All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >   Directions: Read the following passage caref... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.
We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.
Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.
For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.
This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.
Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.
One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.
But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.
This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.
Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.
We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".
When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.
Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.
Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?
  • a)
    Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.
  • b)
    Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.
  • c)
    Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.
  • d)
    Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the quest...
A is incorrect as the passage makes no mention of the fact the young people are misguided, he simply seeks to clear a misconception. B is incorrect as the author does acknowledge Gates' talent, and does not call him an opportunist. D is incorrect as it attributes all of his success to luck, and makes no mention of his own qualities. C is the right answer, as it best sums up the view the author has of Gates.
Attention CAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following questions cannot be answered on the basis of the information given in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the underlying idea(s) that the author wants to reflect from the passage?I. The issues most deserving of investment today are different from those of past decades; what remains constant is the need for shared and dynamic problem definition, clear and winnable milestones, solutions built for scale, robust investments to drive and serve demand, and adaptive capacity among philanthropists and grantees alike.II. At the highest level, the successful strategies that should be practiced run counter to prevailing funding practices. They included decades-long persistence, even when the pace of change felt slow; financial support for collaboration among key actors, even when it meant giving up some control; engagement with governments to influence funding and action, even in uncertain times; and big philanthropic bets that shifted power from the donor to the doers and beneficiaries.III. For the types of social challenges targeted by audacious philanthropists and other change makers, adaptation informed by robust measurement is key and to fuel progress, funders need to make sure that both their attitudes and their funding reflect that reality.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following instances could comply to the words of the author in the passage where he says that the philanthropists underwrote the efforts of others?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following could be the reason(s) for the basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities taking 30 years to gain acceptance even after the leading medical journal published strong evidence in support of it?I. Even though evidence was given, the journal was not able to actively preach the importance of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities.II. It was a substantial change in the normal practices that were being followed till the time, and so, acceptance of something this different and of this scale took time.III. Some of the researches previously published in the said journal were later deemed false upon further investigations; hence, people were sceptical about adopting one of its advices again - the reason it took so much time.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Private philanthropists have helped propel some of the most important social-impact success stories of the past century: Virtually eradicating polio globally. Providing free and reduced-price lunches for all needy schoolchildren in the United States. Establishing a universal 911 service. Securing the right for same-sex couples to marry in the U.S. These efforts have transformed or saved hundreds of millions of lives. That we now take them for granted makes them no less astonishing: They were the inconceivable moon shots of their day before they were inevitable success stories in retrospect. Many of today's emerging large-scale philanthropists aspire to similarly audacious successes. They don't want to fund homeless shelters and food pantries; they want to end homelessness and hunger. Steady, linear progress isn't enough; they demand disruptive, catalytic, systemic change - and in short order. Even as society grapples with important questions about today's concentrations of wealth, many of the largest philanthropists feel the weight of responsibility that comes with their privilege. And the scale of their ambition, along with the wealth they are willing to give back to society, is breath taking.But a growing number of these donors privately express great frustration. Despite having written big checks for years, they aren't seeing transformative successes for society: Think of philanthropic interventions to arrest climate change or improve U.S. public education, to cite just two examples. When faced with setbacks and public criticism, the best philanthropists re-examine their goals and approaches, including how they engage the communities they aspire to help in the decision-making process. But some retreat to seemingly safer donations to universities or art museums, while others withdraw from public giving altogether.Audacious social change is incredibly challenging. Yet history shows that it can succeed. Unfortunately, success never results from a silver bullet; it takes collaboration, government engagement, and persistence over decades, among other things. The role of philanthropists in the historical success stories vary. By and large they underwrote the efforts of others. The hands-on work fell, as it does today, to NGO leaders, service providers, activists, and many others on the front lines of social change. The common thread in these success stories was that philanthropists acted as sources of flexible capital, identifying gaps left by others and directing their resources accordingly. Sometimes only minor support was enough to tip the scales. This framework does not constitute a simple or linear recipe.Real change is highly complex and driven by many forces, luck and timing play important roles, and causality is impossible to prove. Still, we believe that if ambitious philanthropists apply the framework over the arc of a campaign, they may substantially increase the odds of achieving transformative change. There are some high-level reasons as to why so many efforts wither on the vine. Most of the these share four important patterns: Success took a long time - nearly 90% of the efforts spanned more than 20 years. It frequently entailed government cooperation - 80% required changes to government funding, policies, or actions. It often necessitated collaboration - nearly 75% involved active coordination among key actors across sectors. And at least 66% featured donors who made one or more philanthropic big bets - gifts of $10 million or more.Unfortunately, these patterns go against the grain of much philanthropic practice today. Donors know conceptually that achieving widespread change can take a long time, even for the most important and straightforward ideas. The basic lifesaving practice of hand washing and sterilizing surgical instruments and facilities took 30 years to gain acceptance even after a leading medical journal published ironclad evidence in support of it. Yet philanthropists often fund grantees with the expectation that much more complex change can be achieved in just a handful of years. Wary of red tape and of being perceived as "too political," many donors have been unwilling to fund work that meaningfully engages with the U.S. government, despite the central role it plays and the trillions of dollars it spends addressing society's toughest problems. Furthermore, collaboration of any type can be difficult and costly, so few philanthropists meaningfully support or engage in it, even though most are frustrated with the inefficient proliferation of siloed change efforts. And finally, only a small fraction of donor gifts for social change are large enough to make a dent - although philanthropists routinely commit $20 million or more to infinitely simpler challenges, such as building a university library or a museum wing.Q. Which of the following can logically and contextually follow paragraph 1 to link it with paragraph 2, as in forming a bridge between the two paragraphs?

Top Courses for CATView all

Top Courses for CAT

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.Bill Gates is a lot luckier than you might realise. He may be a very talented man who worked his way up from geek to the top spot on the list of the world's richest people. But his extreme success perhaps tells us more about the importance of circumstances beyond his control than it does about how skill and perseverance are rewarded.We often fall for the idea that the exceptional performers are the most skilled or talented. But this is flawed. Exceptional performances tend to occur in exceptional circumstances. Top performers are often the luckiest people, who have benefited from being at the right place and right time. They are what we call outliers, whose performances may be examples set apart from the system that everyone else works within.Many treat Gates, and other highly successful people like him, as deserving of huge attention and reward, as people from whom we could learn a lot about how to succeed. But assuming life's "winners" got there from performance alone is likely to lead to disappointment. Even if you could imitate everything Gates did, you would not be able to replicate his initial good fortune.For example, Gates's upper-class background and private education enabled him to gain extra programming experience when less than 0.01% of his generation then had access to computers. His mother's social connection with IBM's chairman enabled him to gain a contract from the then-leading PC company that was crucial for establishing his software empire.This is important because most customers who used IBM computers were forced to learn how to use Microsoft's software that came along with it. This created an inertia in Microsoft's favour. The next software these customers chose was more likely to be Microsoft's, not because their software was necessarily the best, but because most people were too busy to learn how to use anything else.Microsoft's success and market share may differ from the rest by several orders of magnitude, but the difference was really enabled by Gate's early fortune, reinforced by a strong success-breeds-success dynamic. Of course, Gates's talent and effort played important roles in the extreme success of Microsoft. But that's not enough for creating such an outlier. Talent and effort are likely to be less important than circumstances in the sense that he could not have been so successful without the latter.One might argue that many exceptional performers still gained their exceptional skill through hard work, exceptional motivation or "grit", so they do not deserve to receive lower reward and praise. Some have even suggested that there is a magic number for greatness, a ten-year or 10,000-hour rule. Many professionals and experts did acquire their exceptional skill through persistent, deliberate practices. In fact, Gates' 10,000 hours learning computer programming as a teenager has been highlighted as one of the reasons for his success.But detailed analyses of the case studies of experts often suggest that certain situational factors beyond the control of these exceptional performers also play an important role. For example, three national champions in table tennis came from the same street in a small suburb of one town in England.This wasn't a coincidence or because there was nothing else to do but practise ping pong. It turns out that a famous table tennis coach, Peter Charters, happened to retire in this particular suburb. Many kids who lived on the same street as the retired coach were attracted to this sport because of him and three of them, after following the "10,000-hour rule", performed exceptionally well, including winning the national championship.Their talent and efforts were, of course, essential for realising their exceptional performances. But without their early luck (having a reliable, high-quality coach and supportive families), simply practicing 10,000 hours without adequate feedback wouldn't likely lead a randomly picked child to become a national champion.We could also imagine a child with superior talent in table tennis suffering from early bad luck, such as not having a capable coach or being in a country where being an athlete was not considered to be a promising career. Then they might never have a chance to realise their potential. The implication is that the more exceptional a performance is, the fewer meaningful, applicable lessons we can actually learn from the "winner".When it comes to moderate performance, it seems much more likely that our intuition about success is correct. Conventional wisdom, such as "the harder I work the luckier I get" or "chance favours the prepared mind", makes perfect sense when talking about someone moving from poor to good performance. Going from good to great, however, is a different story.Being in the right place (succeeding in a context where early outcome has an enduring impact) at the right time (having early luck) can be so important that it overwhelms merits. With this in mind there's a good case that we shouldn't just reward or imitate life's winners and expect to have similar success. But there is a case that the winners should consider imitating the likes of Gates (who became a philanthropist) or Warren Buffett (who argues that richer Americans should pay higher taxes) who have chosen to use their wealth and success to do good things. The winners who appreciate their luck and do not take it all deserve more of our respect.Q. Which of the following statements best sum up the author's view of Bill Gates and his success?a)Bill Gates' genius has been much hyped by sensationalists who misguide young people into believing that they can emulate his success.b)Bill Gates is more of an opportunist than he is talented, as he simply happened to be in the right place at the right time.c)Bill Gates is no doubt hardworking and intelligent, but his good fortune is what put him in the right circumstances to make use of his qualities.d)Bill Gates was exceptionally lucky from the start and that has gone a long way in contributing to his success.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

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
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup