Verbal For CAT 2020 (Slot - 1) | Verbal Ability (VA) & Reading Comprehension (RC) PDF Download

Option A: The various derivations of anarchism cannot be associated with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. We don't have the requisite information to support this claim.

Option B: This has been presented as the motto of every anarchist faction: wherein the state is the enemy {opposition to the centralization of power}. While there are additional beliefs associated with different schools of anarchist thought, this antagonism towards centralised power forms their core. 

Option C: This belief has been shown to be limited to individualist anarchism {based on the information from the passage}; cannot be stated as a common attribute.

Option D: This assertion would be a gross understatement; the latter half of the option is especially a bit odd {no such idea has been implied}.

Hence, of the given choices, Option B is the correct answer.

Option A: This element is discussed in the third paragraph: {"...The anarchists and their precursors were unique on the political Left in affirming that workers and peasants, grasping the chance that arose to bring an end to centuries of exploitation and tyranny, were inevitably betrayed by the new class of politicians, whose first priority was to re-establish a centralized state power..."} Prior to making this claim, the failure of the French revolution is highlighted, and this segment is subsequently tied to it. Hence, Option A is definitely a point that is made in the passage.

Option B: This has been outlined in the fourth paragraph: {"...For anarchists, the state itself is the enemy, and they have applied the same interpretation to the outcome of every revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries. This is not merely because every state keeps a watchful and sometimes punitive eye on its dissidents, but because every state protects the privileges of the powerful... "}

Option C: The last two paragraphs present the perception associated with individualist-anarchism: {"...desirable freedom of an individual or family to possess the resources needed for living, while not implying the right to own the resources needed by others. . . .There are, unsurprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism, one of them deriving from the ‘conscious egoism’ of the German writer Max Stirner (1806-56), and another from a remarkable series of 19th-century American figures who argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all..."} Thus, we can evidently understand the statement in C to be true.

Option D, however, is not inferable from the discussion undertaken in the passage. The author does not pinpoint "a mainstream mistrust of collectivism" as the source of the misconception of anarchism "espousing lawlessness and violence". No causal element is discussed, and thus, the statement in D is not an argument that is made in the passage. 

Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

The third paragraph renders us with sufficient information concerning the manner of betrayal. The failure of the Frech Revolution is being attributed to the deceit of the new class of politicians who not only prioritised the re-establishment and centralisation of authority but also unleashed a reign of terror on the ordinary masses. The author hints at this re-installation of power and the atrocities committed on the common people, who are the very drivers of the revolution, being the desertion of the principles of the French Revolution by the new ruling class of politicians. Any statement that aligns with this understanding would be a suitable answer. Option A brings in the concept of an impact on the market, which is not mentioned in the passage. Additionally, it does not signify betrayal of any kind. Same can be said about the statement in Option B. Option C is a strong candidate that symbolises betrayal. However, can we appropriately associate it with the underlying principles of the revolution?  The author's primary focus is on the cost borne by the ordinary populations, and despite the revolution being realised by their sacrifices, they are still the ones being subjected to inequity and torment. Although C highlights betrayal, it does not truly coincide with the idea being conveyed. The afore-mentioned element is appropriately captured by Option D: it highlights how the new class of politicians utilised the indignation of the masses/workers for the revolution - to topple authority and rise to power - and then stab them in the back by turning to oppress them.

We can derive our understanding of these two groups from the following: {"...There are, unsurprisingly, several traditions of individualist anarchism, one of them deriving from the ‘conscious egoism’ of the German writer Max Stirner (1806-56), and another from a remarkable series of 19th-century American figures who argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others for common advantages, we are promoting the good of all. These thinkers differed from free-market liberals in their absolute mistrust of American capitalism, and in their emphasis on mutualism..."} 

It is evident that both the groups prioritize individual autonomy; however, the latter does not put emphasis on mutualism. The mistrust of American capitalism is an additional facet marking the difference {but not captured in any of the options}. Option A aptly highlights the difference between the two factions, and is, hence, the correct answer.

Option B: Preferences concerning state configuration or involvement are not discussed in the passage, and hence, we can eliminate this option.

Option C: Perspectives regarding the nature of capitalism are not stated in the passage, and thus, we can effortlessly discard this option

Option D: None of the elements stated in this option can be understood from the passage, and therefore, can be rejected.

One has to be mindful of the question:  the set that is conceptually closest to the concerns of the passage.

The passage is clearly about 'Anarchism', and the discussion pertaining to 'Revolution' is a sub-element. This elementary understanding helps us pare down the viable choices to Options A and D. 'Betrayal' is again a minor sub-element used to supplement the core argument concerning the authority of the 'State' and the justified antagonism of the anarchists towards it. Additionally, towards the end of the discussion, individual autonomy and freedom serve as the focal points. Thus, of the two likely choices, Option A is more appropriate and conceptually closest to the concerns of the passage.

Options A and C are economically sound decisions. Option B might be a viable choice, as well. However, Option D would not be an economically sound decision for a small purchase in the local market that is worth one-eighth of a bolt of cloth. Concerning small transactions, the author highlights the limitations that stemmed from a textile form of currency: "...Furthermore, a full bolt had a particular value. If consumers cut textiles into smaller pieces to buy or sell something worth less than a full bolt, that, too, greatly lessened the value of the textiles..." Thus, cutting the cloth would greatly diminish its value {and consequently cannot be considered as a sensible decision}. Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

The author evidently highlights the stability of utilizing textiles given its abundant supply{"...textile production was widespread and there were fewer problems with the supply of textiles..."}, the steady standard of measurement {"...the dimensions of a bolt of silk held remarkably steady from the third to the tenth century: 56 cm wide and 12 m long..."} and reliable quality {"...Furthermore, a full bolt had a particular value. If consumers ..."}. Transportation is not a dominant variable that is considered in the discussion pertaining to textiles. Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

Let us inspect the individual statements:

Option A: The author does not make any such claim. The following is stated in this regard: "...Grain, because it rotted easily, was not used nearly as much as coins and textiles...". Thus, the marginal usage of grains is presented relative to that of coins and textiles. Therefore, it cannot be understood that perishable currencies such as grains were not utilised for official work. 

Option B: The author simply states that "...Coins did have certain advantages: they were durable, recognisable and provided a convenient medium of exchange, especially for smaller transactions..." Presenting them as being more valuable than textile currency would be incorrect. 

Option C: This would be imprecise as the author portrays the following: "...Grain, because it rotted easily, was not used nearly as much as coins and textiles, but taxpayers were required to pay grain to the government as a share of their annual tax obligations, and official salaries were expressed in weights of grain..." The statement here deviates from this depiction.

Option D: This statement can be understood from the final paragraph, wherein the author states: "...In actuality, our own currency system today has some similarities even as it is changing in front of our eyes. . . . We have cash - coins for small transactions like paying for parking at a meter, and banknotes for other items; cheques...". Hence, Option D is a valid inference

Let us pay heed to the following excerpt: "...In actuality, our own currency system today has some similarities even as it is changing in front of our eyes. . . . We have cash - coins for small transactions like paying for parking at a meter, and banknotes for other items; cheques and debit/credit cards for other, often larger, types of payments. At the same time, we are shifting to electronic banking and making payments online. Some young people never use cash [and] do not know how to write a cheque..." 

Based on the above, we can infer Options A, B and C as the similarities that are implied. Concerning Option D, while the author does mention the present currency system as a changing/dynamic one, the same cannot be said about the Tang dynasty. The author does not highlight this element as a similarity.  Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

We need to find a statement, which if false, aligns with the discussion/serves as a supporting argument. Let us inspect the individual options:

Option A: In its current form, this statement is in tune with the author's assertion. However, if false, it is antagonistic to the claim being made in the passage. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

Options B and C: Regardless of whether these statements are true or false, they do very little to further the idea presented in the passage.

Option D: This statement implies that complete sentences do not need nouns and verbs. However, in the passage, the author says otherwise; thus, if this sentence is false, it perfectly aligns with the argument made in the passage. Therefore, Option D,  if false, could be seen as a supplementary argument.

The author intends to highlight that the rudimentary combination of a noun and a verb serves as the simplest form of expression; two basic yet immensely significant entities coupled together that is representative of a broader and perhaps, complex group of entities {a sentence}. Option A is closest to such a relationship:  vegetables and spices (two elements) combined to represent a larger group - 'dishes'. The same cannot be said about the rest of the options, since they evidently deviate from the core message being conveyed.

The author begins by highlighting the necessity for a set of codes (enabled by grammar) to organize communication and avoid confusion. He then proceeds to present supplementary arguments in this regard (elements associated with rhetoric and its specialists) and emphasizes how even proper, intentional simplification can be attained only through a firm grasp of the rudiments of grammar. Therefore, it can be observed that grammar is the focal point here and the correct choice should definitely align with this. Option B aptly captures the main concern raised in the passage. Options A and C fail to include the idea revolving around grammar and instead focuses on the additives. Option D is close; however, the mention of nouns and verbs is with the intention to supplement the idea highlighted in B. These simply serve as an illustration to emphasize the significance of grammar. Thus, between the two options B and D, Option B is the suitable choice.

Option A: This can be inferred from "...Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away..." The author presents an illustration to show how a simple combination of a noun and verb forms a complete expression.

Option B: Based on the limited information available from the passage, we can make this inference from "...no group of words can be a sentence, since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb)..."

Option C: The author does not make any such claim. Grammar serves as a mechanism to organize communication and avoid confusion. However, the "primary purpose" of grammar is not to ensure that sentences remain "simple". Since we cannot infer this statement from the passage, it is the correct answer.

Option D: Although not explicitly mentioned, we can understand the sentiment behind using the term "Grammar Police". The author is using this as a metaphor for the strong adherents of the grammatic rules (who are perhaps swift to judge and criticize).

Therefore, we can infer all of the statements except for the one in Option C.

In this question, we need to identify the statement that coincides with the aspects discussed by the author. Putting ourselves in the author's shoes, we know that grammar (and the necessity to appropriately learn it) is the primary idea that needs to be conveyed. Writers with a substantial understanding of the elementary rules in grammar can appreciate the "comforting simplicity at its heart" (is what the author claims). Thus, the author will surely support any stance that concurs with the above.

Option A: This will definitely supplement the assertion made by the author. It will enable writers with the requisite understanding of the standard governing rules - a significant necessity highlighted by the author. He is bound to favor such an action. 

Option B: The author would endorse such drastic measures (does not match the tone). The pliability of grammatical rules is a noticeable comment made by the author (but only for those well-versed with it). Hence, we can eliminate this option.

Option C: The author does not portray any view that promotes the eschewal of rhetoric. This again deviates from the discussion in the passage and can be scrapped as the correct choice.

Option D: The focus is broad: on grammar (not just on punctuation and capitalization). 

It is evident that Option A is the only sensible statement that the author would support here. 

Let us inspect the individual statements:

Option A: This can be inferred from the second paragraph ["...It was precisely on the more recently colonized islands where Le Boeuf found that the tempos of the male vocal displays showed stronger differences to the ones from Isla Guadalupe, the founder colony..."]. The inception of the eventual dialects has been indirectly attributed to the dynamic changes that occurred as a result of the near extinction of the elephant seals. Hence, we can infer Option A from the passage.

Option B: This can be inferred from the fourth paragraph: ["...At the individual level, the pulse of the calls stayed the same: A male would maintain his vocal signature throughout his lifetime..."] The changing variables have little to no effect of the individual vocal signature of the elephant seals. Thus, Option B can be inferred from the passage.

Option C: No such claim is made in the passage.

Option D: This can be inferred from ["...could have been responsible for this increase, as in the early 1970s, 43 per cent of the males on Año Nuevo had come from southern rookeries that had a faster pulse rate..."] and the discussion at the beginning of the final paragraph: ["...As the population continued to expand and the islands kept on receiving immigrants from the original population, the calls in all locations would have eventually regressed to the average pulse rate of the founder colony...].

Therefore, of the given statements, we cannot infer Option C.

A noticeable clue to ensure that the male northern elephant seal dialects did not disappear is presented in the penultimate paragraph: ["...At the individual level, the pulse of the calls stayed the same: A male would maintain his vocal signature throughout his lifetime. But the average pulse rate was changing. Immigration could have been responsible for this increase, as in the early 1970s, 43 per cent of the males on Año Nuevo had come from southern rookeries that had a faster pulse rate... "]. The loss in the dialect is due to the influx of seals with a faster pulse rate and "as the population continued to expand and the islands kept on receiving immigrants from the original population, the calls in all locations would have eventually regressed to the average pulse rate of the founder colony." Thus, if the individual pulse rate of the immigrants varies or adapts to the existing population, this could preserve the dialect in a particular region. The statement in Option D reflects this specific idea and helps sustain the existing dialect in a given population. Options A and C do little to contribute to the cause of preventing the disappearance of the dialects.  Option B aligns with the discussion in the passage and is responsible for the regression of the dialects. Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

The following excerpt serves as an essential source for comparing the difference in the attributes of the elephant seals: ["...Yet there are other differences between the males from the late 1960s and their great-great-grandsons: Modern males exhibit more individual diversity, and their calls are more complex. While 50 years ago the drumming pattern was quite simple and the dialects denoted just a change in tempo, Casey explained, the calls recorded today have more complex structures, sometimes featuring doublets or triplets. . . ."]

In the late 1960s, the elephant seal calls were marked by having a simple drumming pattern which later transformed into calls with marked individual diversity and sophistication. Additionally, the dialects that were present in the 1960s were not evident during the study undertaken in the early 2010s, thereby indicating a decrease in the regional variations in the calls. These elements are aptly captured in Option B.

We can make a direct inference based on the following excerpt from the fourth paragraph: ["...This led Le Boeuf and his collaborator, Lewis Petrinovich, to deduce that the dialects were, perhaps, a result of isolation over time, after the breeding sites had been recolonised. For instance, the first settlers of Año Nuevo could have had, by chance, calls with low pulse rates. At other sites, where the scientists found faster pulse rates, the opposite would have happened—seals with faster rates would have happened to arrive first..."]

Based on the above information, the only reason behind the call pulse rate of male northern elephant seals in the southern rookeries being faster would be because the male northern elephant seals of Isla Guadalupe with faster call pulse rates might have been the original settlers of this region. Option A correctly highlights this reason and is, hence, the correct answer.

The passage is focused on delineating the mechanism of reading as perceived by feminists (and the criticism associated with it). The arrangement (1)-(5)-(4)-(2) forms a coherent paragraph and Statement (3) stands out like a sore thumb. While the passage describes the elements associated with a feminist perspective, (3) brings in a description of androcentric literature that does not align with the context. 

The paragraph highlights the following:

1. The validity of the ubiquitous perspective held by psychologists {of intelligence being a measurable, unalterable entity that is greatly influenced by heredity} is now being questioned by biologists.

2. The dubiety concerning the aspect of intelligence being hereditary {given the fact that "humans, who, unlike plants or animals, are not conceived and bred under controlled conditions."}

Thus, a statement capturing these elements is bound to be the answer. Option A aptly encompasses these two key points.

Option B: Calling the widely -held perspective as conventional wisdom would be inappropriate. Additionally, the statement here fails to capture point (2).

Option C: Although close, it misses out on the second half of the discussion.

Option D: This option might appear confusing, given that it touches upon both the key elements. However, it is unspecific and comes across as a bit odd {"ways in which what is inherited" doesn't make sense}. Between Options A and D, A is definitely the better choice.

Statement (1) introduces the predicament we face: the difficulty in understanding the indigenous significance of the nineteenth century San folktales by simply probing the narrative structure. The author indicates that there are additional variables that need to be considered. The aspect of evaluating elements beyond the "the narrative of verbatim" as highlighted in Statement (4). The outcome of such a methodology of exploring these narratives is then presented in the Statements (3) followed by (2). Statement (3) highlights dead-malevolent shamans while (2) talks about benign shamans. Hence, we obtain (1)-(4)-(3)-(2) as a coherent paragraph. 

The passage begins by highlighting Europe's continual attempt to adapt itself in a multipolar world by striving to be a dynamic entity- nationally and internationally{"changed its internal structure and invented new ways of thinking about the nature of international order"}.  Post this, the author portrays how certain stimuli in the modern world has lead Europe to review its political components {"set aside the political mechanisms through which it had conducted its affairs for three and a half centuries"} and to make changes in its economic structure {"established a common currency "}. Thus, the passage presents two key elements: (1) the fact that Europe has consistently tried to adapt to a changing world and (2) the manner in which Europe has attempted to achieve that in the existing multi-polar setup. Option D correctly highlights these points.

Option A: This misses out on the point (2). Furthermore, directly ascribing the unification of Europe to its attempt to rapidly change would be incorrect. 

Option B: This does not fully capture the essence of the passage and misses out on point 1.

Option C: Although the statement in this option captures point 1, it misses out on point 2.

Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

The passage is primarily about the misconception regarding the capacity of forensic phonetics stemming from its portrayal in movies and television. This aspect is correctly captured by the point stated in C. The author does not question the "scientific basis" of the evidence (based on voice recognition) that is presented in legal cases. Hence, Option A can be eliminated. The claim made in Option B cannot be understood from the passage. Same can be said about Option D. Hence, Option C is the correct answer.

Statement (3) introduces the core message: the continuing concerns in the region of South-East Asia. It highlights that since the 1990s there have been dynamic changes in the security environment of this region. Statment (1) adds details by listing the countries present in this region and the existing environment rife with tension/conflict {a transition from the 1990s into the present world}. Statement (2) continues on this line and cites an event in this regard: China becoming a pressing security concern for the regional countries. Statement (4) puts a cap on this discussion by indicating that the persisting regional instability attracts entities from outside the region. Hence, (3)-(1)-(2)-(4) forms a coherent arrangement.

Statements (1), (2), (4) and (5) discuss the aspect of how talking/freedom of speech was a significant facet associated with the slaves. They emphasise how this element was central to slavery  { "slaves could never be completely muted"}. Contrarily, Statment (3) goes on a tangential route that associates the potency of "oaths, orations, and invocations" based on the origin of the slaves {discusses "...a connection to the all-powerful spirit world..." which is clearly out of place}. Thus, Statement (3) is the odd-one-out here.

Statement (1) serves as a general introduction to the topic: an inclination towards using poison {or associated agents}. The author mentions that the utility of this element has existed since the dawn of civilization. Statment (3) supplements this idea by mentioning that certain advancements served as a new avenue for the zealots of this subject. Statement (2) delineates on the safeguard that was put into place once the threat posed by this domain was realized. Statement (4) pinpoints the flaw in this safeguard. Hence, we notice that (1)-(3)-(2)-(4) forms a logical arrangement.