CAT  >  CAT Mock Test Series  >  Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 Download as PDF

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3


Test Description

24 Questions MCQ Test CAT Mock Test Series | Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 for CAT 2022 is part of CAT Mock Test Series preparation. The Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 questions and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus.The Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 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- 3 below.
Solutions of Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 questions in English are available as part of our CAT Mock Test Series for CAT & Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 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- 3 | 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- 3 - Question 1

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Assuming it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. Plunder and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

Q. Which of the following can be said to be the motive of the author behind writing the passage?

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

The entire passage explains what would happen if the states of the nation the author belongs to break away from the union. The purpose of the passage is not to promote the idea of breaking away from the union. Rather, it is to warn about the repercussions if such an incident occurs. The author uses Europe merely as an illustration and to explain how the fate of the states of his country would be different from that of the European Nations. Therefore, the purpose of the passage is to warn the readers that the results of the dissolution of the country will not be pleasant. Therefore, option C is the right answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 2

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Assuming it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. Plunder and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

Q. 4 hypothetical statements are given below. Which of the following statements can definitely be said to be false using the information given in the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 2

In the passage, the author uses the term "in that quarter of the globe" while describing Europe. The sentence conveys that the country that the author is from is located at a considerable distance from Europe. Therefore, option B is definitely false and hence, it is the right answer.

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

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Assuming it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. Plunder and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

Q. Why does the author give the example of European nations?

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

The author explains how the European nations co-exist due to their strong military presence and fortifications. Due to these 2 advancements, wars in Europe are mostly limited to capturing and recapturing cities. The author explains how these 2 advancements have made wars less brutal. As the states of his country lack both, it will result in never ending wars, plunders, consecutive captures and recaptures of places. The author gives the example of Europe to illustrate that the fate of the states will be very different from that of the European nations. Therefore, option D is the right answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 4

Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow:

Assuming it therefore as an established truth that the several States, in case of disunion, or such combinations of them as might happen to be formed out of the wreck of the general Confederacy, would be subject to those vicissitudes of peace and war, of friendship and enmity, with each other, which have fallen to the lot of all neighboring nations not united under one government, let us enter into a concise detail of some of the consequences that would attend such a situation.

War between the States, in the first period of their separate existence, would be accompanied with much greater distresses than it commonly is in those countries where regular military establishments have long obtained. The disciplined armies always kept on foot on the continent of Europe, though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy, have, notwithstanding, been productive of the signal advantage of rendering sudden conquests impracticable, and of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction. The art of fortification has contributed to the same ends. The nations of Europe are encircled with chains of fortified places, which mutually obstruct invasion. Campaigns are wasted in reducing two or three frontier garrisons, to gain admittance into an enemy's country. Similar impediments occur at every step, to exhaust the strength and delay the progress of an invader. Formerly, an invading army would penetrate into the heart of a neighboring country almost as soon as intelligence of its approach could be received; but now a comparatively small force of disciplined troops, acting on the defensive, with the aid of posts, is able to impede, and finally to frustrate, the enterprises of one much more considerable. The history of war, in that quarter of the globe, is no longer a history of nations subdued and empires overturned, but of towns taken and retaken; of battles that decide nothing; of retreats more beneficial than victories; of much effort and little acquisition.

In this country the scene would be altogether reversed. The jealousy of military establishments would postpone them as long as possible. The want of fortifications, leaving the frontiers of one state open to another, would facilitate inroads. The populous States would, with little difficulty, overrun their less populous neighbors. Conquests would be as easy to be made as difficult to be retained. War, therefore, would be desultory and predatory. Plunder and devastation ever march in the train of irregulars. The calamities of individuals would make the principal figure in the events which would characterize our military exploits.

This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one. Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.

Q. Which of the following is not a valid inference that can be made on reading the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 4

From the line "though they bear a malignant aspect to liberty and economy,", we can infer that the author is of the view that the presence of military undermines liberty.
From the line 'Of preventing that rapid desolation which used to mark the progress of war prior to their introduction', we can infer that the wars before the development of military resulted in quick captures. 
Before talking about safety and liberty in the last paragraph, the author uses the line "This picture is not too highly wrought; though, I confess, it would not long remain a just one". Thus, we can infer that the author believes that the situation described will quickly lead to the establishment of military fortifications.
Nowhere in the passage does the author suggest that there is a trade-off between nationalism and need for safety. Hence, option A is not a valid inference.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 5

Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.

Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.

Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information — and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings — that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.

There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”

Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?

Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice — of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative — has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.

That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people — that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.

Q. Which of the following would contradict the author’s main argument?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 5

The author's main argument is that terrorism exists because of media coverage - that media coverage is the oxygen that sustains that fire. It encourages more terror attacks. If option D is true, the assertion is completely refuted. If the number of terror incidents are the same with or without media coverage then media coverage does not encourage terrorism. 

The other options, though in favour of media coverage, do not directly refute the main assertion. Thus, option D is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 6

Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.

Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.

Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information — and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings — that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.

There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”

Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?

Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice — of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative — has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.

That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people — that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.

Q. Why does the author cite the example of ‘Jihadi John’?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 6

Read the following lines: “Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?”. From these lines we can infer that Jihadi John is mentioned to explain why some deaths are given more attention than others. So, Option A is correct.
Option B is incorrect because ‘copycat’ attacks have been mentioned in the earlier paragraph and the example of Columbine Shooting was given for them.
Option C is incorrect because the author does not believe terrorism is not widespread. Option D is incorrect because although the ‘Jihadi John’ attack happened in a foreign nation, the author is speaking of all attacks.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 7

Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.

Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.

Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information — and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings — that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.

There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”

Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?

Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice — of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative — has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.

That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people — that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.

Q. What is the purpose of the penultimate paragraph?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 7

In the paragraph, the author first mentions how media now has the ability to set the narrative. Then she goes on to show that the current information dissemination structure has vulnerabilities that can be exploited by people so that they can hijack the narrative. Hence, through the paragraph, the author highlights how people can exploit the vulnerabilities in media's information dissemination mechanism to set the narrative. Thus, option C is the right answer.

Option A is incorrect because previous dissemination structures have not been mentioned in the passage.
Option B is incorrect as the author does not say that the media should not be allowed to set the national narrative.
Option D is incorrect as the author provides no illustration of manipulation. 

Hence, option C.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 8

Read the passage given below and answer the following questions.

Here is an undeniable but seldom-stated fact: The quickest way to destroy terrorism as a tool would be to institute a news media policy of information blackout regarding terrorist attacks. The terrorist act itself only creates a few corpses (9/11 notwithstanding). But it is actually the dissemination of information which creates the state of terror among the population.

Of course, in the age of social media we could never implement such a policy. But it’s worth noting that our collective addiction to information — and the inability of for-profit media to pull itself away from ratings — that creates among the collective brain of our population, a deep susceptibility to be terrorized.

There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks. I’ve seen this kind of thing discussed since Columbine, and perhaps even before. Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”

Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?

Our modern information dissemination structures themselves amplify this act and weave it into the fabric of our national story. We have come to rely on this legacy mechanism of “journalism” and “news reporting” for sense-making about the world. We’ve tacitly ceded control of narrative creation about our tribe from the priests over to a for-profit complex of radio, print, TV, web, etc. And this entire edifice — of top-down, broadcast synchrony of a singular, dominant narrative — has a particular failure mode. Since it has no explicit control (it is an emergent hive of activity), and since it has no actual architecture that would prevent it from catastrophic, systemic failure, it can get hijacked. Very easily.

That vulnerability, when exploited by jihadist groups, creates a standing wave pattern, namely, the fear of random acts of violence. But terrorism, by definition, is the creation of a state of fear or hysteria among a population. ISIL doesn’t operate any radio towers in the US, nor does it configure internet routers in our data centers. Jihadists kill people — that is true. But our media environment creates and sustains the sense of terror.

Q. Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 8

The author has stated in the passage that "Yet I’ve never seen anyone pull on the thread and unravel it all the way down to its core, to ask: “What if our media itself is the medium which makes mass terrorism possible?”". But from this we cannot infer that no one in media acknowledges the role by it in spurring mass terrorism. We can only infer that the author has not seen anyone in media discuss this publicly. Hence, option A cannot be inferred.

Option B is incorrect because the media does take responsibility for ‘copycat attacks’. This can be understood from the lines “There is actually one way in which we already, tacitly recognize the role of media in creating and aiding terror. In the wake of mass shootings, assassination attempts, and other kinds of “high profile” acts, the media itself is sensitive to the role it plays in potentially spurring on “copycat” attacks.”
Option C is incorrect because explaining this is the primary purpose of the passage.
Option D can be inferred from the lines “Media coverage is the oxygen that sustains this fire. Media does the terrorizing, more than any particular act. When Jihadi John slits a throat in a country on the other side of the world, how is his knife, and how is that throat, any different than the thousands of people around the world who are murdered by knives and bullets on a daily basis?”. Hence, we can eliminate option D.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 9

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Discussions over misinformation, disinformation, and ‘fake news’ have reignited interest in news literacy. A wide range of different actors — from educators to technology companies — believe that raising news literacy would make people better able to separate fact from fiction, potentially limiting the spread of false information and leaving them better equipped to navigate partisan media environments. Others, however, have struck a note of caution by arguing that we need to think carefully about what news literacy should look like. In the past, news literacy largely meant teaching people to be sceptical or giving them ways of questioning the stories told by the mass media. How useful are such skills in a world where many believe that trust in institutions, including the news media, is already dangerously low?
The answer lies in considering the relationship between trust and news literacy. Many people hope that increasing overall levels of news literacy will reverse the decline in news trust we see in many countries as people will have better judgement. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but news literacy may also go hand in hand with a high degree of scepticism. Even if we focus on news production, the more people know about how the news is made, the more knowledgeable they will be about its limitations and imperfections. This may be why we see only a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases.
We must also consider the possibility that those with higher levels of news literacy may rely less on social media for news, yet they appear to be more discerning when they do use it. When deciding whether to click through to a story, they are more likely to pay attention to a range of different credibility cues. Compared to those with lower levels of news literacy, they are more likely to say that the news brand, the headline, and the person who shared the story are important in deciding whether it is worth their time.
The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy. However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true. The use of social media for news has often been associated with more diverse news diets, increases in political participation, and modest depolarization of political attitudes. So as search engines and social media become more important to the news ecosystem, any attempt to raise news literacy should also aim to improve the knowledge of both the positive and negative outcomes.

Q. Which of the following statements is the author most likely to disagree with?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 9

The author does not distinguish between the two sources in terms of which source a reader should trust more. Moreover, the author says that use of social media for news does have a lot of positive outcomes. Therefore, the author is unlikely to agree with the statement in option D which is biased towards mass media over social media. 

Option A is incorrect as we can see from the lines “The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups, but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy.” We can see that it is a relatively unimportant factor.

From the lines " This may be why we see only a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases." we can infer that though these two factors are not strongly correlated, the correlation is positive. That means, increase in levels of news literacy, increases trust levels slightly and vice versa.

From the line "However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true", we can infer that people with low levels of news literacy generally do not spread news. Thus, we can infer that people with higher levels of news literacy are more like to comment on and share news. Thus, option C would be true.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 10

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Discussions over misinformation, disinformation, and ‘fake news’ have reignited interest in news literacy. A wide range of different actors — from educators to technology companies — believe that raising news literacy would make people better able to separate fact from fiction, potentially limiting the spread of false information and leaving them better equipped to navigate partisan media environments. Others, however, have struck a note of caution by arguing that we need to think carefully about what news literacy should look like. In the past, news literacy largely meant teaching people to be sceptical or giving them ways of questioning the stories told by the mass media. How useful are such skills in a world where many believe that trust in institutions, including the news media, is already dangerously low?
The answer lies in considering the relationship between trust and news literacy. Many people hope that increasing overall levels of news literacy will reverse the decline in news trust we see in many countries as people will have better judgement. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but news literacy may also go hand in hand with a high degree of scepticism. Even if we focus on news production, the more people know about how the news is made, the more knowledgeable they will be about its limitations and imperfections. This may be why we see only a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases.
We must also consider the possibility that those with higher levels of news literacy may rely less on social media for news, yet they appear to be more discerning when they do use it. When deciding whether to click through to a story, they are more likely to pay attention to a range of different credibility cues. Compared to those with lower levels of news literacy, they are more likely to say that the news brand, the headline, and the person who shared the story are important in deciding whether it is worth their time.
The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy. However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true. The use of social media for news has often been associated with more diverse news diets, increases in political participation, and modest depolarization of political attitudes. So as search engines and social media become more important to the news ecosystem, any attempt to raise news literacy should also aim to improve the knowledge of both the positive and negative outcomes.

Q. According to the passage, why is there a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 10

There are two factors that counteract each other when it comes to news literacy and trust. Increase in news literacy reduces blind mistrust of news media. On the other hand, it also exposes the limitations in news production which increases skepticism about news. The first factor increases trust while the second factor reduces trust. Acting together, there is an overall increase in trust with increase in news literacy but this gain is very little. The correct option should identify both the forces. Hence, we can eliminate options A and B.

Between options C and D, option C incorrectly identifies the cause for increase in trust. Increase in news literacy increases trust because people are able to rely on their own judgement regarding the veracity of the news. Thus, the correct answer is option D.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 11

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Discussions over misinformation, disinformation, and ‘fake news’ have reignited interest in news literacy. A wide range of different actors — from educators to technology companies — believe that raising news literacy would make people better able to separate fact from fiction, potentially limiting the spread of false information and leaving them better equipped to navigate partisan media environments. Others, however, have struck a note of caution by arguing that we need to think carefully about what news literacy should look like. In the past, news literacy largely meant teaching people to be sceptical or giving them ways of questioning the stories told by the mass media. How useful are such skills in a world where many believe that trust in institutions, including the news media, is already dangerously low?
The answer lies in considering the relationship between trust and news literacy. Many people hope that increasing overall levels of news literacy will reverse the decline in news trust we see in many countries as people will have better judgement. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but news literacy may also go hand in hand with a high degree of scepticism. Even if we focus on news production, the more people know about how the news is made, the more knowledgeable they will be about its limitations and imperfections. This may be why we see only a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases.
We must also consider the possibility that those with higher levels of news literacy may rely less on social media for news, yet they appear to be more discerning when they do use it. When deciding whether to click through to a story, they are more likely to pay attention to a range of different credibility cues. Compared to those with lower levels of news literacy, they are more likely to say that the news brand, the headline, and the person who shared the story are important in deciding whether it is worth their time.
The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy. However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true. The use of social media for news has often been associated with more diverse news diets, increases in political participation, and modest depolarization of political attitudes. So as search engines and social media become more important to the news ecosystem, any attempt to raise news literacy should also aim to improve the knowledge of both the positive and negative outcomes.

Q. ‘Low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy.’ What can be said about this statement?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 11

Look at the following lines “The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups, but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy. However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true.” From these we can see that the author believes that this statement is only partly true, so Option C is most accurate.
Option A is incorrect because the author does not say that people with low literacy DO NOT spread low quality news.
Option B is incorrect because he says the statement is only PARTLY true.
Option D is incorrect because his opinion has been given in the passage.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 12

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Discussions over misinformation, disinformation, and ‘fake news’ have reignited interest in news literacy. A wide range of different actors — from educators to technology companies — believe that raising news literacy would make people better able to separate fact from fiction, potentially limiting the spread of false information and leaving them better equipped to navigate partisan media environments. Others, however, have struck a note of caution by arguing that we need to think carefully about what news literacy should look like. In the past, news literacy largely meant teaching people to be sceptical or giving them ways of questioning the stories told by the mass media. How useful are such skills in a world where many believe that trust in institutions, including the news media, is already dangerously low?
The answer lies in considering the relationship between trust and news literacy. Many people hope that increasing overall levels of news literacy will reverse the decline in news trust we see in many countries as people will have better judgement. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but news literacy may also go hand in hand with a high degree of scepticism. Even if we focus on news production, the more people know about how the news is made, the more knowledgeable they will be about its limitations and imperfections. This may be why we see only a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases.
We must also consider the possibility that those with higher levels of news literacy may rely less on social media for news, yet they appear to be more discerning when they do use it. When deciding whether to click through to a story, they are more likely to pay attention to a range of different credibility cues. Compared to those with lower levels of news literacy, they are more likely to say that the news brand, the headline, and the person who shared the story are important in deciding whether it is worth their time.
The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy. However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true. The use of social media for news has often been associated with more diverse news diets, increases in political participation, and modest depolarization of political attitudes. So as search engines and social media become more important to the news ecosystem, any attempt to raise news literacy should also aim to improve the knowledge of both the positive and negative outcomes.

Q. Which of the following would be a suitable title for the passage?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 12

The passage begins by speaking of the advent of fake news and explaining what news literacy used to mean. It goes on to explain the impact of greater news literacy so option B is correct.
The other options digress from the main point of the passage.
Option A is incorrect because social media is a small part of the passage, the primary focus is news literacy and its impact on people.
Option C is incorrect because the author does not emphasize of either the negatives or the positives of news literacy. In fact, he wants us to take into account both the positive and negative outcomes, it is work assigned to the reader (as can be inferred from the concluding paragraph)
Option D is incorrect because the author does not even say news literacy is limited, let alone try and find reasons for the same.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 13

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Discussions over misinformation, disinformation, and ‘fake news’ have reignited interest in news literacy. A wide range of different actors — from educators to technology companies — believe that raising news literacy would make people better able to separate fact from fiction, potentially limiting the spread of false information and leaving them better equipped to navigate partisan media environments. Others, however, have struck a note of caution by arguing that we need to think carefully about what news literacy should look like. In the past, news literacy largely meant teaching people to be sceptical or giving them ways of questioning the stories told by the mass media. How useful are such skills in a world where many believe that trust in institutions, including the news media, is already dangerously low?
The answer lies in considering the relationship between trust and news literacy. Many people hope that increasing overall levels of news literacy will reverse the decline in news trust we see in many countries as people will have better judgement. This sounds like a reasonable assumption, but news literacy may also go hand in hand with a high degree of scepticism. Even if we focus on news production, the more people know about how the news is made, the more knowledgeable they will be about its limitations and imperfections. This may be why we see only a very small increase in trust levels as news literacy increases.
We must also consider the possibility that those with higher levels of news literacy may rely less on social media for news, yet they appear to be more discerning when they do use it. When deciding whether to click through to a story, they are more likely to pay attention to a range of different credibility cues. Compared to those with lower levels of news literacy, they are more likely to say that the news brand, the headline, and the person who shared the story are important in deciding whether it is worth their time.
The exception to this rule is the number of comments, likes, or shares, which is the least important cue across all groups but is more important among those with the lowest level of news literacy. However, they are also less likely to share or comment on news themselves, so the simple idea that low-quality news is primarily spread by people with low news literacy may only be partly true. The use of social media for news has often been associated with more diverse news diets, increases in political participation, and modest depolarization of political attitudes. So as search engines and social media become more important to the news ecosystem, any attempt to raise news literacy should also aim to improve the knowledge of both the positive and negative outcomes.

Q. Which of the following is a person with higher news literacy least likely to read?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 13

From the passage, we can understand that a person with higher news literacy would consider factors like the news brand, the headline, and the person who shared the story over things like the number of comments, likes, or shares. 
Option B: Being shared by a trusted friend would increase the reliability of the content. Hence, it is unlikely that this would be avoided by a person with higher news literacy.
Option C: A news blog shared by a reliable journalist will have better news brand factor. Hence, it is unlikely that this would be avoided by a person with higher news literacy.
Option D: Though the cover story would factor in as a good headline, it is not on social media. The factors given can be accounted only for social media. Hence, we cannot consider this.
Option A: Since the only information we have is the number of likes which is a factor that would be less prefered by a person with higher news literacy is less likely to consider.
Hence, the correct answer is Option A.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 14

Read the following passage and answer the set of five questions that follow.

Those who speak out against bad treatment are often dismissed as ‘playing the victim’, accused of dwelling on imagined slights or indulging in an exaggerated sense of grievance. In the face of ridicule or, worse, the threat of violence, it would be easier to keep quiet. And yet, victims of injustice often do speak up: far from any desire for glory, they are often morally motivated, and act from a sense of duty.
Someone who is subjected to demeaning treatment might owe it to herself to protest and to undermine the apparatus of assumptions, stereotypes and norms that enable this treatment. But, importantly, she might also owe it to others who are vulnerable to similar treatment - fellow victims - to resist the injustices they face collectively and repeatedly. This is especially the case for what the US political theorist Iris Marion Young in 2003 called structural injustices, which are perpetuated through seemingly benign institutions, everyday practices, background assumptions and expected behaviours. Even where there is no explicit discriminatory policy, in fact when such discrimination is publicly, repeatedly and earnestly disavowed, oppression on the basis of, for example, class, race and sex prevails.
Such structural injustice is manifested in a number of ways, from lower life expectancies and the prevalence of sexual and intimate partner violence, to the perception of diminished competence in the workplace and casual condescension in conversation. Structural injustice is typically characterised by ambiguity. It is often unclear whether a particular interaction is, in fact, a manifestation of structural injustice. It is also unclear how to delineate between perpetrators, bystanders and victims, given that so many of the mechanisms of structural injustice are unconscious, driven by social norms as much as by individuals, such that victims can be complicit in their own oppression, and that victims of one form of injustice can be perpetrators of another. And finally, it is unclear what a remedy would consist of.
The insidiousness of structural injustice rests on this ambiguity. Often, there is no intentional wrongdoing as such; perpetrators are unaware of their wrongdoing, and might genuinely disavow the values and norms implicit in their conduct. To bystanders, nothing noteworthy has taken place. The insult is unseen and unheard - except perhaps by those on the receiving end. In such cases, victims are epistemically privileged: they are aware that some set of seemingly benign norms or behaviour are in fact wrongs, they are aware that these norms might be harmful, and they notice when this harm is being done. In effect, they might be the only bystanders aware of the wrongdoing and therefore in a position to seek a remedy; in such cases, they will have a prima facie duty to do so. Unlike self-regarding duties, this duty is owed primarily to the class of victims, actual and prospective, who face wrongful treatment. For well-meaning but fallible individuals aiming to do right, victims potentially play a crucial role in helping them realise that aim; for fellow victims, they are collaborators in curing unjust practices and institutions.

Q. Which of the following is correct about ‘structural injustice’?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 14

It is given in the passage that structural injustice is characterised by ambiguity. From this statement, inferring that the sources of structural injustice are ambiguous, would at best be an exaggeration. Option A is incorrect.
In the last few lines of the penultimate paragraph, it has been stated that victims can be complicit in their own oppression. Option B is correct.
The author mentions that the difference between perpetrators, bystanders and victims is not clear. She does not say that there is no difference at all. Option C is a distortion.
It is true that structural injustice is manifested in many ways. Also, structural injustice is typically characterised by ambiguity. However, to state that ambivalence binds all the structural injustices would need more evidence in support than provided in the passage. Option D is also an exaggeration due to the word ‘all’.
Hence, option B is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 15

Read the following passage and answer the set of five questions that follow.

Those who speak out against bad treatment are often dismissed as ‘playing the victim’, accused of dwelling on imagined slights or indulging in an exaggerated sense of grievance. In the face of ridicule or, worse, the threat of violence, it would be easier to keep quiet. And yet, victims of injustice often do speak up: far from any desire for glory, they are often morally motivated, and act from a sense of duty.
Someone who is subjected to demeaning treatment might owe it to herself to protest and to undermine the apparatus of assumptions, stereotypes and norms that enable this treatment. But, importantly, she might also owe it to others who are vulnerable to similar treatment - fellow victims - to resist the injustices they face collectively and repeatedly. This is especially the case for what the US political theorist Iris Marion Young in 2003 called structural injustices, which are perpetuated through seemingly benign institutions, everyday practices, background assumptions and expected behaviours. Even where there is no explicit discriminatory policy, in fact when such discrimination is publicly, repeatedly and earnestly disavowed, oppression on the basis of, for example, class, race and sex prevails.
Such structural injustice is manifested in a number of ways, from lower life expectancies and the prevalence of sexual and intimate partner violence, to the perception of diminished competence in the workplace and casual condescension in conversation. Structural injustice is typically characterised by ambiguity. It is often unclear whether a particular interaction is, in fact, a manifestation of structural injustice. It is also unclear how to delineate between perpetrators, bystanders and victims, given that so many of the mechanisms of structural injustice are unconscious, driven by social norms as much as by individuals, such that victims can be complicit in their own oppression, and that victims of one form of injustice can be perpetrators of another. And finally, it is unclear what a remedy would consist of.
The insidiousness of structural injustice rests on this ambiguity. Often, there is no intentional wrongdoing as such; perpetrators are unaware of their wrongdoing, and might genuinely disavow the values and norms implicit in their conduct. To bystanders, nothing noteworthy has taken place. The insult is unseen and unheard - except perhaps by those on the receiving end. In such cases, victims are epistemically privileged: they are aware that some set of seemingly benign norms or behaviour are in fact wrongs, they are aware that these norms might be harmful, and they notice when this harm is being done. In effect, they might be the only bystanders aware of the wrongdoing and therefore in a position to seek a remedy; in such cases, they will have a prima facie duty to do so. Unlike self-regarding duties, this duty is owed primarily to the class of victims, actual and prospective, who face wrongful treatment. For well-meaning but fallible individuals aiming to do right, victims potentially play a crucial role in helping them realise that aim; for fellow victims, they are collaborators in curing unjust practices and institutions.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
I: It is the responsibility of the victim to speak out loud against any discrimination he/she faces.
II: The measures to rectify structural injustices are often obscure.
III: Accusing people of dwelling on imagined slights or indulging in an exaggerated sense of grievance is used to deter people from speaking out against injustice

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 15

In the second paragraph, the author states that the victims have a duty to speak against any injustice against them. Statement I can be inferred.
From the last line of the third paragraph, statement II can be inferred.
It has been mentioned in the passage that people are accused of exaggeration and playing victims to garner sympathy. However, we cannot infer that this is done with the intention of preventing people from speaking out. Nothing of that sort has been implied in the passage. Statement III cannot be inferred. 
Hence, option B is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 16

Read the following passage and answer the set of five questions that follow.

Those who speak out against bad treatment are often dismissed as ‘playing the victim’, accused of dwelling on imagined slights or indulging in an exaggerated sense of grievance. In the face of ridicule or, worse, the threat of violence, it would be easier to keep quiet. And yet, victims of injustice often do speak up: far from any desire for glory, they are often morally motivated, and act from a sense of duty.
Someone who is subjected to demeaning treatment might owe it to herself to protest and to undermine the apparatus of assumptions, stereotypes and norms that enable this treatment. But, importantly, she might also owe it to others who are vulnerable to similar treatment - fellow victims - to resist the injustices they face collectively and repeatedly. This is especially the case for what the US political theorist Iris Marion Young in 2003 called structural injustices, which are perpetuated through seemingly benign institutions, everyday practices, background assumptions and expected behaviours. Even where there is no explicit discriminatory policy, in fact when such discrimination is publicly, repeatedly and earnestly disavowed, oppression on the basis of, for example, class, race and sex prevails.
Such structural injustice is manifested in a number of ways, from lower life expectancies and the prevalence of sexual and intimate partner violence, to the perception of diminished competence in the workplace and casual condescension in conversation. Structural injustice is typically characterised by ambiguity. It is often unclear whether a particular interaction is, in fact, a manifestation of structural injustice. It is also unclear how to delineate between perpetrators, bystanders and victims, given that so many of the mechanisms of structural injustice are unconscious, driven by social norms as much as by individuals, such that victims can be complicit in their own oppression, and that victims of one form of injustice can be perpetrators of another. And finally, it is unclear what a remedy would consist of.
The insidiousness of structural injustice rests on this ambiguity. Often, there is no intentional wrongdoing as such; perpetrators are unaware of their wrongdoing, and might genuinely disavow the values and norms implicit in their conduct. To bystanders, nothing noteworthy has taken place. The insult is unseen and unheard - except perhaps by those on the receiving end. In such cases, victims are epistemically privileged: they are aware that some set of seemingly benign norms or behaviour are in fact wrongs, they are aware that these norms might be harmful, and they notice when this harm is being done. In effect, they might be the only bystanders aware of the wrongdoing and therefore in a position to seek a remedy; in such cases, they will have a prima facie duty to do so. Unlike self-regarding duties, this duty is owed primarily to the class of victims, actual and prospective, who face wrongful treatment. For well-meaning but fallible individuals aiming to do right, victims potentially play a crucial role in helping them realise that aim; for fellow victims, they are collaborators in curing unjust practices and institutions.

Q. As per the author, which of the following is a misconception about people who are referred to as ‘playing the victim’?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 16

The keyword in the question is ‘misconception’.
From the first sentence of the passage, we can infer that speaking about injustice is often misconstrued as a way to get positive attention. Then the author clears up the misconception by saying that victims don't speak up for "glory" but from a sense of duty. Thus, option A, which highlights this misconception would be the right answer.
It is nowhere mentioned in the passage that victims have an ulterior motive of teaching perpetrators a lesson. Option B is out of the scope of the passage.
Option C: The author mentions that the victims have a duty to seek remedy against unjust practices because they are aware of the wrongdoings. However, it can not be considered as misconception.
Option D is what the author thinks and not what victims believe.
Hence, option A is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 17

Read the following passage and answer the set of five questions that follow.

Those who speak out against bad treatment are often dismissed as ‘playing the victim’, accused of dwelling on imagined slights or indulging in an exaggerated sense of grievance. In the face of ridicule or, worse, the threat of violence, it would be easier to keep quiet. And yet, victims of injustice often do speak up: far from any desire for glory, they are often morally motivated, and act from a sense of duty.
Someone who is subjected to demeaning treatment might owe it to herself to protest and to undermine the apparatus of assumptions, stereotypes and norms that enable this treatment. But, importantly, she might also owe it to others who are vulnerable to similar treatment - fellow victims - to resist the injustices they face collectively and repeatedly. This is especially the case for what the US political theorist Iris Marion Young in 2003 called structural injustices, which are perpetuated through seemingly benign institutions, everyday practices, background assumptions and expected behaviours. Even where there is no explicit discriminatory policy, in fact when such discrimination is publicly, repeatedly and earnestly disavowed, oppression on the basis of, for example, class, race and sex prevails.
Such structural injustice is manifested in a number of ways, from lower life expectancies and the prevalence of sexual and intimate partner violence, to the perception of diminished competence in the workplace and casual condescension in conversation. Structural injustice is typically characterised by ambiguity. It is often unclear whether a particular interaction is, in fact, a manifestation of structural injustice. It is also unclear how to delineate between perpetrators, bystanders and victims, given that so many of the mechanisms of structural injustice are unconscious, driven by social norms as much as by individuals, such that victims can be complicit in their own oppression, and that victims of one form of injustice can be perpetrators of another. And finally, it is unclear what a remedy would consist of.
The insidiousness of structural injustice rests on this ambiguity. Often, there is no intentional wrongdoing as such; perpetrators are unaware of their wrongdoing, and might genuinely disavow the values and norms implicit in their conduct. To bystanders, nothing noteworthy has taken place. The insult is unseen and unheard - except perhaps by those on the receiving end. In such cases, victims are epistemically privileged: they are aware that some set of seemingly benign norms or behaviour are in fact wrongs, they are aware that these norms might be harmful, and they notice when this harm is being done. In effect, they might be the only bystanders aware of the wrongdoing and therefore in a position to seek a remedy; in such cases, they will have a prima facie duty to do so. Unlike self-regarding duties, this duty is owed primarily to the class of victims, actual and prospective, who face wrongful treatment. For well-meaning but fallible individuals aiming to do right, victims potentially play a crucial role in helping them realise that aim; for fellow victims, they are collaborators in curing unjust practices and institutions.

Q. Which of the following is an example of structural injustice?

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 17

The primary feature of structural injustice, as explained in the passage, is ambiguity. The perpetrators may not even realize, and the  discrimination is not explicit. It is such that the only the victim perceives it. In options A and C, the bias is loud and clear, and there is no ambiguity. However, in option B, though there is no explicit discriminatory policy, the injustice is done through action. Thus, we can say that what option B mentions is a structural injustice.
Hence, option B is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 18

Read the following passage and answer the set of five questions that follow.

Those who speak out against bad treatment are often dismissed as ‘playing the victim’, accused of dwelling on imagined slights or indulging in an exaggerated sense of grievance. In the face of ridicule or, worse, the threat of violence, it would be easier to keep quiet. And yet, victims of injustice often do speak up: far from any desire for glory, they are often morally motivated, and act from a sense of duty.
Someone who is subjected to demeaning treatment might owe it to herself to protest and to undermine the apparatus of assumptions, stereotypes and norms that enable this treatment. But, importantly, she might also owe it to others who are vulnerable to similar treatment - fellow victims - to resist the injustices they face collectively and repeatedly. This is especially the case for what the US political theorist Iris Marion Young in 2003 called structural injustices, which are perpetuated through seemingly benign institutions, everyday practices, background assumptions and expected behaviours. Even where there is no explicit discriminatory policy, in fact when such discrimination is publicly, repeatedly and earnestly disavowed, oppression on the basis of, for example, class, race and sex prevails.
Such structural injustice is manifested in a number of ways, from lower life expectancies and the prevalence of sexual and intimate partner violence, to the perception of diminished competence in the workplace and casual condescension in conversation. Structural injustice is typically characterised by ambiguity. It is often unclear whether a particular interaction is, in fact, a manifestation of structural injustice. It is also unclear how to delineate between perpetrators, bystanders and victims, given that so many of the mechanisms of structural injustice are unconscious, driven by social norms as much as by individuals, such that victims can be complicit in their own oppression, and that victims of one form of injustice can be perpetrators of another. And finally, it is unclear what a remedy would consist of.
The insidiousness of structural injustice rests on this ambiguity. Often, there is no intentional wrongdoing as such; perpetrators are unaware of their wrongdoing, and might genuinely disavow the values and norms implicit in their conduct. To bystanders, nothing noteworthy has taken place. The insult is unseen and unheard - except perhaps by those on the receiving end. In such cases, victims are epistemically privileged: they are aware that some set of seemingly benign norms or behaviour are in fact wrongs, they are aware that these norms might be harmful, and they notice when this harm is being done. In effect, they might be the only bystanders aware of the wrongdoing and therefore in a position to seek a remedy; in such cases, they will have a prima facie duty to do so. Unlike self-regarding duties, this duty is owed primarily to the class of victims, actual and prospective, who face wrongful treatment. For well-meaning but fallible individuals aiming to do right, victims potentially play a crucial role in helping them realise that aim; for fellow victims, they are collaborators in curing unjust practices and institutions.

Q. Last paragraph of the passage suggests that

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 18

”Often, there is no intentional ................... in their conduct.”
”they are aware that .........................harm is being done.”
“In effect, they might be........................prima facie duty to do so. ”
From these lines, option C can be inferred.
Option A does not mention that since victims know the insults and unjust practices, they can seek a remedy to the problem and this is the real reason they are epistemically privileged.
Option B blatantly holds victims to be responsible for injustices against them which is not suggested in the passage.
The second part of option D is wrong. Victims seek a remedy to the discriminatory practices which serves the victim class, and not the society as a whole because even bystanders and perpetrators are part of the society.
Hence, option C is the correct answer.

Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 19

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

Social scientists have been asking for decades whether boastful, self-aggrandising beliefs and behaviours are beneficial to those who make such claims. According to one school of thought, claiming to be better than others feels good, and when we feel good, we are happier and better adjusted. This argument suggests that bragging to others can satisfy the motive to craft and maintain a positive self-image. According to another line of research, however, consistently viewing oneself as superior entails a distortion of reality. Inaccurate individuals with low self-knowledge have weaker relationships and a tendency to make riskier decisions than their accurate, self-aware counterparts.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 19

In the paragraph, the author explores whether boastful, self-aggrandising beliefs and behaviours are beneficial to those who make such claims. 
He presents the views of two schools of thought.
One group believes that bragging to others can satisfy the motive to craft and maintain a positive self-image, which makes us happy.
The other group believes that consistently viewing oneself as superior entails a distortion of reality.
Option B captures the essence of this. Hence, it is the correct answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - 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. Societies were held together by loyalty to civil and ecclesiastical rulers; not by that cooperation which springs from the common interests of the people.
  2. How stood this ever-changing world four hundred years ago?
  3. Unhallowed were all things real; divine the unsubstantial and potential.
  4. Already Asia was prematurely old and America was in swaddlings.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 20

After reading all the sentences, we know that the paragraph is talking about time 400 years ago. Statement 2 is the opening sentence as it sets the context by asking a question which is to be answered in the paragraph. Other three sentences are about continents, society, and individual things. So, these must be arranged from largest to smallest. Therefore, statement 4 should be followed by statement 1 which should be followed by statement 3. Thus, the correct order is 2-4-1-3.
Hence, 2413 is the correct answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - 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 writer who ventures to say something more about books and their uses is wise, he will not begin with an apology.
  2. Not only does each new generation read them, but it is compelled to form some judgment of them.  
  3. So rich is the vitality of the great books of the world that men are never done with them.
  4. For he will know that, despite all that has been said and written on this engrossing theme, the interest of books is inexhaustible, and that there is always a new constituency to read them.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 21

After reading all the sentences, we know that the paragraph is about books and how they are received by each generation. Statement 1 is the opening sentence as it mentions that a writer writing about books will not start with an apology. Statement 4 provides the reason for the same. Statement 3 further explains how there is a new constituency to read books as discussed in statement 4. Statement 2 further mentions that the new generation not only read those books, but it also forms an opinion about them. Thus, the correct order is 1 - 4 - 3 - 2.
Hence, 1432 is the correct answer.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 22

Five sentences are given below labelled as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Of these, four sentences, when arranged properly, make a meaningful and coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out.

  1. Now, how and under what circumstances is this act of faith produced?
  2. While the individual obeys, or imagines he obeys, only those motives of which he is fully conscious, and upon which he can at will decline or consent to act.
  3. Now, unlike other species of animals, which, like him, are governed at the same time by individual desires and collective impulses, man has the privilege of perceiving and designating to his own mind the instinct or fatum which leads him.
  4. If I follow the God-idea through its successive transformations, I find that this idea is pre-eminently social: I mean by this that it is much more a collective act of faith than an individual conception.
  5. From the moral and intellectual point of view, society, or the collective man, is especially distinguished from the individual by spontaneity of action,—in other words, instinct.

Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 22

From a cursory reading of the sentences, we understand that the paragraph is about theism. Sentence 4 should start the paragraph as it introduces the idea and how the author feels about theism. Sentence 4 and 1 form a pair as sentence 1 refers back to sentence 4 which talks about ‘collective act of faith’. So, the odd sentence must be one among 2, 3, or 5.
Now, the main objective of the para is to explain how faith is produced in individuals. Sentence 5 and 2 make a pair as 2 refers back to the ‘individual’ that is being discussed in sentence 5.
Sentence 3 also talks about the topic of discussion but is a much more matured discussion that needs some build-up before it comes into the discussion. Thus, adding 3 in the para leads to an abrupt transition.
Thus, the correct sequence is 4-1-5-2 and the odd sentence is 3.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 23

Our fixation on events is actually part of our evolutionary programming. If you wanted to design a cave person for survival, ability to contemplate the cosmos would not be a high-ranking design criterion. What is important is the ability to see the sabertoothed tiger over your left shoulder and react quickly. The irony is that, today, the primary threats to our survival, both of our organizations and of our societies, come not from sudden events but from slow, gradual processes; the arms race, environmental decay, the erosion of a society's public education system, increasingly obsolete physical capital, and decline in design or product quality (at least relative to competitors' quality) are all slow, gradual processes.
Choose the statement that best represents the summary of the text and enter it in the space provided..
1. Our natural impulse is to react quickly to the unwarranted situations, though the current social and organizational contingencies do not result from quick processes
2. Despite our ability to respond quickly to the threats, we are always faced with threats that are slow and gradual.
3. The ability to react quickly to threats is more crucial than thinking, although present threats emanate from slow and gradual processes.
4. We should react quickly to the problems that threaten our survival but ironically the primary threats that we have faced have for a greater part of our existence been slow and gradual processes.


Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 23

Passage says that we fixate on things and do not react quickly, which is more crucial but contrary to this idea current problems are slow and gradual. 1 is wrong because it says it is our natural impulse to react quickly, which is wrong. 2 is wrong as it is not mentioned that our ability is to respond quickly. 4 states that our primary threats have been slow for greater part of our existence, which is not mentioned anywhere.

*Answer can only contain numeric values
Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 24

The following question consists of a set of five sentences. These sentences need to be arranged in a coherent manner to create a meaningful paragraph. Enter in the box provided below the correct order of the sentences.
1. Apart from the London painting, he also commissioned at least two miniatures showing himself with family members, a type of subject that was rare in Persia but was to be common among the Mughals. 
2. Humayan's major known commission was a Khamsa of Nizami with 36 illuminated pages, in which the different styles of the various artists are mostly still apparent.
3. When the second Mughal emperor, Humayun was in exile in Tabriz in the Safavid court of Shah Tahmasp I of Persia, he was exposed to Persian miniature painting, and commissioned at least one work there, an unusually large painting of Princes of the House of Timur, now in the British Museum.
4. His usurping brother Kamran Mirza had maintained a workshop in Kabul, which Humayan perhaps took over into his own.
5. When Humayun returned to India, he brought with him two accomplished Persian artists, Sayyid Ali and Abdus Samad


Detailed Solution for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 - Question 24

Sentences 3 and 5 become mandatory pair because the 'paintings of Humayun and his work in India" is elaborated as 'he brought with him two accomplished Persian artists, Sayyid Ali and Abdus Samad'. Sentences 5 and 4 become a mandatory pair because the 'Persian artists and Humayun work' in sentence 4 are elaborated in sentences 4 and 2. Sentence 1 will be the last sentence in the paragraph because it is a sub-detail of the information given in Sentence 2.

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- 3 Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice