is transformative in the most profound of ways. It creates trust.

What happened in the Great Depression? The amount of resources and energy were unchanged. The manufacturing capacity was unchanged. The amount of human labor willing to work to produce what was needed was unchanged. And yet the system essentially ground to a halt. Why? Because there was insufficient money in most people’s hands and thus a lack of trust.

Nothing was stopping anyone from exchanging goods and services. As Alan Watts has described the situation, it was like everyone showed up on Monday to build a house, and they were told there would be no work that day, not because of a lack of wood or hammers or nails or cement, but because they were all out of inches. Money doesn’t really exist like we think it does. It’s just a tool of measurement built on trust.

So what are we doing hoarding so much of an imaginary construct in some places, and preventing any of it from reaching other places? Why have we invented something out of thin air, and then pretended it is a finite resource?
The answer is because we didn’t create enough democracy. We didn’t make citizens equal enough. We didn’t free citizens enough to engage in and grow democracy. And we weren’t able to do that because we didn’t implement unconditional basic income to free people from the imposition of survival work. It’s a catch-22. Its two sides of a coin. We need UBI for democracy, and we need democracy for UBI. It’s a feedback loop for prosperity…

Q. The author is likely to support all of the following statements, except:

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 11

Self medicating is synonymous with addictive substances and behaviors-not displacement aggression-hence Option D is incorrect.
Option A can be inferred from the line “With UBI, no matter what happens, our ability to secure our basic needs is guaranteed, from birth to death.”
Option B can be inferred from the line “It turns out that we can reduce our stress by picking on those below us in our social hierarchies.”
Option C can be inferred from the lines “What happened in the Great Depression? The amount of resources and energy were unchanged. The manufacturing capacity was unchanged. The amount of human labor willing to work to produce what was needed was unchanged. And yet the system essentially ground to a halt. Why? Because there was insufficient money in most people’s hands and thus a lack of trust.”
Hence, the author is likely to support all the statements other than Option D.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 12

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

We don’t live in that same world anymore where we can turn a corner and be eaten by a giant cat. We need our long-term higher-order creative thinking. We need it pretty much all the time.Prolonging fight-or-flight into a chronic condition means that neurons in the brain related to things like learning, memory, and judgment all suffer the consequences, thanks to the wide-ranging effects of double-edged sword stress hormones called glucocorticoids. Recent research has even shown a constantly stressed out brain appears to lead to a kind of hardening of neural pathways. Essentially, feeling chronic stress makes it harder to not perceive stress, creating a vicious cycle of unending stress.

Aside from the many health issues like diabetes and cardiac disease that chronic stress leads to, it also causes behavioral changes as people reach for levers of control to reduce stress. These levers include among others, self-medication and displacement aggression.

Self-medication is self-explanatory, it’s pretty much any addictive substance or behavior you can think of, but displacement aggression is a special something among mammals. It turns out that we can reduce our stress by picking on those below us in our social hierarchies. In other words, this is where anti-social behaviors like bullying, racism, and anti-immigrant xenophobia are born. You know, those same things that fuel fascism.

So to solve these problems, we need to go to the root, which is what’s causing the stress in the first place. What’s the most common cause of stress? It’s money. Whether it be the lack of sufficient money, or money that is too irregular or infrequent, or money that feels like the flow of it could stop at any moment. There are a lot of reasons to stress about money, and it all comes down to the fact that we built a system that requires money for our continued survival.

Unconditional basic income cuts to the root by ending our existential money-based fears. With UBI, no matter what happens, our ability to secure our basic needs is guaranteed, from birth to death. That feeling of emancipatory security is transformative in the most profound of ways. It creates trust.

What happened in the Great Depression? The amount of resources and energy were unchanged. The manufacturing capacity was unchanged. The amount of human labor willing to work to produce what was needed was unchanged. And yet the system essentially ground to a halt. Why? Because there was insufficient money in most people’s hands and thus a lack of trust.

Nothing was stopping anyone from exchanging goods and services. As Alan Watts has described the situation, it was like everyone showed up on Monday to build a house, and they were told there would be no work that day, not because of a lack of wood or hammers or nails or cement, but because they were all out of inches. Money doesn’t really exist like we think it does. It’s just a tool of measurement built on trust.

So what are we doing hoarding so much of an imaginary construct in some places, and preventing any of it from reaching other places? Why have we invented something out of thin air, and then pretended it is a finite resource?
The answer is because we didn’t create enough democracy. We didn’t make citizens equal enough. We didn’t free citizens enough to engage in and grow democracy. And we weren’t able to do that because we didn’t implement unconditional basic income to free people from the imposition of survival work. It’s a catch-22. Its two sides of a coin. We need UBI for democracy, and we need democracy for UBI. It’s a feedback loop for prosperity…

Q. What is the author’s main reason for advocating UBI?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 12

Although all the options are correct, the primary purpose of UBI is to assure everyone of having their basic needs met. This in turn, will reduce stress, promote equality and promote prosperity. The remaining options are all consequences of a person having his or her basic needs met. What we need to identify is the immediate impact of UBI-which is that everyone is assured of having enough to survive. Hence, Option C is the right answer. Options-A,B and D are all consequences of Option C.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 13

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

We don’t live in that same world anymore where we can turn a corner and be eaten by a giant cat. We need our long-term higher-order creative thinking. We need it pretty much all the time.Prolonging fight-or-flight into a chronic condition means that neurons in the brain related to things like learning, memory, and judgment all suffer the consequences, thanks to the wide-ranging effects of double-edged sword stress hormones called glucocorticoids. Recent research has even shown a constantly stressed out brain appears to lead to a kind of hardening of neural pathways. Essentially, feeling chronic stress makes it harder to not perceive stress, creating a vicious cycle of unending stress.

Aside from the many health issues like diabetes and cardiac disease that chronic stress leads to, it also causes behavioral changes as people reach for levers of control to reduce stress. These levers include among others, self-medication and displacement aggression.

Self-medication is self-explanatory, it’s pretty much any addictive substance or behavior you can think of, but displacement aggression is a special something among mammals. It turns out that we can reduce our stress by picking on those below us in our social hierarchies. In other words, this is where anti-social behaviors like bullying, racism, and anti-immigrant xenophobia are born. You know, those same things that fuel fascism.

So to solve these problems, we need to go to the root, which is what’s causing the stress in the first place. What’s the most common cause of stress? It’s money. Whether it be the lack of sufficient money, or money that is too irregular or infrequent, or money that feels like the flow of it could stop at any moment. There are a lot of reasons to stress about money, and it all comes down to the fact that we built a system that requires money for our continued survival.

Unconditional basic income cuts to the root by ending our existential money-based fears. With UBI, no matter what happens, our ability to secure our basic needs is guaranteed, from birth to death. That feeling of emancipatory security is transformative in the most profound of ways. It creates trust.

What happened in the Great Depression? The amount of resources and energy were unchanged. The manufacturing capacity was unchanged. The amount of human labor willing to work to produce what was needed was unchanged. And yet the system essentially ground to a halt. Why? Because there was insufficient money in most people’s hands and thus a lack of trust.

Nothing was stopping anyone from exchanging goods and services. As Alan Watts has described the situation, it was like everyone showed up on Monday to build a house, and they were told there would be no work that day, not because of a lack of wood or hammers or nails or cement, but because they were all out of inches. Money doesn’t really exist like we think it does. It’s just a tool of measurement built on trust.

So what are we doing hoarding so much of an imaginary construct in some places, and preventing any of it from reaching other places? Why have we invented something out of thin air, and then pretended it is a finite resource?
The answer is because we didn’t create enough democracy. We didn’t make citizens equal enough. We didn’t free citizens enough to engage in and grow democracy. And we weren’t able to do that because we didn’t implement unconditional basic income to free people from the imposition of survival work. It’s a catch-22. Its two sides of a coin. We need UBI for democracy, and we need democracy for UBI. It’s a feedback loop for prosperity…

Q. Which of the following is most likely to be the topic of discussion after the final paragraph of the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 13

Since the passage concludes with speaking of democracy and UBI being interlinked and necessary for prosperity-it is likely for the author to continue by speaking of economic rights (UBI) of EVERY individual (democracy). So, Option A is most suitable.

Option C is incorrect since capitalism hasn’t been mentioned anywhere in the paragraph. It would not be in continuity with the passage to speak of the futility of capitalism.

We can eliminate option D because it is unrelated to the given passage.

Between options A and B, A is closer to the last paragraph of the passage. It fits better with the chain of thought of the passage. Option B implies an abrupt departure from the concept of democracy introduced in the last passage. Hence, the right answer is option A.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 14

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

If you see police choking someone to death, you might choose to pepper-spray them and flee. You might even save an innocent life. But what ethical considerations justify such dangerous heroics? More important: do we have the right to defend ourselves and others from government injustice when government agents are following an unjust law? I think the answer is yes. But that view needs defending. Under what circumstances might active self-defence, including possible violence, be justified?

Civil disobedience is a public act that aims to create social or legal change. Think of Henry David Thoreau’s arrest in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes to fund the colonial exploits of the United States. In such a case, disobedient citizens visibly break the law and accept punishment, so as to draw attention to a cause. But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice.

Some people say we may not defend ourselves against government injustice because governments and their agents have ‘authority’. But the authority argument doesn’t work. It’s one thing to say that you have a duty to pay your taxes or follow the speed limit. It is quite another to show that you are specifically bound to allow a government and its agents to use excessive violence and ignore your rights to due process.

Others say that we should resist government injustice, but only through peaceful methods. Indeed, we should, but that doesn’t differentiate between self-defence against civilians or government. The common-law doctrine of self-defence is always governed by a necessity proviso: you may lie or use violence only if necessary, that is, only if peaceful actions are not as effective. But peaceful methods often fail to stop wrongdoing. Eric Garner peacefully complained: ‘I can’t breathe,’ until he drew his last breath.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t act as vigilantes. But invoking this point here misunderstands the antivigilante principle, which says that when there exists a workable public system of justice, you should defer to public agents trying, in good faith, to administer justice. So if cops attempt to stop a mugging, you shouldn’t insert yourself. But if they ignore or can’t stop a mugging, you may intervene. If the police themselves are the muggers the antivigilante principle does not forbid you from defending yourself. It insists you defer to more competent government agents when they administer justice, not that you must let them commit injustice.

Some people find my thesis too dangerous. They claim that it’s hard to know exactly when self-defence is justified; that people make mistakes, resisting when they should not. Perhaps. But that’s true of self-defence against civilians, too. No one says we lack a right of self-defence against each other because applying the principle is hard. Rather, some moral principles are hard to apply.

However, this objection gets the problem exactly backwards. In real life, people are too deferential and conformist in the face of government authority and reluctant to stand up to political injustice. If anything, the dangerous thesis is that we should defer to government agents when they seem to act unjustly. Remember, self-defence against the state is about stopping an immediate injustice, not fixing broken rules.

Q. What is the main point of the last two paragraphs?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 14

Through the last two paragraphs, the author is trying to refute the objection that self-defence against the state could be dangerous as people would not know when it is appropriate to use this power. The author refutes this by saying that this is true for all self-defence and more often than not people are likely to not act even when justified instead of the other way around. Option A correctly captures this and hence is the right choice.

Option B, which says that self-defence against the state is less open to misuse is incorrect. The author says that knowing when it is appropriate to act is similarly difficult in both cases. 

Option C contains the distortion of "corrupt" government officials. The passage is about government agents who act unfairly or unjustly, and not about corruption. 

Option D misses the main point of the last two paragraphs. Hence, we can eliminate it.

Thus, the right answer is option A.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 15

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

If you see police choking someone to death, you might choose to pepper-spray them and flee. You might even save an innocent life. But what ethical considerations justify such dangerous heroics? More important: do we have the right to defend ourselves and others from government injustice when government agents are following an unjust law? I think the answer is yes. But that view needs defending. Under what circumstances might active self-defence, including possible violence, be justified?

Civil disobedience is a public act that aims to create social or legal change. Think of Henry David Thoreau’s arrest in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes to fund the colonial exploits of the United States. In such a case, disobedient citizens visibly break the law and accept punishment, so as to draw attention to a cause. But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice.

Some people say we may not defend ourselves against government injustice because governments and their agents have ‘authority’. But the authority argument doesn’t work. It’s one thing to say that you have a duty to pay your taxes or follow the speed limit. It is quite another to show that you are specifically bound to allow a government and its agents to use excessive violence and ignore your rights to due process.

Others say that we should resist government injustice, but only through peaceful methods. Indeed, we should, but that doesn’t differentiate between self-defence against civilians or government. The common-law doctrine of self-defence is always governed by a necessity proviso: you may lie or use violence only if necessary, that is, only if peaceful actions are not as effective. But peaceful methods often fail to stop wrongdoing. Eric Garner peacefully complained: ‘I can’t breathe,’ until he drew his last breath.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t act as vigilantes. But invoking this point here misunderstands the antivigilante principle, which says that when there exists a workable public system of justice, you should defer to public agents trying, in good faith, to administer justice. So if cops attempt to stop a mugging, you shouldn’t insert yourself. But if they ignore or can’t stop a mugging, you may intervene. If the police themselves are the muggers the antivigilante principle does not forbid you from defending yourself. It insists you defer to more competent government agents when they administer justice, not that you must let them commit injustice.

Some people find my thesis too dangerous. They claim that it’s hard to know exactly when self-defence is justified; that people make mistakes, resisting when they should not. Perhaps. But that’s true of self-defence against civilians, too. No one says we lack a right of self-defence against each other because applying the principle is hard. Rather, some moral principles are hard to apply.

However, this objection gets the problem exactly backwards. In real life, people are too deferential and conformist in the face of government authority and reluctant to stand up to political injustice. If anything, the dangerous thesis is that we should defer to government agents when they seem to act unjustly. Remember, self-defence against the state is about stopping an immediate injustice, not fixing broken rules.

Q. Which of the following responses would the author not agree with?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 15

The author in the given passage tries to address the question whether it is justified to act against the government's injustice when the time calls. He also mentions that while people have a self-defence against civilians, they hesitate to exhibit the same against the government or its agents. Option D illustrates one such situation where people should act against the use of excessive force from government agents but fail to do so. According to the author, people should do more to stop immediate injustice. By just filming the incident, people are not doing enough to protect the minor involved.

In options A and B, people are acting in self-defence which is in line with what the author preaches. Option c is not related to the topic of self-defence. Thus, of the given options, option D is the only situation where the author asks people to act against the officials. 

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 16

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

If you see police choking someone to death, you might choose to pepper-spray them and flee. You might even save an innocent life. But what ethical considerations justify such dangerous heroics? More important: do we have the right to defend ourselves and others from government injustice when government agents are following an unjust law? I think the answer is yes. But that view needs defending. Under what circumstances might active self-defence, including possible violence, be justified?

Civil disobedience is a public act that aims to create social or legal change. Think of Henry David Thoreau’s arrest in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes to fund the colonial exploits of the United States. In such a case, disobedient citizens visibly break the law and accept punishment, so as to draw attention to a cause. But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice.

Some people say we may not defend ourselves against government injustice because governments and their agents have ‘authority’. But the authority argument doesn’t work. It’s one thing to say that you have a duty to pay your taxes or follow the speed limit. It is quite another to show that you are specifically bound to allow a government and its agents to use excessive violence and ignore your rights to due process.

Others say that we should resist government injustice, but only through peaceful methods. Indeed, we should, but that doesn’t differentiate between self-defence against civilians or government. The common-law doctrine of self-defence is always governed by a necessity proviso: you may lie or use violence only if necessary, that is, only if peaceful actions are not as effective. But peaceful methods often fail to stop wrongdoing. Eric Garner peacefully complained: ‘I can’t breathe,’ until he drew his last breath.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t act as vigilantes. But invoking this point here misunderstands the antivigilante principle, which says that when there exists a workable public system of justice, you should defer to public agents trying, in good faith, to administer justice. So if cops attempt to stop a mugging, you shouldn’t insert yourself. But if they ignore or can’t stop a mugging, you may intervene. If the police themselves are the muggers the antivigilante principle does not forbid you from defending yourself. It insists you defer to more competent government agents when they administer justice, not that you must let them commit injustice.

Some people find my thesis too dangerous. They claim that it’s hard to know exactly when self-defence is justified; that people make mistakes, resisting when they should not. Perhaps. But that’s true of self-defence against civilians, too. No one says we lack a right of self-defence against each other because applying the principle is hard. Rather, some moral principles are hard to apply.

However, this objection gets the problem exactly backwards. In real life, people are too deferential and conformist in the face of government authority and reluctant to stand up to political injustice. If anything, the dangerous thesis is that we should defer to government agents when they seem to act unjustly. Remember, self-defence against the state is about stopping an immediate injustice, not fixing broken rules.

Q. What point does the author try to make through the given passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 16

At the start of the passage, the author introduces the question that is "self-defence against the state justified?". The author goes on to explain how self-defence against the state is justified. He examines all the counterarguments and refutes them. Thus, the main point of the passage is to argue for self-defence against the state. Hence, option A is correct.
Option B completely misses the point, so we can eliminate this option.
Option C introduces the distortion of "legally right". The author does not discuss the topic from a legal perspective.
Option D focuses only on the last two paragraphs.
Hence, option A is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 17

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

If you see police choking someone to death, you might choose to pepper-spray them and flee. You might even save an innocent life. But what ethical considerations justify such dangerous heroics? More important: do we have the right to defend ourselves and others from government injustice when government agents are following an unjust law? I think the answer is yes. But that view needs defending. Under what circumstances might active self-defence, including possible violence, be justified?

Civil disobedience is a public act that aims to create social or legal change. Think of Henry David Thoreau’s arrest in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes to fund the colonial exploits of the United States. In such a case, disobedient citizens visibly break the law and accept punishment, so as to draw attention to a cause. But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice.

Some people say we may not defend ourselves against government injustice because governments and their agents have ‘authority’. But the authority argument doesn’t work. It’s one thing to say that you have a duty to pay your taxes or follow the speed limit. It is quite another to show that you are specifically bound to allow a government and its agents to use excessive violence and ignore your rights to due process.

Others say that we should resist government injustice, but only through peaceful methods. Indeed, we should, but that doesn’t differentiate between self-defence against civilians or government. The common-law doctrine of self-defence is always governed by a necessity proviso: you may lie or use violence only if necessary, that is, only if peaceful actions are not as effective. But peaceful methods often fail to stop wrongdoing. Eric Garner peacefully complained: ‘I can’t breathe,’ until he drew his last breath.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t act as vigilantes. But invoking this point here misunderstands the antivigilante principle, which says that when there exists a workable public system of justice, you should defer to public agents trying, in good faith, to administer justice. So if cops attempt to stop a mugging, you shouldn’t insert yourself. But if they ignore or can’t stop a mugging, you may intervene. If the police themselves are the muggers the antivigilante principle does not forbid you from defending yourself. It insists you defer to more competent government agents when they administer justice, not that you must let them commit injustice.

Some people find my thesis too dangerous. They claim that it’s hard to know exactly when self-defence is justified; that people make mistakes, resisting when they should not. Perhaps. But that’s true of self-defence against civilians, too. No one says we lack a right of self-defence against each other because applying the principle is hard. Rather, some moral principles are hard to apply.

However, this objection gets the problem exactly backwards. In real life, people are too deferential and conformist in the face of government authority and reluctant to stand up to political injustice. If anything, the dangerous thesis is that we should defer to government agents when they seem to act unjustly. Remember, self-defence against the state is about stopping an immediate injustice, not fixing broken rules.

Q. All of the following statements are not true according to the passage except

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 17

In the given question we need to find out the option which is true as per the passage. Let, us evaluate the option individually.
Refer to the second-last para. The author states that self-defence against a civilian and a government agent both can be challenging to determine whether they are justified or not. Option A contradicts this and therefore is incorrect.
Refer to para 2, line 1. Although civil disobedience often aims at creating a social or legal change, the word 'always' makes option B extreme. Hence, B is incorrect.
Refer to para 4. The author states that peaceful methods often fail to deter wrongdoing and hence, may not be as effective as they are touted to be. Therefore, option C is correct.
Refer to para 2, line 1. We know that David Thoreau staged a protest and got arrested for the same but whether his efforts were well received by the public and eventually succeeded cannot be determined by the given information. 
Hence, option C is correct.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 18

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

If you see police choking someone to death, you might choose to pepper-spray them and flee. You might even save an innocent life. But what ethical considerations justify such dangerous heroics? More important: do we have the right to defend ourselves and others from government injustice when government agents are following an unjust law? I think the answer is yes. But that view needs defending. Under what circumstances might active self-defence, including possible violence, be justified?

Civil disobedience is a public act that aims to create social or legal change. Think of Henry David Thoreau’s arrest in 1846 for refusing to pay taxes to fund the colonial exploits of the United States. In such a case, disobedient citizens visibly break the law and accept punishment, so as to draw attention to a cause. But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice.

Some people say we may not defend ourselves against government injustice because governments and their agents have ‘authority’. But the authority argument doesn’t work. It’s one thing to say that you have a duty to pay your taxes or follow the speed limit. It is quite another to show that you are specifically bound to allow a government and its agents to use excessive violence and ignore your rights to due process.

Others say that we should resist government injustice, but only through peaceful methods. Indeed, we should, but that doesn’t differentiate between self-defence against civilians or government. The common-law doctrine of self-defence is always governed by a necessity proviso: you may lie or use violence only if necessary, that is, only if peaceful actions are not as effective. But peaceful methods often fail to stop wrongdoing. Eric Garner peacefully complained: ‘I can’t breathe,’ until he drew his last breath.

Another argument is that we shouldn’t act as vigilantes. But invoking this point here misunderstands the antivigilante principle, which says that when there exists a workable public system of justice, you should defer to public agents trying, in good faith, to administer justice. So if cops attempt to stop a mugging, you shouldn’t insert yourself. But if they ignore or can’t stop a mugging, you may intervene. If the police themselves are the muggers the antivigilante principle does not forbid you from defending yourself. It insists you defer to more competent government agents when they administer justice, not that you must let them commit injustice.

Some people find my thesis too dangerous. They claim that it’s hard to know exactly when self-defence is justified; that people make mistakes, resisting when they should not. Perhaps. But that’s true of self-defence against civilians, too. No one says we lack a right of self-defence against each other because applying the principle is hard. Rather, some moral principles are hard to apply.

However, this objection gets the problem exactly backwards. In real life, people are too deferential and conformist in the face of government authority and reluctant to stand up to political injustice. If anything, the dangerous thesis is that we should defer to government agents when they seem to act unjustly. Remember, self-defence against the state is about stopping an immediate injustice, not fixing broken rules.

Q. Which of the following statements can be inferred from the passage as true?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 18

Let us evaluate each options individually:
Option A: Refer to para 3, last line. The author clearly suggests that any act of enforcement by the government is not justified. There is no suggestion that the government is right to enforce anything when peaceful exhortations fail. Option A cannot be inferred.
Option B: The author has mentioned in para 2 that "But justifiable resistance need not have a civic character. It need not aim at changing the law, reforming dysfunctional institutions or replacing bad leaders. Sometimes, it is simply about stopping an immediate injustice." Hence, option B can be inferred.
Option C: This option is a misinterpretation of point made in para 5. This para suggests that the antivigilante principle does not allow one to accede to government's injustice rather to seek the help of higher authorities until justice is done.Defending oneself with the use of violence along with seeking the help of higher authorities cannot be inferred. So, this option is incorrect.
Option D: This option is vague as equality mentioned here is not clear. This option can be rejected.
Hence, option B is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 19

Read the following paragraph and choose the option that best captures its essence:

Eternal peace is a chimera. Whatever pains we may take to avoid war, there always comes a moment when tradition and interest, passion and affection clash and bring to pass the shock which we desired to avoid, a shock which, in the conditions within which civilisation evolves, appears not merely inevitable, but salutary. So we see that philosophers and historians have generally spoken of war as a necessary evil.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 19

The main idea the paragraph conveys is that 'war is not only inevitable, it is salutary'. 'Salutary' means some unpleasant event bringing some positive effects with it. Only option D captures this point. Only option D captures all the main points - war is inevitable, unpleasant but has some positive effects as well. Therefore, option D is the right answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 20

Four sentences are given below. These sentences, when rearranged in proper order, form a logical and meaningful paragraph. Rearrange the sentences and enter the correct order as the answer.

  1. Yet even art does not fully satisfy the deepest need of the soul.
  2. Religion is placed above the dominion of art.
  3. The soul wants to contemplate truth in its inmost consciousness.
  4. Art is intended to make us contemplate the true and the infinite in forms of sense.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 20

After reading all the sentences, we know that the paragraph is about art and its failure in satisfying the need of the soul. Statement 4 is the opening sentence which mentions the intention of art. Statement 1 states that even art intends to satisfy the soul, but it fails to do so. Statement 3 gives the reason for the same. Statement 2 says that religion is above the dominion of art as it might be able to satisfy the soul. Thus, the correct order is 4 - 1 - 3 - 2.
Hence, 4132 is the correct answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 21

Four sentences are given below. These sentences, when rearranged in proper order, form a logical and meaningful paragraph. Rearrange the sentences and enter the correct order as the answer.

  1. If the transmigration of souls is a fact, this animal was certainly qualifying most rapidly for a Christian, for her vanity was only second to her love of drink.
  2. She would hang about for hours outside the cellar door for the purpose of sneaking in on the first opportunity and lapping up the drippings from the beer-cask.
  3. Whenever she caught a particularly big rat, she would bring it up into the room where we were all sitting, lay the corpse down in the midst of us, and wait to be praised.
  4. I do not mention this habit of hers in praise of the species, but merely to show how almost human some of them are.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 21

Sentence 1 mentions that the animal’s love for vanity is only next to her love of drink. Therefore, before sentence 1, the animal’s love of drink should have been discussed and after sentence 1, the animal’s love for vanity should have been discussed.
Sentence 3 talks about how the animal expects appreciation after bringing home a rat. Sentence 3 describes the animal’s love for vanity. 3 should follow 1.
Sentences 2 and 4 describe the animal’s love of drink. Sentence 2 mentions how the animal finds its way to drink and in sentence 4, the author mentions that he is not praising the habit but just showing how the species shows some human behaviour. Therefore, sentence 2 should be followed by 4.
Sentences 2413 form a coherent paragraph and hence, 2413 is the right answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 22

Five sentences are given below. Four of these sentences, when rearranged properly, form a logical and meaningful paragraph. The fifth one does not belong to the same paragraph. Identify the one which does not belong to the paragraph and enter its number as the answer.

  1. But when the Navy heard that the Foreign Office was inclined to listen to Mr. Wilson's protests it made no attempt to conceal its opposition.
  2. So, the Navy kept sinking ships and relying upon the Foreign Office to make excuses and keep America out of the war.
  3. Gottlieb von Jagow, the Secretary of State, although he was an intimate friend of the Kaiser and an officer in the German Army, was at heart a pacifist.
  4. After the sinking of the 'Arabic', the German Foreign Office intimated to the United States Government and to the American correspondents that methods of submarine warfare would be altered and that ships would be warned before they were torpedoed.
  5. Every time an opportunity presented itself he tried to mobilise the peace forces of the world to make peace.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 22

On carefully reading the sentences, we see that the paragraph is about the relation between the German Foreign Office, Navy and America. Sentence 4, which introduces the subject should be the opening sentence of the passage. Sentences 4 and 1 form a pair. 1 mentions that the Navy did not pay heed to Foreign office's interests. Sentences 3 and 5 form a pair, which explain why the foreign office was willing to listen to Wilson's protests. Sentence 2, which starts with 'so' does not fit anywhere in the passage. It is the odd sentence. 4135 forms a meaningful paragraph.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 23

Five sentences are given below. Four of these, when rearranged properly, form a logical and meaningful paragraph. Identify the sentence which does not belong to the paragraph and enter its number as the answer.

  1. It was obvious that the separated churches were helpless against the demands arising in their midst for the right of individual interpretation where they themselves drew such widely differing conclusions.
  2. The Quakers appeared about a hundred years after the decentralization of authority in theological science.
  3. Within these communions the goal towards which the breaking away from the Roman centre had been an unconscious step was already well in view.
  4. But far away beneath the institutional confusions and doctrinal dilemmas of this post-Reformation century fresh life was welling up.
  5. The Reformers’ dream of a remade church had ended in a Europe where, over against an alienated parent, four young Protestant communions disputed together as to the doctrinal interpretation of the scriptures.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 23

After reading all the sentence, we know that the paragraph is about the decentralization of power of churches. Statement 2 introduces the idea and statement 5 expands the idea about decentralization mentioned in statement 2. Statement 3 provided additional details about the communions discussed in statement 5. Statement 1 illuminates the condition of churches after separation amid hostile circumstances. Thus, 2-5-3-1 is a paragraph. Statement 4 mentions a positive change which took place in the post-reform era. It is an odd sentence as all the other sentences are about the separation of churches and the dilution of power.
Hence, 4 is the correct answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 24

Arrange the following sentences in a logical order and enter the correct order of sentences in the space provided.
(1) Remember my advice for the future: Never accept a peach in company.
(2) Your sudden zeal to relieve those ladies of their plates serves as a very good excuse for the relinquishment of your own.
(3) Ah! I see your courage will not brave laughter.
(4) You have rescued yourself very well from your dilemma this time.
(5) You steal to the table, half ashamed of yourself as you set down your untasted peach.


Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 - Question 24

Logically, statement 1 follows statement 4, because 4 mentions "rescued yourself' and 1 mentions "advice for the future" i.e. the advice is given after the dilemma is resolved. Statement 4 should be placed with statement 3 because 4 mentions"rescued" and 3 mentions "courage". Statement 3 mentions an act which cannot be exactly classified as courageous. So statement 3 logically follows 2. So, required order is 52341.

2 videos|24 docs|89 tests
Use Code STAYHOME200 and get INR 200 additional OFF
Use Coupon Code
Information about Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1 solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 1, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice