CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  The passage given below is followed by a set ... Start Learning for Free
The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.


Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.


Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.


Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.


Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.


When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand us


Q.


Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.


1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.


2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.


3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.


4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.


5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.

  • a)
    1

  • b)
    2

  • c)
    3

  • d)
    5

  • e)
    4

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the ...
Statement 1 introduces the topic of the paragraph - solitary confinement.
Statements 2 and 4 go on to describe the architectural aspects of the solitary confinement. Statement 5 with “slots in these doors” connects with “they have metal doors” in statement 4. 2
Statement 3 which talks about the solitary cells becoming the largest psychiatric centers does not fit in with the rest of the statements.
Hence, the correct answer is 3.
This question is part of UPSC exam. View all CAT courses
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

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

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

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

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

Directions: Read the passage and answer the question that follows.Our thinking about the dimensions of emotional intelligence (El) and their accompanying competencies has evolved and streamlined as new data has been analysed. Readers familiar with earlier versions of emotional intelligence model will notice some changes here. Where we formerly listed five domains of El, we now have simplified the model into four domains: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management with eighteen competencies instead of the original twenty five. For instance, an El domain would be social awareness; a competency in that domain would be empathy or service. The result is an El model that more clearly links specific clusters of competencies to the underlying brain dynamics that drive them. Recent findings about emotions and the brain make clearer the neurological basis of these competencies. This lets us sketch their dynamics more thoroughly, while providing practical guidelines for building leadership skills. These El competencies are not innate talents but learned abilities, each of which has a unique contribution to making leaders more resonant, and therefore more effective. Guided by the neurology underlying El framework, we can make a sharp distinction between what works and what does not when it comes to learning the art of leadership.The basic argument in a nut shell is that primal leadership operates better through emotionally intelligent leaders who create resonance. Underlying that proposition is the theory of performance, one that surfaces the link between the neurology of the four fundamentals of emotional intelligence and the El competencies that build on these fundamentals. These El competencies are in turn the building blocks of the modes of leadership that foster resonance in the group. Interestingly, no leader we have ever encountered, no matter how outstanding, has strengths across board in every one of the many El competencies. Highly effective leaders typically exhibit a critical mass of strength in half a dozen or so El competencies. Moreover there is no fixed formula for great leadership: There are many paths to excellence and super leaders can possess very different personal styles. Still, we find that effective leaders typically demonstrate strengths in at least one competence from each of the four fundamental areas of emotional intelligence.(Adapted from The New Leaders by Daniel Goleman. Little Brown, p 37-38)Q.The passage talks about the relationship between leadership, emotional intelligence and neurology. Which of the following statements represents a valid relationship between the three?

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct 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 The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct 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 The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct 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 The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.Dogs are able to follow human pointing gestures to find hidden food, and they can indicate successfully to their owners by their own pointing actions where a hidden toy is located. Under certain circumstances, dogs understand that a human who cannot see them (because, for example, she is blindfolded) is less likely to respond to begging with a tasty treat than a person whose vision is not obscured.Dogs are also more likely to obey a command to leave something desirable alone if their master stays in the room than if he steps out. And yet attempts to view canine smarts as cut from the same cloth as human intelligence gloss over a lot of the details about how dogs and humans operate. We have found that people remain somewhat mysterious to dogs for the first five months of life, and dogs at our local pound lag considerably behind house dogs when it comes to understanding human beings.Recent research by Alexandra Horowitz at Barnard College in New York accentuates the “talking past each other” that sometimes goes on between humans and dogs. Horowitz asked owners to forbid their dogs to take a biscuit and then briefly leave the room. When the owners returned, some were told that their dogs had been naughty and eaten the forbidden food.Others were told their dog had been good and left the biscuit alone. If the dog had misbehaved, the owner was given a moment to berate his pet for its misdeed. The owners were then asked whether their dog looked guilty. The twist in the tale was that only half of the owners were correctly informed.When Horowitz asked each owner whether his dog looked guilty, she could consider whether the owner’s report of “guilty looks” actually had to do with the facts of the matter - whether the dog had taken the forbidden treat - or whether it reflected nothing more than whether the owner had chastised his hound. The results showed clearly that “guilty looks” came about because the dog was being scolded. This does not mean that we should not chastise our dogs (or praise them). All it means is that, if we want to live harmoniously with another species in our most intimate places, we must recognize that some of the time our preferred modes of reasoning are not theirs. We must try to understand dogs on their own terms, and help them to understand usQ.Five sentences are given below labeled (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). Of these, four sentences need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. Pick out the sentence that does not fit the sequence.1. Solitary confinement is the practice of isolating people in closed cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, virtually free of human contact, for periods of time ranging from days to decades.2. Solitary confinement cells generally measure from six by nine to eight by ten feet.3. Over the past thirty years, in the wake of deinstitutionalization, prisons and jails have become the nation’s largest inpatient psychiatric centers.4. Some have bars, but more often they have solid metal doors. Many do not have windows.5. Meals generally come through slots in these doors, as do any communications with prison staff. There may be showers within the cells, or inhabitants may be taken, in shackles, to shower two or three times a week.a)1b)2c)3d)5e)4Correct 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
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