Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitzandrsquo;s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense andndash; or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitzandrsquo;s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.Thatandrsquo;s part of the pleasure. Scheibitzandrsquo;s work has been called andldquo;conceptual paintingandrdquo;. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. andldquo;I canandrsquo;t invent anything and I canandrsquo;t use what I find as it is,andrdquo; he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitzandrsquo;s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic andndash; not that theyandrsquo;re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybodyandrsquo;s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One andldquo;portraitandrdquo;, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitzandrsquo;s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter andrsquo;s madnessd)It supports the author andrsquo;s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Directions for Questions: The passage given b...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
PASSAGE
Scheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.
Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.
Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.
That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.
Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.
Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.
The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.

(2013)

Q. Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?

a)
It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinked
b)
It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract light
c)
It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madness
d)
It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely invented

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

FREE This question is part of

Test: Reading Comprehension (Based On Social Sciences) - 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set...

Option (a) is incorrect because it makes a general statement which cannot be inferred from the fourth paragraph of the passage. The paragraph indicates that the source materials are interconnected which necessarily may not be the source of artist's inspiration.
Option (b) is incorrect because it contradicts the last sentence of the third paragraph. Option (d) is also incorrect as it talks about the author's assertion. The assertion mentioned in the paragraph is that of the painter. Option (c) appropriately paraphrases the fourth paragraph, so it is the correct answer.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options can be inferred from the given passage?

View answer

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best explains why the author terms Scheibitz’s paintings as unreasonable?

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:It is very pleasant to entertain a new idea, a new notion or concept to think about and to look at the world with. Indeed, it can have the exciting and intoxicating feel of discovering hidden treasure.Unfortunately, most ideas are bad - wrong, misleading, dangerous, or of very limited use or relevance. Even more unfortunately, that doesnt prevent them from gaining our interest and enthusiasm. The problem is that getting an idea is just a matter of understanding it (or thinking that you do) and this is just as easy in the case of bad ideas as it is for good ones. In contrast, checking the quality of ideas by interrogating the arguments for them is laborious and distinctly unrewarding - and so avoided as much as possible. The result is that the world is drowning in bad ideas and their dreadful consequences, from conspiracy theories to religions to academic bloopers like critical race theory.The attraction of ideas is that they promise to help us make sense of the world. But we are too ready to accept ideas for what they seem to offer, without checking to see if the offer is real. Indeed they do allow us to see the world differently. But while that shift in perspective generates a feeling of insight, that is not in itself evidence that we are now seeing things as they truly are. We confuse the oomph of intellectual novelty, that comes from seeing things differently, with actual significance or value (an entire industry called the news also feasts on this cognitive bias). We allow ideas psychological effects on us rather their logical qualities to determine how we receive them.Unfortunately, given the way human minds work, bad ideas are more likely to have these attractive psychological effects than good ones. Consider the perennial attraction of conspiracy theories (and most religions), which offer an alternative simplified way of making sense of the strange and unwelcome things happening in the world by turning them into a meaningful story with ourselves at the centre. This has the benefit of reducing the cognitive burdens of understanding the world. In addition, the structure of these theories is distinctly flattering to believers: since the conspiracists are trying so hard to fool us, we must be important after all; since we can see through their ploys, we must be more powerful than we seemed.But besides these well-known benefits, novelty plays a particularly significant role in the attractiveness of conspiracy theories and other kooky ideas. It is not merely comforting (a kind of intellectual junk foo d) but intellectually exciting to come to think that the world is run by Bill Gates or NASA or whoever. It makes you see everything from a fresh perspective, which makes all sorts of new connections and meanings jump out to you. This in turn gives you the feeling of gaining genuinely new and important knowledge, of enlightenment: of seeing further and truer than you did before and than all those other people still stuck in their dark cave.To sum up. New ideas make our brains light up, but that phenomenology of enlightenment easily misleads us about their value. We need quality control and therefore we need to work through the impartial arguments for the exciting new ideas we come across; but we dont because that would be way more work and way less fun. The result is that our minds are abuzz with things we think we know, and which feel important to know, but which probably arent either.Q.Which of the following statements is the author LEAST likely to agree with?I. Bad ideas are more likely to raise human interest and enthusiasm than good ideas.II. People are cognizant of bad ideas but still rely on them to make sense of the world.III. New ideas can lead to fresh perspectives on the functioning of the world.IV. Most ideas have very little bearing on the functioning of the world.

View answer

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Read the passage and answer the question based on it.According to AmeNaesss own criteria, eco-feminism is not shallow insofar as it is anti-anthropocentric and acknowledges the moral value of non-human entities, apart from their usefulness to humans. Although eco-feminists emphasize the role of patriarchy in creating and propagating ecological oppression, patriarchal thinking is not necessarily considered the root cause of anything. In fact, patriarchal attitudes and practices interact with other systems and logics of domination and oppression, such as racism, anthropocentrism, classism, and heterosexism to form a de-centered matrix of oppressive attitudes, theories, and practices. Every aspect of this matrix has been constructed within a complex network of historical, economic, political, and environmental factors.Those eco-feminist writers who have explored the complexity of the connections and relationships among various oppressions and social constructions, do not claim that womans perspective provides the perfect vantage point to determine the causes of ecological destruction because they realize, and in fact assert, that no such unitary perspective exists. The arguments of many prominent eco-feminists rest on the fact that the perspectives of females, colored people and other historically disenfranchised groups are virtually missing from the history of academic thought, and also that certain theoretical and ethical insights may be gained with attention to these perspectives. Although Naess asserts that a theory is deep insofar as it refuses to ignore ‘troubling evidence" about the roots of ecological destruction, Deep Ecologists tend to ignore the troubling fact that anthropo-centrism and other oppressive attitudes towards the non-human realm actually feed and are fed by human oppression and subjugation. Deep Ecologists ignore a significant facet of the matrix of oppression and domination by ignoring the extent to which mutual human interactions determine and are determined by human interactions with the non-human realm.Given the complexities of an eco-feminist analysis of the population problem, of practical solutions and an ethics, that addresses the many facets of the problem, will be equally complex and multifaceted’. One emerging imperative is the recognition of the ethical necessity of ‘womens empowerment. Such an imperative cannot emerge from a one-dimensional Deep Ecology analysis which views anthropo-centrism as the sole root of environmental destruction and which posits humans as an undifferentiated species. Women must be empowered with regard to their own bodies, their role as creators of culture, about their role and power in sexuality their self-creation of identities other than as mother. An ethic that addresses the complexities of the population problem will include an acknowledgment and analysis of women’s empowerment and the need for economic empowerment of the poor, and will offer a thorough critique of genocidal and racist programmes and policies. A medical ethic which addresses the need for safe, practical, non-paternalistic health care options for women and the poor is a necessary aspect of any theory which addresses the population issue.Some Deep Ecologists and even some eco-feminists, have argued that Deep Ecology and eco-feminism are theoretically similar, share common goals, and are in agreement concerning the positive programme of radical ecology. But the differences between the two are not superficial, and they mark serious disagreement concerning the basis of ethics, contextualization of ethical issues, and the interrelationship of ethical issues seemingly confined to the human sphere with those that obviously involve ‘non-human entities.Q.According to the author, empowering women being an ethical imperative, it should be

View answer

Direction: Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.:Visualisation is the three-dimensional, multicoloured, singing-and-dancing version of affirmations that enables the subconscious to prefigure future achievement or success. It is a basic and fundamental human attribute, and one that can literally be the difference between surviving and not surviving.When Victor Frankl, the Freudian psychologist, was examining the discriminating factors that enabled him, and many like him, to survive in the hell of the Nazi concentration camps, the key factor was the ability to visualize. All survivors had a vision of something beyond their current suffering, something more worthwhile, and something worth hanging on for.This underlines the importance of each individual having a vision of something, outside and larger than herself, that gives her life some meaning. The very existence of a mission lifts the eyes to something more meaningful and enduring - and in so doing provides something to live for - at times when quiet surrender could be an attractive option. Such a vision gives a further raison d'etre for integrity, by providing a purpose that binds together the core values that make up self-worth.One of the most powerful - and difficult to achieve - applications of visualization is to focus your mind daily on the person you intend to become. Create a clear mental picture of that person - and see it in full colour, and add sounds and smells, if they are appropriate. The emotional values you add to the visualization are vital in making the full connection to your subconscious, which acts only on thoughts that are mixed with emotions. These techniques are, of course, widely validated in fields like sport and business, where the peak performers are nearly all visualisers. They all see, fell, and fully experience their success before they achieve it.Q. Which of the following statements, in the light of the above passage, is NOT correct?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. 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 Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEScheibitz’s paintings are often difficult to read, though most contain human presences, and many are titled as if they are portraits: Portrait Tracy Berglund; Henry Stand; Ret Marut. The names sound as invented as the shapes that make and unmake the figures in the paintings. Look long enough and Tracy Berglund appears to resolve into a female figure in a long skirt and grey jacket, holding a slice of watermelon. Or it could be cheese. Or a megaphone.Everything looks deliberate and calculated, but at some point things stop making sense – or rather, start making a kind of sense that is all Scheibitz’s own. Flat planes drift into emptiness; distracted brushstrokes wander away like someone getting lost on a walk.Perspectives warp, geometries fall apart. The spaces between things become more insistent than the things themselves. These are very unreasonable paintings.That’s part of the pleasure. Scheibitz’s work has been called “conceptual painting”. I have always thought painting is a conceptual as well as a physical activity. Using fragments of graphic symbols, compound forms and motifs whose origins are often impossible to trace, the artist arrives at a kind of figuration that is at odds with itself. “I can’t invent anything and I can’t use what I find as it is,” he recently told one interviewer. He also told me, as we looked around his show, that everything connects to everything else.Part of Scheibitz’s collection of source materials is laid out on tables at Baltic – not that they’re much help. Here is a gift pack of multicoloured Harrods golf tees, then two patterned cigarette lighters, some dice, a walnut and several stones with naturally occurring right angles. How odd. And now, he has painted various objects yellow: a plaster tortoise, a paintbrush stiff with pigment, a toy car.Among all these things, traces of the shapes and contours in his paintings might be found, like lines of a song or a bit of a tune that goes round your head. There are dozens of these objects. How they are translated into elements in his paintings is anybody’s guess.The overall impression is that nothing is random. There are affinities here. Scheibitz has a good eye for an ambiguous but characterful shape. One “portrait”, called John Held, is painted on a small, asymmetrically carved gravestone that sits on a plinth. It looks a bit like a face but has no features.(2013)Q.Which of the following options best presents the significance of the penultimate paragraph?a)It indicates that everything that the painter is inspired by is interlinkedb)It allows for the understanding that Scheibitz’s paintings though inspired by real life may portray things in an abstract lightc)It attests that there is a method to the painter ’s madnessd)It supports the author ’s assertion that his paintings have to draw from real life and cannot be entirely inventedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam