DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, itandrsquo;s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that itandrsquo;s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity andmdash; rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences re...

Join the Discussion on the App

DIRECTIONS for the question: Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.

1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.

2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.

3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.

4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.

5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.

Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

CAT Practice Test - 10

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are give...

► 2-4-1-5, statement 2 introduces the topic - artists and how they are perceived by people.
► 4 follows 2 as ''they'' in 4 refers to artists in 2
► 4-1-5 is mandatory triplet. "how seldom their efforts are understood as work." in 4 is linked with "Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard"
► "fundamentally unserious." in 1 is linked to "warned away from artistic careers." in 5
► The paragraph talks about artists and how they are perceived by people. Statement 3 talks about the amateur and professional which though related to the same topic does not go with the other four sentences.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are give...

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

Attention CAT Students!

To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademi c) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexiv e). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following is Feminist sociology not in agreement with?

View answer

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademi c) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexiv e). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.Which of the following about Burawoys hypotheses does the not criticize?

View answer

Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow.Burawoy divides sociology into four distinct types professional, critical, public, and policy distinguished by audience (academic versus nonacademi c) and forms of knowledge (instrumental versus reflexiv e). Many commentators have noted that these central concepts anchoring his discussion are useful but ambiguous. As feminist sociologists who engage in forms of public sociology, we are concerned about the ambiguities of these concepts. In branding professional sociology as instrumental academic research, Burawoy elevates it above all other forms in his typology as the core of the discipline, contrary to his own efforts to challenge this hierarchy of evaluation. Professional sociology, he writes, provides legitimacy, expertise, distinctive problem definitions, relevant bodies of knowledge and techniques for analyzing data. An effective public or policy sociology is not hostile to, but depends upon the professional sociology that lies at the core of our disciplinary field. An implication of his analysis is that good research is only done in the sphere of professional sociology and that this sociology leads the other sociologies: only professionally oriented, disengaged research is conducted with rigour and is capable of yielding methodological and theoretical innovation.Read through a much earlier critique of trends in US sociology that included pleas for critical public engagement, Burawoys professional sociology brings to mind the categories of abstracted empiricism and grand theory that C. Wright Mills so trenchantly critiqued and that most feminist theories and methodologies have sought to overcome. In addition, despite his efforts to provincialize US sociology, Burawoys 2x2 table can be interpreted as a Parsonian-type model that intends to apply to sociology everywhere while most closely reflecting a particular kind of US sociology. This form of US sociology is formalistically professionalized, especially at the more elite research universities as distinct from being professional and results in institutionalized practices that are unnecessarily rigid and exclusionary. Rather than using this model to prescribe what sociology should be, McLaughlin and Turcotte usefully argue that it should be turned into empirical, researchable questions that determine the size and influence of each type of sociology within different disciplinary, institutional, and national contexts. As feminist sociologists, we are also concerned about other problems of interpretation in Burawoys typology. Burawoy characterizes each ideal type as a division of labour that exists, normatively, in reciprocal interdependence. He suggests that most sociologists concentrate their efforts in one type although he grants that they may simultaneously inhabit more than one of the cells or change from one to another over their careers. While allowing for internal complexity of each type (e.g., professional sociology can be reflexive at times, not just instrumental) and for permeable boundaries between the four types, Burawoys model can be interpreted as overly bounded, static, and nonvariable. It does not appear, for example, to adequately account for such multidisciplinary fields as social gerontology or feminist sociology in which the distinctions between professional, critical, policy, and public domains are blurred. In attempting to integrate sociology and legitimate public sociology, Burawoy glosses over the contradictions and tensions between the four types he identifies, particularly vis-a-vis the longstanding methodological feuds between positivism, critical theory, and postpositivism. As feminists aware of sociologys history of exclusions in the production of knowledge, we are wary of hierarchies that Burawoys typology may initiate or reproduce that rest on a narrowly cast US version of professional sociology. In contrast to his concept of professional sociology as an engagement with specific social theories (that are not critical) or with a limited range of methodological approaches to research (that are neither reflexive nor involve publics or policymaking), we suggest looking for a more inclusive definition. A more inclusive definition of professional sociology might, for example, involve particular credentials (a graduate degree in sociology) and the undertaking of specific activities (such as teaching sociology in a university or college and/or engaging in rigorous ethical research and publishing). This definition embraces a diversity of orientations, methods, institutional locations, and public and policy engagements Equally important, however, is the fact that Burawoys identification of four distinct forms of sociology is itself questionable. As Ericson notes, sociology is (or perhaps should be) simultaneously professional, critical, public, and policy relevant. Whether or not sociology does or should take these forms simultaneously, and how such research is undertaken, requires discussion and empirical investigation. As part of this process, we describe below our research to provide examples of the simultaneous undertaking of professional, critical, policy, and public sociology.We also take issue with the Gramscian separation of the distinct spheres of state, economy, and civil society that underlies Burawoys discussion. In sharply dividing the subject matter of the cognate fields of political science, economics, and sociology with their respective attention to the state, market, and civil society his model ignores the growth of interdisciplinary research in which many of us have long engaged. Interestingly, this division also entirely ignores other disciplines, such as anthropology, for which a parallel debate (the call for more public anthropology) predates by several years Burawoys intervention (for example, in Chicago in 1999, the topic of the American Anthropological Association forum was Public Anthropology).As Calhoun argues, rather than reinforcing disciplinary boundaries and social dichotomies, we should be arguing that state and market are social. Burawoys model tends to demonize the state (and policy intervention/state reform) as well as the market, while romanticizing civil society (including giving it a progressive spin). This ignores both the multisited institutional locations of sociological research and the complex interplay between fields of power, agency, and social change. Feminist theorizing shows that civil society is a complex concept that consists of both the public and the private spheres structured as male-dominated, with the private often disappearing in discourse on civil society. Burawoys focus on civil society can be interpreted as reinvoking the public and private dichotomy of Western societies that has been the subject of so much feminist critique, especially in its argument that family and community life (sites of civil society) cannot be understood as separate from political and economic spheres. Significant feminist theory and research have made a concerted effort to argue for a reconceptualization of these spheres acknowledging their interpenetration, rather than isolation from one another.Where we are in fundamental agreement with Burawoy is in locating the central questions for assessing the state of sociology in the US, Canada, and elsewhere by asking sociology for whom? and sociology for what? These questions require reflexivity that positions social theories, research methodologies, and indeed researchers within contexts of power and social location. Burawoy designates critical and public sociology as inherently reflexive in contrast to professional and policy sociology. Defining reflexivity, however, is no simple task. According to Burawoy (2004:1606), reflexive knowledge is communicative action that aspires to a dialogic character, although mutuality and reciprocity are often difficult to achieve in practice. Reflexivity involves value discussion concerning the ethical goals for which research may be mobilized and stimulates public discussions about the possible meanings of the good society.Recent feminist epistemological debates have been particularly fruitful in contributing to and expanding upon critical theorys understanding of reflexivity. Critical feminist sociological debates, informed especially by engagement with extra-academic communities concerned about social justice for socially marginalized groups, have helped to shape our research.Q.What is the central idea of the passage?

View answer

DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is accompanied by a set of six questions. Choose the best answer to each question.Gastronomy is the science of pain. Professional cooks belong to a secret society whose ancient rituals derive from the principles of stoicism in the face of humiliation, injury, fatigue, and the threat of illness, while being confined for most of their waking hours in hot, airless spaces, and ruled by despotic leaders.A good deal has changed since Orwell’s memoir of the months he spent as a dishwasher. Gas ranges and exhaust fans have gone a long way toward increasing the life span of the working culinarian. Nowadays, most aspiring cooks come into the business because they want to: they have chosen this life, studied for it. Today’s top chefs are like star athletes. They bounce from kitchen to kitchen – free agents in search of more money, more acclaim.I love the sheer weirdness of the kitchen life: the dreamers, the crackpots, the refugees, and the sociopaths with whom I continue to work; the ever-present smells of roasting bones, searing fish, and simmering liquids; the noise and clatter, the hiss and spray, the flames, the smoke, and the steam. Admittedly, it’s a life that grinds you down. Most of us who live and operate in the culinary underworld are in some fundamental way dysfunctional. We’ve all chosen to turn our backs on the nine-to-five, on ever having a Friday or Saturday night off, on ever having a normal relationship with a non-cook.Being a chef is a lot like being an air-traffic controller: you are constantly dealing with the threat of disaster. You’ve got to be Mom and Dad, drill sergeant, detective, psychiatrist, and priest to a crew of opportunistic, mercenary hooligans, whom you must protect from the nefarious and often foolish strategies of owners. Year after year, cooks contend with bouncing pay checks, irate purveyors, desperate owners looking for the masterstroke that will cure their restaurant’s ills.In America, the professional kitchen is the last refuge of the misfit. It’s a place for people with bad pasts to find a new family.It’s a haven for foreigners – Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Chinese, Senegalese, Egyptians, Poles. I’ve been a chef in New York for more than ten years, and, for the decade before that, a dishwasher, a prep drone, a line cook, and a sous-chef. I came into the business when cooks still smoked on the line and wore headbands. A few years ago, I wasn’t surprised to hear rumours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook.” As most of us in the restaurant business know, there is a powerful strain of criminality in the industry, ranging from the dope-dealing busboy with beeper and cell phone to the restaurant owner who has two sets of accounting books. In fact, it was the unsavoury side of professional cooking that attracted me to it in the first place. In the early seventies, I dropped out of college and transferred to the Culinary Institute of America. I wanted it all: the cuts and burns on hands and wrists, the ghoulish kitchen humour, the free food, the pilfered booze, the camaraderie that flourished within rigid order and nerve-shattering chaos. I would climb the chain of command from mal carne (meaning “bad meat,” or “new guy”) to chefdom – doing whatever it took until I ran my own kitchen and had my own crew of cutthroats, the culinary equivalent of “The Wild Bunch.”Q. Which of the following explains the author’s purpose in mentioning humours of a study of the nation’s prison population which reportedly found that the leading civilian occupation among inmates before they were put behind bars was “cook”?

View answer

Directions: Study the following information carefully and answer the question.In a bustling city known for its thriving tech industry, three talented sales professionals, Alex, Emma, and Liam, were entrusted with the task of promoting an innovative software solution called LinkPro to various businesses. Each week, they were assigned different territories to cover. Once a sales professional enters in a particular territory, he can meet any number of businessmen and any businessman can buy any number of software or may not buy any software. The success rate of a sales professional for a week is defined as the ratio of the number of software sold to the number of businessmen visited in that week. Some details about their performances are given below:(i) Over the course of two weeks, the number of businessmen visited by Alex, Emma and Liam are in the ratio 2 : 5 : 4, however each of them sold 80 software.(ii) Emmas success rate for week-1 is 2/3 but Alexs success rate for the same week is 7/3, however altogether, all the three visited 81 businessmen in week-1.(iii) Emma sold 56 software in week-2.(iv) Alex visited 10 more businessmen in week-2 than week-1. However all the sales professionals visited more number of businessmen in week-2 as compared to week-1.(v) Liam visited the number of businessmen in week-1 and week-2 in the ratio 3 : 5 and sold software in the ratio 1 : 3.Q.How many businessman were visited by all the sales professional together in two-week period? Correct answer is '220'. Can you explain this answer?

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series and 500+ Practice Tests 2024

Top Courses for CAT

View all

DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. 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 the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. 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 the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. 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 the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONS for the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.1. Yes, it’s taken for granted that creating is hard, but also that it’s somehow fundamentally unserious.2. In the popular imagination, artists tend to exist either at the pinnacle of fame and luxury or in the depths of penury and obscurity — rarely in the middle, where most of the rest of us toil and dream.3. But the elevation of the amateur over the professional trivializes artistic accomplishment and helps to undermine the already precarious living standards that artists have been able to enjoy.4. They are subject to admiration, envy, resentment and contempt, but it is odd how seldom their efforts are understood as work.5. Schoolchildren may be encouraged, at least rhetorically, to pursue their passions and cultivate their talents, but as they grow up, they are warned away from artistic careers.Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam