Question Description
DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.This is going to be awkward, but someone has to tell you, so it may as well be me: your kind of a loser. You know that feeling you sometimes have that your friends have more friends than you? You're right. They do. And you know how almost everyone at the gym seems in better shape than you, and how everyone at your book club seems better read? Well, they are.If you're single, it's probably a while since you dated – what with you being such a loser – but when you did, do you recall thinking the other person was more romantically experienced than you? I'm afraid it was probably true.The only consolation in all this is that it's nothing personal: it's a bizarre statistical fact that almost all of us have fewer friends than our friends, more flab than our fellow gym-goers, and so on. In other words, you're a loser, but it's not your fault: it's just maths. (I mean, it's probably just maths. You might be a catastrophic failure as a human being, for all I know. But let's focus on the maths.)To anyone not steeped in statistics, this seems crazy. Friendship is a two-way street, so you'd assume things would average out: any given person would be as likely to be more popular than their friends as less. But as the sociologist Scott Feld showed, in a 1991 paper bluntly entitled Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do, this isn't true. If you list all your friends, and then ask them all how many friends they have, their average is very likely to be higher than your friend count.The reason is bewilderingly simple: "You are more likely to be friends with someone who has more friends than with someone who has fewer friends," as the psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa puts it. You're more likely to know more popular people, and less likely to know less popular ones. Some people may be completely friendless, but you're not friends with any of them.Researchers have since observed the so-called ‘Friendship Paradox’ in a wide variety of situations. The implications of this seeming paradox cascade through daily life. People at your gym tend to be fitter than you because you tend not to encounter the ones who rarely go; “If your lover only had one lover," Kanazawa writes, "you are probably not him or her." This is also why people think of certain beaches or museums or airports as usually busier than they actually are: by definition, most people aren't there when they're less crowded. So, if you’re an active Facebook user feeling inadequate and unhappy because your friends seem to be doing better than you are, remember that almost everybody else on the network is in a similar position.This takes some mental gymnastics to appreciate, but it's deeply reassuring. We're often told that comparing yourself with others is a fast track to misery; but the usual explanation is that we choose to compare ourselves with the wrong people: we pick the happiest, wealthiest, most talented people, and ignore how much better off we are than most.Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem. When it comes to those people we know well, the field from which we're choosing our comparisons is statistically skewed against us to begin with. So next time you catch yourself feeling self-pityingly inferior to almost everyone you know, take heart: you're right, but then, it's the same for them, too.Q. Consider the sentence, ‘Feld's work, though, suggests that this is only half of the problem’ in the last para of the passage. Which of the following best illustrates the other half of the problem?a)As a basis for comparison, we choose those who have done better in life than we have.b)Our choices are driven more by self-pity and a sense of inferiority than by a sense of competitiveness.c)Talented, happy and wealthy people may not really be having the kind of amazing life we attribute to them during our comparisons.d)We are myopic when it comes to picking the pool from which we select people for our comparisons.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.