Test: CAT Verbal & Reading Comprehension- 3 (October 18) - CAT MCQ

”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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.