All India CAT Group

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Most students arrive at [college] using “discrete, concrete, and absolute categories to understand people, knowledge, and values.” These students live with a dualistic view, seeing “the world in polar terms of we-right-good vs. other-wrong-bad.” These students cannot acknowledge the existence of more than one point of view toward any issue. There is one “right” way. And because these absolutes are assumed by or imposed on the individual from external authority, they cannot be personally substantiated or authenticated by experience. These students are slaves to the generalizations of their authorities. An eye for an eye! Capital punishment is apt justice for murder. The Bible says so.

Most students break through the dualistic stage to another equally frustrating stage—multiplicity. Within this stage, students see a variety of ways to deal with any given topic or problem. However, while these students accept multiple points of view, they are unable to evaluate or justify them. To have an opinion is everyone’s right. While students in the dualistic stage are unable to produce evidence to support what they consider to be self-evident absolutes, students in the multiplistic stage are unable to connect instances into coherent generalizations. Every assertion, every point, is valid. In their democracy they are directionless. Capital punishment? What sense is there in answering one murder with another?

The third stage of development finds students living in a world of relativism. Knowledge is relative: right and wrong depend on the context. No longer recognizing the validity of each individual idea or action, relativists examine everything to find its place in an overall framework. While the multiplist views the world as unconnected, almost random, the relativist seeks always to place phenomena into coherent larger patterns. Students in this stage view the world analytically. They appreciate authority for its expertise, using it to defend their own generalizations. In addition, they accept or reject ostensible authority after systematically evaluating its validity. In this stage, however, students resist decision making. Suffering the ambivalence of finding several consistent and acceptable alternatives, they are almost overwhelmed by diversity and need means for managing it. Capital punishment is appropriate justice—in some instances.

In the final stage students manage diversity through individual commitment. Students do not deny relativism. Rather they assert an identity by forming commitments and assuming responsibility for them. They gather personal experience into a coherent framework, abstract principles to guide their actions, and use these principles to discipline and govern their thoughts and actions. The individual has chosen to join a particular community and agrees to live by its tenets. The accused has had the benefit of due process to guard his civil rights, a jury of peers has found him guilty, and the state has the right to end his life. This is a principle my community and I endorse

Students who are “dualistic” thinkers may not be able to support their beliefs convincingly because

Directions: Seven people A, B, C, D, E, F and G are born in different years and like different colours - red, blue, pink, yellow, green, black and white not necessarily in same order.

B and E are born in consecutive years (B being younger), one of them been born in 1961.

The one who likes black is born in 1982 and is 4 years younger than the one who likes white.

The difference between present ages of A and D is 10 less than the difference between present ages of G and F. (A and G are elder than D and F respectively)

G is born in 1978.

F is born in 2000 and is youngest and doesn't like pink.

C likes yellow and is born three years after D was born, who is 6 years elder than F and 34 years younger to one who likes red colour.

The second eldest person doesn't like green.

The no. of people elder than the one who likes pink are 1 more than the no. of people younger than one who likes blue.

Directions: Eight persons A, B, C, E, G, K, L and M were seated around a square table facing the center. They had different ages and were seated such that the persons seated at the 4 corners had ages which were multiples of 9 and the persons seated along the 4 sides had ages which were multiples of 7. Nobody was aged less than 10 or more than 85.

A was 3rd to the left of the one who was 81 years old

B was 10 years younger than the person who was opposite to E

E was to the immediate right of K

L was 4 years elder to K, who was seated 3rd to the right of G

The one who was 27 years old was to the immediate left of the one who was 35 years old

Sum of the ages of the persons neighbouring L was 56 years

L was not neighbouring K or G

C was seated opposite to the person who was neighbouring L

Person opposite to E's neighbour was 28 years old.

Answer the question based on the passage given below.

People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life is

partly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents’ occupations are also related to their child’s intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others’. But this “system integrity” idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether people’s reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the body’s integrity to test this idea more fully.

A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps that’s it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this “explanation” is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation “explain” the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.

Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We haven’t yet

come across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.

Why does the author mention the need for further studies involving twins?

I. Twins have similar genetic and environmental factors influencing them.

II.To ascertain the effects on genetic and environmental make-up.

III.To establish a link between what causes intelligent people to live longer.

Directions: The passage below is followed by some questions based on its content. Answer the questions on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.
In the epoch of rapid technological advancement, society stands at the crossroads of unparalleled progress and unprecedented ethical dilemmas. The digital revolution, spearheaded by the advent of the internet, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology, has reshaped the contours of human existence. This metamorphosis has not only revolutionized communication and industry but has also altered the very fabric of social interaction and individual identity.
The proliferation of information technology has democratized knowledge, bridging geographical divides and fostering global connectivity. However, this interconnectedness has also ushered in an era of information overload, where the sheer volume of data available can overwhelm and mislead, leading to the paradox of being well-informed yet profoundly ignorant.
Artificial intelligence, once a figment of science fiction, now permeates various facets of life, from mundane tasks to complex decision-making processes. Its potential to augment human capabilities is immense, yet it raises profound questions about the nature of work, the future of employment, and the ethics of machine autonomy.
Biotechnology, with its promise of medical breakthroughs, presents a conundrum of its own. The power to edit genes, combat hereditary diseases, and extend human lifespan is within reach, but it also poses significant ethical, social, and philosophical questions. The prospect of 'designer babies', enhanced human abilities, and the definition of what it means to be human are debates that society must navigate with caution.
As technology continues to advance at a breakneck pace, it is imperative to reflect on its implications. The dichotomy of technological advancement lies in its capacity to serve as a tool for immense good or a harbinger of unintended consequences. The challenge for contemporary society is to harness the benefits of technology while mitigating its potential perils, ensuring that the march of progress does not outpace the wisdom to use it judiciously.
Q. According to the passage, what is a significant concern associated with the proliferation of information technology?