Question Description
DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. 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 DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTION for the question: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.There is an essential and irreducible duality in the normative conceptualisation of an individual person. We can see the person in terms of his or her agency, recognizing and respecting his or her ability to form goals, commitments, values, etc., and we can also see the person in terms of his or her well-being. This dichotomy is lost in a model of exclusively self-interested motivation, in which a persons agency must be entirely geared to his or her own well-being. But once that straitjacket of self-interested motivation is removed, it becomes possible to recognize the indisputable fact that the persons agency can well be geared to considerations not covered - or at least not fully covered - by his or her own well-being. Agency may be seen as important (not just instrumentally for the pursuit of well-being, but also intrinsically), but that still leaves open the question as to how that agency is to be evaluated and appraised. Even though the use of ones agency is a matter for oneself to judge, the need for careful assessment of aims, objective, allegiances, etc., and the conception of the good, may be important and exacting.To recognize the distinction between the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person does not require us to take the view that the persons success as an agent must be independent, or completely separable from, his or her success in terms of well-being. A person may well feel happier and better off as a result of achieving what he or she wanted to achieve - perhaps for his or her family, or community, or class, or party, or some other cause. Also it is quite possible that a persons well-being will go down as a result of frustration if there is some failure to achieve what he or she wanted to achieve as an agent, even though those achievements are not directly concerned with his or her well-being. There is really no sound basis for demanding that the agency aspect and the well-being aspect of a person should be independent of each other, and it is, I suppose, even possible that every change in one will affect the other as well. However, the point at issue is not the plausibility of their independence, but the sustainability and relevance of the distinction. The fact that two variables may be so related that one cannot change without the other, does not imply that they are the same variable, or that they will have the same values, or that the value of one can be obtained from the other on basis of some simple transformation.The importance of an agency achievement does not rest entirely on the enhancement of well-being that it may indirectly cause. The agency achievement and well-being achievement, both of which have some distinct importance, may be casually linked with each other, but this fact does not compromise the specific importance of either. In so far as utility-based welfare calculations concentrate only on the well-being of the person, ignoring the agency aspect, or actually fails to distinguish between the agency aspect and well-being aspect altogether, something of real importance is lost.Q.According to the ideas in the passage, the following are not true except:a)The value of a persons well-being cannot be obtained from the value of her agencyb)A persons agency aspect is independent of her well-being aspectc)A persons agency is important because her well-being must depend on her agencyd)A persons agency must be entirely geared towards her own well-beinge)A persons well-being will be dependent on her agency in all circumstancesCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.