CAT 2021 Slot 2: Past Year Question Paper with Solutions | CAT Mock Test Series 2024 PDF Download

 Page 1


CAT 2021 Slot 2
VARC
Instructions [1 - 4 ]
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability
to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything. Philosopher Michael Williams
writes: ‘Is it possible to obtain knowledge at all? This problem is pressing because there are powerful arguments, some very ancient, for
the conclusion that it is not . . . Scepticism is the skeleton in Western rationalism’s closet’. While it is not clear that the scandal matters to
anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge. For,
they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition,
fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an
airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.
That is all quite serious-sounding but so also are the rattlings of the skeleton: that is, the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that
we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we
think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic
will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the
corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to
compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or
incorrect. Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you ‘know’ something or anything at all - at least not, he may
add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive ‘knowledge’.
There are a number of ways to handle this situation. The most common is to ignore it. Most people outside the academy - and, indeed,
most of us inside it - are unaware of or unperturbed by the philosophical scandal of knowledge and go about our lives without too many
epistemic anxieties. We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired
them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be
shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates. And we
examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously, usually
depending on what seems to be at stake for ourselves and/or other people and what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or
making our beliefs credible to others (look, it’s right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist).
1. The author discusses all of the following arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:
A    
sceptics believe that we can never fully know anything, if by “knowing” we mean knowledge of a reality that is
independent of the knower.
B    if we cannot distinguish knowledge from opinion or delusion, we will not be able to justify our actions.
C    the best way to deal with scepticism about the veracity of knowledge is to ignore it.
D    philosophers maintain that the scandal of philosophy should be of concern to everyone.
A n s w e r : C
  
Explanation:
The argument in Option A has been discussed in the following excerpt:
...the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having
a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of
our perceptions, ideas or descriptions.
The argument in Option B has been discussed in the following excerpt:
For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition,
fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an
airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.
The argument in Option D has been discussed in the following excerpt:
While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least
given a certain conception of knowledge.
  
.