Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshothardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campusor fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Courts decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Courts ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the universitys decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesnt matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Answer the following question based on the in...

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.

An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.

Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:

An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?

a)
Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.
b)
Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.
c)
Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.
d)
Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.
e)
Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Answer the following question based on the information given below.In ...

The passage makes it clear that the Supreme Court judges do not agree with racial segregation and believe that merit should be the only factor while considering a student for admission. The student's race should not affect the decision. Ben being denied admission despite having more marks than students successfully admitted to the university is definitely wrong. Eric has been denied admission for not being meritorious enough; the students in the special category itself having more marks than him clearly shows this. He does not deserve admission. Therefore, option 2 is correct.Eric cannot get admission solely on the strength of his being white. Eliminate option 1.Both students getting admission would be incorrect as only one was meritorious. Eliminate option 3. Option 4 is incorrect as it is unfair to Ben, who is a meritorious student.Option 5 is something that the Supreme Court would not agree with as they are against racial segregation. Eric is not a meritorious student.Hence, the correct answer is option 2.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshothardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campusor fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.What is it that most of the very selective universities opted to do in the 1970s?

View answer

Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Select the option that rearranges the part highlighted in bold in the most logical order. She spent her childhood moving in and out of foster homes in Los Angeles, living for a few snatched years with the mother who had reclaimed her before being dragged off, watched by her daughter, to a mental home.

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Verbal Ability (VA) & Reading Comprehension (RC)

Logical Reasoning (LR) and Data Interpretation (DI)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Answer the following question based on the information given below.In the 1970s, while campuses were embroiled in debate about how to increase African-Americans and women on the faculty, universities were also putting into effect schemes to increase minority presence within the student body. Very selective universities, in particular, needed new initiatives because only a handful of African-American and Hispanic high school students possessed test scores and grades good enough to make them eligible for admission. These institutions faced a choice: retain their admissions criteria unchanged and live with the upshot—hardly any African-Americans and Hispanics on campus—or fiddle with their criteria to get a more substantial representation. Most elected the second path.The Medical School of the University of California at Davis was typical. It reserved sixteen of the one hundred slots in its entering classes for minorities. In 1973 and again in 1974, Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was denied admission although his test scores and grades were better than most or all of those admitted through the special program. He sued. In 1977, his case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, reached the Supreme Court. The Court rendered its decision a year later.An attentive reader of the Civil Rights Act might have thought this case was an easy call. So, too, thought four justices on the Supreme Court, who voted to order Bakke admitted to the Medical School. Led by Justice Stevens, they saw the racially segregated, two-track scheme at the Medical School (a recipient of federal funds) as a clear violation of this Act.Q.Going by the logic used in the case study presented in the passage, give your opinion as to what the Supreme Court's decision would have been (in the 1970s) in the following case:An African-American student Ben and a white student Eric applied for admission to a certain university that followed a racially-segregated scheme wherein a certain number of seats were reserved for minorities. Neither Ben nor Eric gained admission. Ben had higher marks than most of the students in the reserved category, but Eric had less marks than them. They sued the university. What was the Supreme Court's ruling and why?a) Eric gets admission as he is a white student and the Court thinks racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act.b) Ben gets admission as he is meritorious, while the Court upholds the university's decision tonot admit Eric since the other students had better marks than him.c) Since racial segregation is against the Civil Rights Act, both students get admission in the university.d) Neither student gets admission, since Ben having more marks than reserved category students doesn't matter if the reservation was wrong in the first place.e) Both students get admission- Ben because he is meritorious and Eric because he is white.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam