CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Very early in our education we are made famil... Start Learning for Free
Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.
Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.
Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.
Q. The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?
  • a)
    Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.
  • b)
    Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.
  • c)
    Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.
  • d)
    Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction ...
From the given passage it is clear that Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction ...
Understanding the Reasoning in the Passage
The author explains the historical development of prose and verse, highlighting that verse appeared earlier and is simpler in structure compared to prose. This reasoning is based on the complexity and sophistication of the forms, where simpler forms generally precede more complex ones.

Analogy with Archaeology
Option D presents a situation where archaeologists compare two tools to determine which is more recent based on their sophistication. This is analogous to the author's argument because:
  • Complexity as a Measure of Recency: Just as the author argues that prose, being more complex, developed after the simpler form of verse, the archaeologists assess the sophistication of the tools to infer their chronological order.
  • Historical Context: The reasoning in both cases relies on the premise that simpler forms (verse/tools) are typically the precursors to more complex forms (prose/advanced tools).
  • Evolution of Forms: Both the evolution of literary forms and the development of tools reflect a progression from basic to advanced, indicating that sophistication is a marker of later development.



Why Other Options Are Less Suitable
- **Option A:** This compares geological formations based on their surface position, which does not relate to complexity or sophistication.
- **Option B:** This involves works describing solutions, which focuses on content rather than structural complexity.
- **Option C:** This determines recency based on material deterioration, unrelated to the complexity or development of form.

Conclusion
Thus, option D is the most analogous to the author's reasoning, demonstrating that complexity and sophistication are key indicators of the development timeline in both literature and archaeology.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Group QuestionThe passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.You cannot be surprised that under the conditions of continued disappearance of functions, the unfortunate student asks: "What becomes of the mind itself? If you suppress all the functions, what is left?" In the Indian way of teaching, when you come to a difficulty, someone jumps up and asks a question. And in the commentaries, the question which raises the difficulty is always put. The answer of Patanjali is: "Then the spectator remains in his own form." Theosophy answers: "The Monad remains." It is the end of the human pilgrimage. That is the highest point to which humanity mayclimb: to suppress all the reflections in the fivefold universe through which the Monad has manifested his powers, and then for the Monad to realize himself, enriched by the experiences through which his manifested aspects have passed. But to the Samkhyan the difficulty is very great, for when he has only his spectator left, when spectacle ceases, the spectator himself almost vanishes. His only function was to look on at the play of mind. When the play of mind is gone, what is left? He can no longer be a spectator, since there is nothing to see. The only answer is: "He remains in his own form." He is now out of manifestation, the duality is transcended, and so the Spirit sinks back into latency, no longer capable of manifestation. There you come to a very serious difference with the Theosophical view of the universe, for according to that view of the universe, when all these functions have been suppressed, then the Monad is ruler over matter and is prepared for a new cycle of activity, no longer slave but master.All analogy shows us that as the Self withdraws from sheath after sheath, he does not lose but gains in Self- realization. Self- realization becomes more and more vivid with each successive withdrawal; so that as the Self puts aside one veil of matter after another, recognises in regular succession that each body in turn is not himself, by that process of withdrawal his sense of Self-reality becomes keener, not less keen. It is important to remember that, because often Western readers, dealing with Eastern ideas, in consequence of misunderstanding the meaning of the state of liberation, or the condition of Nirvana, identify it with nothingness or unconsciousness—an entirely mistaken idea which is apt to colour the whole of their thought when dealing with Yogic processes. Imagine the condition of a man who identifies himself completely with the body, so that he cannot, even in thought, separate himself from it—the state of the early undeveloped man—and compare that with the strength, vigour and lucidity of your own mental consciousness.The consciousness of the early man limited to the physical body, with occasional touches of dream consciousness, is very restricted in its range. He has no idea of the sweep of your consciousness, of your abstract thinking. But is that consciousness of the early man more vivid, or less vivid, than yours? Certainly you will say, it is less vivid. You have largely transcended his powers of consciousness. Your consciousness is astral rather than physical, but has therebyincreased its vividness. As the Self withdraws himself from sheath after sheath, he realizes himself more and more, not less and less; Self-realization becomes more intense, as sheath after sheath is cast aside. The centre grows more powerful as the circumference becomes more permeable, and at last a stage is reached when the centre knows itself at every point of the circumference. When that is accomplished the circumference vanishes, but not so the centre. The centre still remains. Just as you are more vividly conscious than the early man, just as your consciousness is more alive, not less, than that of an undeveloped man, so it is as we climb up the stairway of life and cast away garment after garment. We become more conscious of existence, more conscious of knowledge, more conscious of Self-determined power. The faculties of the Self shine out more strongly, as veil after veil falls away. By analogy, then, when we touch the Monad, our consciousness should be mightier, more vivid, and more perfect. As you learn to truly live, your powers and feelings grow in strength.And remember that all control is exercised over sheaths, over portions of the Not-Self. You do not control your Self; that is a misconception; you control your Not-Self. The Self is never controlled; He is the Inner Ruler Immortal. He is the controller, not the controlled. As sheath after sheath becomes subject to your Self, and body after body becomes the tool of your Self, then shall you realize the truth of the saying of the Upanishad, that you are the Self, the Inner Ruler, the immortal.Q. Which of the statements below best describes the Theosophical view of the universe?

You cannot be surprised that under the conditions of continued disappearance of functions, the unfortunate student asks: "What becomes of the mind itself? If you suppress all the functions, what is left?" In the Indian way of teaching, when you come to a difficulty, someone jumps up and asks a question. And in the commentaries, the question which raises the difficulty is always put. The answer of Patanjali is: "Then the spectator remains in his own form." Theosophy answers: "The Monad remains." It is the end of the human pilgrimage. That is the highest point to which humanity mayclimb: to suppress all the reflections in the fivefold universe through which the Monad has manifested his powers, and then for the Monad to realize himself, enriched by the experiences through which his manifested aspects have passed. But to the Samkhyan the difficulty is very great, for when he has only his spectator left, when spectacle ceases, the spectator himself almost vanishes. His only function was to look on at the play of mind. When the play of mind is gone, what is left? He can no longer be a spectator, since there is nothing to see. The only answer is: "He remains in his own form." He is now out of manifestation, the duality is transcended, and so the Spirit sinks back into latency, no longer capable of manifestation. There you come to a very serious difference with the Theosophical view of the universe, for according to that view of the universe, when all these functions have been suppressed, then the Monad is ruler over matter and is prepared for a new cycle of activity, no longer slave but master.All analogy shows us that as the Self withdraws from sheath after sheath, he does not lose but gains in Self- realization. Self- realization becomes more and more vivid with each successive withdrawal; so that as the Self puts aside one veil of matter after another, recognises in regular succession that each body in turn is not himself, by that process of withdrawal his sense of Self-reality becomes keener, not less keen. It is important to remember that, because often Western readers, dealing with Eastern ideas, in consequence of misunderstanding the meaning of the state of liberation, or the condition of Nirvana, identify it with nothingness or unconsciousness—an entirely mistaken idea which is apt to colour the whole of their thought when dealing with Yogic processes. Imagine the condition of a man who identifies himself completely with the body, so that he cannot, even in thought, separate himself from it—the state of the early undeveloped man—and compare that with the strength, vigour and lucidity of your own mental consciousness.The consciousness of the early man limited to the physical body, with occasional touches of dream consciousness, is very restricted in its range. He has no idea of the sweep of your consciousness, of your abstract thinking. But is that consciousness of the early man more vivid, or less vivid, than yours? Certainly you will say, it is less vivid. You have largely transcended his powers of consciousness. Your consciousness is astral rather than physical, but has therebyincreased its vividness. As the Self withdraws himself from sheath after sheath, he realizes himself more and more, not less and less; Self-realization becomes more intense, as sheath after sheath is cast aside. The centre grows more powerful as the circumference becomes more permeable, and at last a stage is reached when the centre knows itself at every point of the circumference. When that is accomplished the circumference vanishes, but not so the centre. The centre still remains. Just as you are more vividly conscious than the early man, just as your consciousness is more alive, not less, than that of an undeveloped man, so it is as we climb up the stairway of life and cast away garment after garment. We become more conscious of existence, more conscious of knowledge, more conscious of Self-determined power. The faculties of the Self shine out more strongly, as veil after veil falls away. By analogy, then, when we touch the Monad, our consciousness should be mightier, more vivid, and more perfect. As you learn to truly live, your powers and feelings grow in strength.And remember that all control is exercised over sheaths, over portions of the Not-Self. You do not control your Self; that is a misconception; you control your Not-Self. The Self is never controlled; He is the Inner Ruler Immortal. He is the controller, not the controlled. As sheath after sheath becomes subject to your Self, and body after body becomes the tool of your Self, then shall you realize the truth of the saying of the Upanishad, that you are the Self, the Inner Ruler, the immortal.Q. Which of the following is incorrect in the context of the passage?

You cannot be surprised that under the conditions of continued disappearance of functions, the unfortunate student asks: "What becomes of the mind itself? If you suppress all the functions, what is left?" In the Indian way of teaching, when you come to a difficulty, someone jumps up and asks a question. And in the commentaries, the question which raises the difficulty is always put. The answer of Patanjali is: "Then the spectator remains in his own form." Theosophy answers: "The Monad remains." It is the end of the human pilgrimage. That is the highest point to which humanity may climb: to suppress all the reflections in the fivefold universe through which the Monad has manifested his powers, and then for the Monad to realize himself, enriched by the experiences through which his manifested aspects have passed. But to the Samkhyan the difficulty is very great, for when he has only his spectator left, when spectacle ceases, the spectator himself almost vanishes. His only function was to look on at the play of mind. When the play of mind is gone, what is left? He can no longer be a spectator, since there is nothing to see. The only answer is: "He remains in his own form." He is now out of manifestation, the duality is transcended, and so the Spirit sinks back into latency, no longer capable of manifestation. There you come to a very serious difference with the Theosophical view of the universe, for according to that view of the universe, when all these functions have been suppressed, then the Monad is ruler over matter and is prepared for a new cycle of activity, no longer slave but master.All analogy shows us that as the Self withdraws from sheath after sheath, he does not lose but gains in Self- realization. Self- realization becomes more and more vivid with each successive withdrawal; so that as the Self puts aside one veil of matter after another, recognises in regular succession that each body in turn is not himself, by that process of withdrawal his sense of Self-reality becomes keener, not less keen. It is important to remember that, because often Western readers, dealing with Eastern ideas, in consequence of misunderstanding the meaning of the state of liberation, or the condition of Nirvana, identify it with nothingness or unconsciousness—an entirely mistaken idea which is apt to colour the whole of their thought when dealing with Yogic processes. Imagine the condition of a man who identifies himself completely with the body, so that he cannot, even in thought, separate himself from it—the state of the early undeveloped man—and compare that with the strength, vigour and lucidity of your own mental consciousness.The consciousness of the early man limited to the physical body, with occasional touches of dream consciousness, is very restricted in its range. He has no idea of the sweep of your consciousness, of your abstract thinking. But is that consciousness of the early man more vivid, or less vivid, than yours? Certainly you will say, it is less vivid. You have largely transcended his powers of consciousness. Your consciousness is astral rather than physical, but has thereby increased its vividness. As the Self withdraws himself from sheath after sheath, he realizes himself more and more, not less and less; Self-realization becomes more intense, as sheath after sheath is cast aside. The centre grows more powerful as the circumference becomes more permeable, and at last a stage is reached when the centre knows itself at every point of the circumference. When that is accomplished the circumference vanishes, but not so the centre. The centre still remains. Just as you are more vividly conscious than the early man, just as your consciousness is more alive, not less, than that of an undeveloped man, so it is as we climb up the stairway of life and cast away garment after garment. We become more conscious of existence, more conscious of knowledge, more conscious of Self-determined power. The faculties of the Self shine out more strongly, as veil after veil falls away. By analogy, then, when we touch the Monad, our consciousness should be mightier, more vivid, and more perfect. As you learn to truly live, your powers and feelings grow in strength.And remember that all control is exercised over sheaths, over portions of the Not-Self. You do not control your Self; that is a misconception; you control your Not-Self. The Self is never controlled; He is the Inner Ruler Immortal. He is the controller, not the controlled. As sheath after sheath becomes subject to your Self, and body after body becomes the tool of yourSelf, then shall you realize the truth of the saying of the Upanishad, that you are the Self, the Inner Ruler, the immortal.Which of the statements below best describes the Theosophical view of the universe?

You cannot be surprised that under the conditions of continued disappearance of functions, the unfortunate student asks: "What becomes of the mind itself? If you suppress all the functions, what is left?" In the Indian way of teaching, when you come to a difficulty, someone jumps up and asks a question. And in the commentaries, the question which raises the difficulty is always put. The answer of Patanjali is: "Then the spectator remains in his own form."Theosophy answers: "The Monad remains." It is the end of the human pilgrimage. That is the highest point to which humanity may climb: to suppress all the reflections in the fivefold universe through which the Monad has manifested his powers, and then for the Monad to realize himself, enriched by the experiences through which his manifested aspects have passed. But to the Samkhyan the difficulty is very great, for when he has only his spectator left, when spectacle ceases, the spectator himself almost vanishes. His only function was to look on at the play of mind. When the play of mind is gone, what is left? He can no longer be a spectator, since there is nothing to see. The only answer is: "He remains in his own form." He is now out of manifestation, the duality is transcended, and so the Spirit sinks back into latency, no longer capable of manifestation. There you come to a very serious difference with the Theosophical view of the universe, for according to that view of the universe, when all these functions have been suppressed, then the Monad is ruler over matter and is prepared for a new cycle of activity, no longer slave but master.All analogy shows us that as the Self withdraws from sheath after sheath, he does not lose but gains in Self- realization. Self- realization becomes more and more vivid with each successive withdrawal; so that as the Self puts aside one veil of matter after another, recognises in regular succession that each body in turn is not himself, by that process of withdrawal his sense of Self-reality becomes keener, not less keen. It is important to remember that, because often Western readers, dealing with Eastern ideas, in consequence of misunderstanding the meaning of the state of liberation, or the condition of Nirvana, identify it with nothingness or unconsciousness—an entirely mistaken idea which is apt to colour the whole of their thought when dealing with Yogic processes. Imagine the condition of a man who identifies himself completely with the body, so that he cannot, even in thought, separate himself from it—the state of the early undeveloped man—and compare that with the strength, vigour and lucidity of your own mental consciousness.The consciousness of the early man limited to the physical body, with occasional touches of dream consciousness, is very restricted in its range. He has no idea of the sweep of your consciousness, of your abstract thinking. But is that consciousness of the early man more vivid, or less vivid, than yours? Certainly you will say, it is less vivid. You have largely transcended his powers of consciousness. Your consciousness is astral rather than physical, but has thereby increased its vividness. As the Self withdraws himself from sheath after sheath, he realizes himself more and more, not less and less; Self-realization becomes more intense, as sheath after sheath is cast aside. The centre grows more powerful as the circumference becomes more permeable, and at last a stage is reached when the centre knows itself at every point of the circumference. When that is accomplished the circumference vanishes, but not so the centre. The centre still remains. Just as you are more vividly conscious than the early man, just as your consciousness is more alive, not less, than that of an undeveloped man, so it is as we climb up the stairway of life and cast away garment after garment. We become more conscious of existence, more conscious of knowledge, more conscious of Self-determined power. The faculties of the Self shine out more strongly, as veil after veil falls away. By analogy, then, when we touch the Monad, our consciousness should be mightier, more vivid, and more perfect. As you learn to truly live, your powers and feelings grow in strength.And remember that all control is exercised over sheaths, over portions of the Not-Self. You do not control your Self; that is a misconception; you control your Not-Self. The Self is never controlled; He is the Inner Ruler Immortal. He is the controller, not the controlled. As sheath after sheath becomes subject to your Self, and body after body becomes the tool of yourSelf, then shall you realize the truth of the saying of the Upanishad, that you are the Self, the Inner Ruler, the immortal.With reference to the passage, the ‘Monad’ can best be described by which of the following?

You cannot be surprised that under the conditions of continued disappearance of functions, the unfortunate student asks: "What becomes of the mind itself? If you suppress all the functions, what is left?" In the Indian way of teaching, when you come to a difficulty, someone jumps up and asks a question. And in the commentaries, the question which raises the difficulty is always put. The answer of Patanjali is: "Then the spectator remains in his own form."Theosophy answers: "The Monad remains." It is the end of the human pilgrimage. That is the highest point to which humanity may climb: to suppress all the reflections in the fivefold universe through which the Monad has manifested his powers, and then for the Monad to realize himself, enriched by the experiences through which his manifested aspects have passed. But to the Samkhyan the difficulty is very great, for when he has only his spectator left, when spectacle ceases, the spectator himself almost vanishes. His only function was to look on at the play of mind. When the play of mind is gone, what is left? He can no longer be a spectator, since there is nothing to see. The only answer is: "He remains in his own form." He is now out of manifestation, the duality is transcended, and so the Spirit sinks back into latency, no longer capable of manifestation. There you come to a very serious difference with the Theosophical view of the universe, for according to that view of the universe, when all these functions have been suppressed, then the Monad is ruler over matter and is prepared for a new cycle of activity, no longer slave but master.All analogy shows us that as the Self withdraws from sheath after sheath, he does not lose but gains in Self- realization. Self- realization becomes more and more vivid with each successive withdrawal; so that as the Self puts aside one veil of matter after another, recognises in regular succession that each body in turn is not himself, by that process of withdrawal his sense of Self-reality becomes keener, not less keen. It is important to remember that, because often Western readers, dealing with Eastern ideas, in consequence of misunderstanding the meaning of the state of liberation, or the condition of Nirvana, identify it with nothingness or unconsciousness—an entirely mistaken idea which is apt to colour the whole of their thought when dealing with Yogic processes. Imagine the condition of a man who identifies himself completely with the body, so that he cannot, even in thought, separate himself from it—the state of the early undeveloped man—and compare that with the strength, vigour and lucidity of your own mental consciousness.The consciousness of the early man limited to the physical body, with occasional touches of dream consciousness, is very restricted in its range. He has no idea of the sweep of your consciousness, of your abstract thinking. But is that consciousness of the early man more vivid, or less vivid, than yours? Certainly you will say, it is less vivid. You have largely transcended his powers of consciousness. Your consciousness is astral rather than physical, but has thereby increased its vividness. As the Self withdraws himself from sheath after sheath, he realizes himself more and more, not less and less; Self-realization becomes more intense, as sheath after sheath is cast aside. The centre grows more powerful as the circumference becomes more permeable, and at last a stage is reached when the centre knows itself at every point of the circumference. When that is accomplished the circumference vanishes, but not so the centre. The centre still remains. Just as you are more vividly conscious than the early man, just as your consciousness is more alive, not less, than that of an undeveloped man, so it is as we climb up the stairway of life and cast away garment after garment. We become more conscious of existence, more conscious of knowledge, more conscious of Self-determined power. The faculties of the Self shine out more strongly, as veil after veil falls away. By analogy, then, when we touch the Monad, our consciousness should be mightier, more vivid, and more perfect. As you learn to truly live, your powers and feelings grow in strength.And remember that all control is exercised over sheaths, over portions of the Not-Self. You do not control your Self; that is a misconception; you control your Not-Self. The Self is never controlled; He is the Inner Ruler Immortal. He is the controller, not the controlled. As sheath after sheath becomes subject to your Self, and body after body becomes the tool of yourSelf, then shall you realize the truth of the saying of the Upanishad, that you are the Self, the Inner Ruler, the immortal.Which of the following is incorrect in the context of the passage?

Top Courses for CAT

Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Very early in our education we are made familiar with the distinction between verse and prose. The conviction gradually forces itself on us that when we mean what we say we write prose, and that verse is an ingenious but fundamentally perverse way of distorting ordinary prose statements. The conviction does not come to us from school so much as from our accumulated experience of observing prose and verse in action, and embedded in it is the assumption that prose is the language of ordinary speech. But this is not the case. In the history of literature we notice that developed techniques of verse normally precede, sometimes by centuries, developed techniques of prose.Prose is the expression or imitation of directed thinking or controlled description in words, and its unit is the sentence. It does not follow that all prose is descriptive or thoughtful, much less logical, but only that prose imitates, in its rhythm and structure, the verbal expression of a rational mind. Prose, therefore, is not ordinary speech, but ordinary speech on its best behavior, aware of an audience and with its relation to that audience prepared beforehand. It is the habitual language of fully articulate people who have mastered its difficult idiom. Nonetheless, when they speak, even they will avoid stilted speech or “talking like a book”; their speech rhythm shows the influence of something that is not prose. If we are lost in a strange town and ask someone for directions, even the most articulate person will not respond in prose. We get instead a speech rhythm that is prolix and repetitive, and in which the verbal unit is no more a prose sentence than it is a poetic stanza.Ordinary speech is concerned mainly with putting into words what is loosely called the stream of consciousness: the daydreaming, remembering, worrying, associating, brooding, and mooning that continually flow through the mind and which we often speak of as thought. This ordinary speech is mainly concerned with self-expression. Whether from immaturity, preoccupation, or the absence of a hearer, it is imperfectly aware of an audience. Full awareness of an audience makes speech rhetorical, and rhetoric means a conventionalized rhythm. The irregular rhythm of ordinary speech may be conventionalized in two ways. One way is to impose a pattern of recurrence on it; the other is to impose the logical and semantic pattern of the sentence. We have verse when the arrangement of words is dominated by recurrent rhythm and sound, prose when it is dominated by the syntactical relation of subject and predicate. Of the two, verse is much the simpler and more primitive type, which accounts for its being historically earlier than prose.Q.The reasoning employed in which one of the following situations is most analogous to the author’s reasoning in explaining the fact that prose developed later than verse?a)Geologists investigating the ages of two natural rock formations found in different parts of the world argue that one of the formations is the more recent of the two because it is closer to the surface of the earth.b)Biographers attempting to date two works by an ancient author argue that one work is the more recent of the two because it describes the solution to a problem raised in the other work.c)Musicologists attempting to identify the later of two versions of a composer’s symphony argue that one is the more recent of the two because the paper it is written on has deteriorated to a significantly lesser extent.d)Archaeologists attempting to date two tools found in different parts of the world argue that one of the tools is the more recent of the two because it is the more sophisticated of the two.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

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