CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Read the following passage carefully and ans... Start Learning for Free
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.
The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.
After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.
Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."
Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?
  • a)
    If you have a very high self-esteem.
  • b)
    If you're low on the resilience factor.
  • c)
    If you're afraid of experiencing failure.
  • d)
    If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.
  • e)
    None of the above
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that fo...
The 3rd sentence of the 2nd para says that "risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome if you're low on that resilience factor" making option B the correct answer.
View all questions of this test
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depresse d) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Which of the following could be the apt title for the passage?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depresse d) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Which of the following could have been the motive(s) of the author behind penning the last para?I. To outline the important aspects of resilience.II. Shed some light on the "what" of self-esteem.III. How self-worth can be aligned with academic ability and personality trait.

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depresse d) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Which of the following could be the tone of the 3rd para?

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.It can be inferred from the passage that the crucial factor in a trial under the adversarial system is

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.In the modern tapestry of human interaction, the threads of authority and obedience intertwine in a complex dance. Authority, by its very nature, wields a potent psychological influence. It can transform an otherwise resistant individual into a compliant one, altering the trajectory of their moral and ethical compass. This malleability of human will under the weight of authority is both a fascinating and disquieting aspect of social psychology.The concept of authority transcends mere power; it embodies a social contract where individuals relinquish a degree of autonomy in exchange for order and governance. Yet, this exchange can have unintended consequences, particularly when authority commands actions that clash with personal morals. Its not uncommon for individuals to carry out orders that, under normal circumstances, they would find reprehensible. The core of this phenomenon lies in the psychological shift experienced by individuals when they transition from acting autonomously to functioning as agents of authority.The dichotomy of obedience is such that it can be seen as both a virtue and a vice. On one hand, it is the glue that holds social structures together; on the other, it can lead to the perpetration of great injustices. The role of authority is central in this respect, as it has the capacity to diminish personal accountability, absolving individuals of the guilt normally associated with unethical actions. This dissociation of action and conscience is a key aspect of obedience that warrants thorough exploration.Exploring the dynamics of obedience necessitates a departure from theoretical discourse to empirical analysis. A controlled laboratory setting can yield invaluable insights into the conditions that foster obedience and those that precipitate defiance. These experiments, while conducted in an artificial environment, are not detached from reality. Instead, they represent an amplification of everyday interactions, distilled to their fundamental elements. The challenge lies in designing these experiments to reflect the essence of obedience, capturing the psychological transformation that occurs when an individual submits to authority.The implications of such studies extend far beyond the confines of the laboratory. The principles of obedience to authority are relevant in a myriad of contexts, from the military to the corporate world, from classrooms to government. Understanding how and why individuals obey is crucial to unraveling both the triumphs and tragedies of human history.Q. In the context of the passage, how does the author view the role of obedience in society?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.You can tell yourself all you want that even the best of us makes a mistake now and then, but when you're the one who has made the mistake, it can be difficult to believe. Consider, for example, the fact that many Oscar-winning movies contain bloopers. In fact, the IMDB website regularly includes a list of goofs in acclaimed movies. Professional athletes often miss easy shots or kicks, newspaper headlines contain typos, and models trip on the runway. So why should you be perfect? In a recent comprehensive review of the literature on "failure, error, or mistakes," University of Leeds psychologist Judith Johnson and colleagues (2017) tried to understand why some people are able to easily brush off their errors, while others become preoccupied with them. From their work, you can understand how to transform yourself into one of the resilient.The basic framework underlying the Johnson et al. review is the Bi-dimensional Framework for investigating resilience (BDF), which proposes that risk and resilience are two separate dimensions. You can have a high-risk experience of making a mistake, such as using the wrong name for someone who you're supposed to know, but if you're high in the resilience dimension, you won't let that social gaffe get to you. Risks can befall anyone, then, but they will only have a negative outcome (making you anxious or depressed) if you're low on that resilience factor. The Leeds research team went on, in their review of relevant studies, to examine whether, and how much, psychological factors could confer resilience in people who fail or make mistakes.After meticulously distilling over 8,300 possible studies down into 38 papers with 46 different studies, Johnson and her collaborators attempted to identify those key psychological resilience ingredients. Most of the studies had used an experimental paradigm in which participants were given tasks too difficult to complete, ensuring that they would indeed experience failure. The most common of these tasks used the "Remote Associates Task" (i.e. "RAT") where participants guess a target word from three other words rigged to be hard or easy. Other tasks supposedly measured intelligence or involved giving participants unsolvable anagrams.Now that you get the sense of how failure can be defined experimentally, let's see what those protective factors looked like. As it turns out, resilience could be boiled down into 3 very clear components: high self-esteem, a tendency to attribute success to one's personal qualities and failure to outside circumstances, and lower levels of perfectionism. Contrary to what you might expect, feelings of self-worth regarding academic ability did not predict resilience, nor did the personality trait of being able to suppress emotions. High self-esteem means that you regard yourself in a positive manner, not overly boastful or grandiose, but pleased with who you are in an overall sense. Examples of self-esteem questions from one frequently used scale include: "On the whole, I am satisfied with myself," "I am able to do things about as well as other people," and "I feel I have a number of good qualities."Q. Under what condition does risk enable having a negative outcome?a)If you have a very high self-esteem.b)If you're low on the resilience factor.c)If you're afraid of experiencing failure.d)If you don't have the ability to easily brush off your errors.e)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev