DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. Itandrsquo;s not just that self-control isnandrsquo;t always good; itandrsquo;s that a lack of self-control isnandrsquo;t always bad because it may andldquo;provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.andrdquo;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 > DIRECTIONSfor the question:Five sentences rel...

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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.

2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.

3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.

4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.

5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”

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

FREE This question is part of

CAT Practice Test - 6

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

DIRECTIONSfor the question:Five sentences related to a topic are given...

The given sentences highlight the importance of self -control or self discipline and hence form a group except 3, which is equating this trait to general intelligence or family socio-economic ties.

∴ 3 is odd one out of the given sentences.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Which of the following would the author agree with?

View answer

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Why does the author mention the need for further studies involving twins?I. Twins have similar genetic and environmental factors influencing them.II.To ascertain the effects on genetic and environmental make-up.III.To establish a link between what causes intelligent people to live longer.

View answer

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Which of the following, if true, would conclusively undermine the authors stand and recommendations for future research?

View answer

Answer the question based on the passage given below.People with higher intelligence test scores in childhood and early adulthood tend to live longer. This result has been found among people from Australia, Denmark, England and Wales, Scotland, Sweden, and the United States. In fact, it has been found within every population that has been studied. Indeed, the impact of intelligence on mortality rivals well-known risk factors for illness and death, such as high blood pressure, being overweight, high blood glucose, and high cholesterol. Its effect is almost as important as that of smoking. Differences in human intelligence have environmental and genetic causes. An intelligence test score in early life ispartly a record of what the environment has wrought on the brain and the rest of the body up to that time. Babies who have lower birth weights, for example, are more prone to chronic illnesses later in life. They also have, on average, slightly lower intelligence. But tests of whether birth weight might explain some of the link between intelligence and mortality have found no connection. Parents occupations are also related to their childs intelligence and later risk of illness: children from more privileged backgrounds tend to have higher intelligence and better health, and to live longer. However, there is no convincing evidence that parental background explains the link between higher intelligence and longer life. Other researchers have viewed intelligence test scores as possibly more than just an indicator of an efficient brain. After all, the brain is just one organ of the body, so people whose brains work well in early life may also have other organs and systems that are more efficient than others. But this system integrity idea is somewhat vague and difficult to test. The best we have done to date has been to examine whether peoples reaction speeds are related to intelligence and to mortality. They are. Reaction-time tests involve little thinking, and merely ask people to respond as fast as they can to simple stimuli. People who react faster have, on average, higher intelligence scores and live longer. But we need to think of better measures of the bodys integrity to test this idea more fully.A third potential explanation is that intelligence is about good decision-making. Every day, as we live our lives, we make decisions about our health: what, when, and how much to eat; how much exercise to take; how to look after ourselves if we have an illness; and so forth. Therefore, the reason that intelligence and death are linked might be that people with higher intelligence in childhood make better decisions about health, and have healthier behaviors. As adults, they tend to have better diets, exercise more, gain less weight, have fewer hangovers, and so on. So far, so good. But we do not yet have the full story. There have not been any studies with data on childhood intelligence, lots of subsequent data on adult health behaviors, and then a long-term follow-up for deaths. And only such a study could tell us whether it is these healthy behaviors that explain the link between intelligence and death. A fourth type of explanation is that people with higher intelligence in childhood tend to attain better educational qualifications, work in more professional jobs, have higher incomes, and live in more affluent areas. These variables are related to living longer, too. So, perhaps thats it: higher intelligence buys people into safer and more health-friendly environments. Certainly, in some studies, social class in adulthood seems to explain a lot of the link between intelligence and death. The problem is that this explanation is statistical. We are still not sure whether, say, education and occupation explain the effect of intelligence on health, or whether they are, in effect, merely surrogate measures of intelligence. Researchers have also searched for clues about the intelligence- mortality link in specific types of death. This has been revealing. Lower intelligence in early life is associated with a greater likelihood of dying from, for example, cardiovascular disease, accidents, suicide, and homicide. The evidence for cancer is less certain. As we have come across these specific findings, we have realized that each link might need a different explanation.Finally, we know that how intelligent we are and how long we shall live are caused by both environmental and genetic influences. There are experimental designs, using twins, that can find out the extent to which intelligence and mortality are linked because they share environmental and genetic influences. Among the most informative exercises we can undertake in cognitive epidemiology is to obtain a large group of twins on whom there is data on early-life intelligence and who were tracked for a long time to find out who had died. We havent yetcome across a large enough group of twins with such data. Finding one is a priority. The ultimate aim of this research is to find out what intelligent people have and do that enables them to live longer. Once we know that, we will be able to share and apply that knowledge with the aim of achieving optimal health for all.Q.Which of the following is correct according to the passage?

View answer

Read the passage below and answer the questions that follow.Revolutions are extreme changes in a country that can have far- reaching effects for its neighbors. For this reason, many countries pay close attention to revolutions as they play out to decide whether or not to assist or impede revolutionary progress to protect their own interests. Predicting the course of such events therefore becomes essential to determining foreign policy towards areas in turmoil. Scholars largely agree that revolutions tend to play out in similar ways. However, revolutionary theorists are still at odds over how successful revolutionary states form. Some historians such as Theda Skocpol argue that social revolutions are a product of socioeconomic and political conditions and therefore are predictable in at-risk countries. Others, like Greg McCarthy claim that this view fails to take into account social class and the struggle resulting from socioeconomic differences, factors that have been driving forces in revolutions instigated by the lower class, as in France and Russia. I contend that, although the preceding government and society are significant in causing a revolution and creating revolutionaries, the ideological mindset of the revolutionary group is itself a major factor in determining the outcome of the revolution.There may be some objections to the idea of generalizing the outcomes of revolutions beyond individual cases. Logic seems to dictate that every country has different political and socioeconomic conditions, all of which impact how a given revolution plays out.However, social revolution is a specific form of upheaval in the national political and social structure that can emerge from religious and economic motivations. These events are, according to Skocpol basic transformations of a societys state and class structures; and they are accompanied and in part carried through by class-based revolts from below. Such upheavals involve not only political and governmental shifts, but also socioeconomic changes.By gathering intelligence about revolutionary groups at the forefront of upheaval in a nation, we can deduce their ideologies. From their ideology, revolutionary tendencies can be applied to predict possible actions that may be taken during a revolution. For example, a communist group is likely to create a bureaucratic government based on the lower class, which could be effective at quick mass- mobilization in times of war. Using this sort of analysis, with emphasis on the structural and ideological distinctions of various revolutions, general trends for other revolutionary varieties, such as Islamic revolutions in the Middle East, can be found and refined.This information could be used to determine whether or not intervention is necessary for national security and if so, what sort. A country with an interest in oil in a region, for example, would not be keen on allowing communists to seize power, as the new regime would likely not be receptive to private investors. During a revolution led by religious zealots, onlookers may be less likely to deem intervention worth the trouble if such revolutionaries tend to create large, destructive armies. The guidelines when applied to more revolutions, could provide a way to better predict the formation of governments in the critical stage of revolution.Q.What can be concluded from the statement- By gathering intelligence about revolutionary groups at the forefront of upheaval in a nation, we can deduce their ideologies.A. Revolutions have certain pattern to themB. Ideologies have certain patterns to themC. Revolutionary groups cause upheavals in a nation

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”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 DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”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 DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”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 DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONSfor 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. This, rather than self-discipline or self-control, per se, is what children would benefit from developing.2. What counts is the capacity to choose whether and when to persevere, to control oneself, to follow the rules rather than the simple tendency to do these things in every situation.3. Remarkably, the predictive power of self-control is comparable to that of either general intelligence or family socioeconomic status.4. But such a formulation is very different from the uncritical celebration of self-discipline that we find in the field of education and throughout our culture.5. It’s not just that self-control isn’t always good; it’s that a lack of self-control isn’t always bad because it may “provide the basis for spontaneity, flexibility, expressions of interpersonal warmth, openness to experience, and creative recognitions.”Correct answer is '3'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam