Verbal For CAT 2021 (Slot - 2) | Verbal Ability (VA) & Reading Comprehension (RC) PDF Download

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.

The author does says that ignoring the scepticism about the veracity of knowledge is the most common way of dealing with it, not the best way. Hence. Option C has not been discussed.

...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.

The author is making a logical argument in the sentence given in the question. According to the author, if we say that the reality of objects is independent of our perceptions, then it is out of our ken. Hence, we cannot for this idea of reality, and logically, we would be unable to comprehend it. Option D comes the closest to capturing this point.

Option A is incorrect. The sceptic argues that if reality were independent of individual perceptions, then the reality would float above the processes with which we conceive it. It is being presented as an argument ot negate the viewpoint, while the Option takes it as an established fact.

Perception is more than eyesight. Option B captures only eyesight, and hence, is a distortion.

The process of conceiving reality and our knowledge is not the argument the author presents in the mentioned lines. Hence, Option C is incorrect.

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.

From the above excerpt, it is clear that held beliefs and presumptive knowledges depend upon how we acquired them, and how strongly they are shared or endorsed by relevant people in our circle. Hence, Option A is the answer.

We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them...

As mentioned in the above line, Option A directly contradicts what the author says.

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.

The author then goes on to explain that sceptic view is the skeleton in western philosophy's closet when trying to negate this scandal. Thus, it means that the scandal has to do with the sceptic way of thinking.

In the next paragraph, the sceptic view has been explained, which talks about our inability to grasp reality if we think of it as independent of our perceptions. Hence, the scandal can be construed to be the same. The author is likely to agree with this view. Option B is the answer.

In the last paragraph, the author points out that we defend a viewpoint strongly if we feel that it is held widely in our social circle. However, the author does not allude to the fact that it is appropriate or not. Also, such an argument would bolster the inherent bias we have, and hence would point towards a fault in our decision making. Hence, Option C is incorrect.

Option D is not supported in the passage. The passage presents the sceptic view that if reality were construed as independent of our perceptions, then it would be impossible to grasp reality. It has not been mentioned that in this case, we should aim to study that reality in a similar manner.

Through war, famine and natural disasters, whole communities can be destroyed, taking their language with them to the grave...

Such trading up and out of a speech form occurs for complex political, cultural and economic reasons - sometimes voluntary for economic and educational reasons, although often amplified by state coercion or neglect.

More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as “language shift” from which few languages

From the above excerpts, Options A, B, and D can be supported. The passage supports that Internet technology has allowed certain endangered languages to thrive. Option C is not supported anywhere in the passage, hence, is the answer.

It’s easy to forget that most of the world’s languages are still transmitted orally with no widely established written form. While speech communities are increasingly involved in projects to protect their languages - in print, on air and online - orality is fragile and contributes to linguistic vulnerability. But indigenous languages are about much more than unusual words and intriguing grammar: They function as vehicles for the transmission of cultural traditions, environmental understandings and knowledge about medicinal plants, all at risk when elders die and livelihoods are disrupted.

From the underlined portions of the above excerpt, we can infer options A, B, and C.

The first paragraph does mention that indigenous languages have unusual words and intriguing grammar. But it has not been mentioned as a factor that makes their documentation challenging. Hence, Option D is the answer.

Multilingualism can help us live in a more connected and more interdependent world.

Throughout the passage, the author is advocating for greater language diversity and suggesting how to counter the threat to the same. Multilingualism is something that the author has supported as cited above. Hence, Option A is the answer.

More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as “language shift” from which few languages are immune.

Since the author advocated the preservation of languages, he would likely be against this shift, as it endangers languages. Option B can be eliminated.

Again, the author is pushing for more diversity and preservation of cultures instead of homogenization of the same. Option C can be eliminated.

The author does not push for state intervention in the preservation of languages. Hence, Option D would not be the answer.

More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as “language shift” from which few languages are immune. Such trading up and out of a speech form occurs for complex political, cultural and economic reasons - sometimes voluntary for economic and educational reasons, although often amplified by state coercion or neglect. Welsh, long stigmatized and disparaged by the British state, has rebounded with vigor.

In the above excerpt, the trading of language for another (language shift) has been mentioned. The author mentions the reasons why this happens, and then the Welsh language is mentioned as an example which has rebounded against the same with vigour. Thus, it is presented as a ray of hope, that a language can be revived even when cultural shift occurs. Option B is the answer.

The example has not been mentioned to spite the efforts that were put to integrate Welsh speakers into English speaking fold. The purpose of the author is to deal with endangered languages, and the subject in Option A would be out of scope.

The role of state effort in revitalising Welsh has not been mentioned, hence, Option C can be eliminated.

The role of globalisation in revitalising Welsh has not been mentioned either. Hence, Option D can be eliminated too.

I have elaborated . . . a framework for analyzing the contradictory pulls on [Indian] nationalist ideology in its struggle against the dominance of colonialism and the resolution it offered to those contradictions. Briefly, this resolution was built around a separation of the domain of culture into two spheres—the material and the spiritual. It was in the material sphere that the claims of Western civilization were the most powerful. Science, technology, rational forms of economic organization, modern methods of statecraft—these had given the European countries the strength to subjugate the non-European people . . . To overcome this domination, the colonized people had to learn those superior techniques of organizing material life and incorporate them within their own cultures. . . . But this could not mean the imitation of the West in every aspect of life, for then the very distinction between the West and the East would vanish—the self-identity of national culture would itself be threatened. . . .

The first paragraph acknowledges that the nationalist ideology was fighting against colonial dominance, and there were certain inherent contradictions in the way this struggle was being carried out. The author says that a method of resolution of these contradictions was to separate material and spiritual domains. This hints at the contradiction present. We can infer from here that this is being done because the nationalists acknowledge that the colonial countries were superior in certain aspects, which allowed them to subjugate non-Europeans, as is also mentioned later in the paragraph. The author also mentions that the colonized people had to learn those superior techniques, instead of all-out rejection of colonialist ideas and the progress they brought with them. Thus, the contradiction was that to overcome colonial dominance, nationalism had to accept that the material ways of the West were superior and incorporate them. Hence, Option D is the answer.

The discourse of nationalism shows that the material/spiritual distinction was condensed into an analogous, but ideologically far more powerful, dichotomy: that between the outer and the inner....

The above excerpt shows that the material/spiritual distinction was condensed to form a far more superior dichotomy of the outer and the inner. Thus, the former was the premise for the latter, as well as inferior to the latter. Hence, Options B and C are true.

To overcome this domination, the colonized people had to learn those superior techniques of organizing material life and incorporate them within their own cultures. . . . But this could not mean the imitation of the West in every aspect of life, for then the very distinction between the West and the East would vanish—the self-identity of national culture would itself be threatened. . .

From the above excerpt, we can infer that the dichotomy helped save the identity of Indian Nationalism. Option D is also true.

Option A is not true as per the passage, and hence, is the answer.

The arguments in the passage are based on the premise that the material and spiritual aspects of culture were different. Hence, even if Indian nationalism accepted the superior material ways of the west, they still would not be giving in to colonial dominance and their identity would be preserved by the spiritual aspect, as it remained unaffected. Hence, to weaken the author's argument, we can give a statement that proves that the spiritual aspect was affected too. Option C does that and is the answer.

Rejecting education for women could have more than one reason. It does not imply that the spiritual part of Indian culture was affected by colonialism. Moreover, the separation of roles according to gender is something that nationalist ideology supported, hence, rejecting education based on gender would not contradict it. Option A can be eliminated.

Option B does not weaken the author's argument since the author already agrees that the forces of colonialist modernity helped shape Indian nationalism, but only in the material aspect.

Option D is unrelated to the argument at hand and can be eliminated too.

Once we match this new meaning of the home/world dichotomy with the identification of social roles by gender, we get the ideological framework within which nationalism answered the women’s question. It would be a grave error to see in this, as liberals are apt to in their despair at the many marks of social conservatism in nationalist practice, a total rejection of the West. Quite the contrary: the nationalist paradigm in fact supplied an ideological principle of selection.

From the above excerpt, we can see that the liberals were concerned over the social conservatism that nationalist practice promoted as an ideological principal of selection, where social roles would be selected according to the gender of the person. Hence, Option B is the answer, as it comes the closest in capturing the liberal perception of the same.

The material/spiritual dichotomy has not been discussed in terms of liberal perspective, hence, Option A is out of the score here.

Option C is incorrect. Indian nationalism did not accept the changes brought about the colonialism, rather, promoted the segregation of gender roles according to their spiritual ideology of home/ world dichotomy.

Option D is contrary to what is mentioned in the passage. The author says that the 'ideological principle of selection' was the actual truth, and the liberal perspective was just contrary to what was actually happening.

The author begins that passage by saying that truth does not necessarily carry power. He then goes on to explain that to attain social cohesion, sticking to the truth is not always an optimal strategy. In the last paragraph, the author sums up this trade-off:
Even if we need to pay some price for deactivating our rational faculties, the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history. Scholars have known this for thousands of years, which is why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony.

Thus, Option B is the answer.

The author is not fixated upon the types of stories, not upon what kind of stories do the leaders propagate. Hence, Options A and C can be eliminated.

Power has been mentioned to indicate that sometimes, absolute truth is not the way forward to achieve maximum utility. The main contention of the author is not the trade-off between truth and power but between truth and social cohesion. Option D can be eliminated too.

The author does not support that there is a limit to the influence that myths have on people, nor does he support imposing one. Hence, Option A can be eliminated.

Third, and most important, the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you. An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about American history has a 100 percent guarantee of losing the elections. . . . An uncompromising adherence to the truth is an admirable spiritual practice, but it is not a winning political strategy. . . .

Option B is contrary to what is being said in the passage. The author says that untarnished truth is not a good recipe for a political win, hence, the candidate should steer clear of that.

Option C is also contrary to what is being said in the passage. According to the author, not conveying the complete truth will allow a person to stay in power.

Option D is in line with the above excerpt and hence, is the answer.

Even if we need to pay some price for deactivating our rational faculties, the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history. Scholars have known this for thousands of years, which is why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony. Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same fiction, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity?

In the penultimate paragraph, the author mentions how successful leaders balance truth and social unity to achieve an optimal outcome. The above excerpt shows that scholars have known this for a long time too, and have implemented it. Thus, Option C is the answer. 

That leaders and scholars have improved with time when it comes to achieving social cohesion is not implied in the passage. Option A can be eliminated.

We cannot say that scholars use myths to obtain power as leaders do. Hence, Option B can be eliminated.

We cannot say that scholars use myths to stay in office as leaders do. Option D can be eliminated too.

Option A: The author here emphasizes that the choice between truth and social cohesion is a difficult one for scholars, as it means choosing between truth or uniting everyone using a common narrative. Here, the reach and influence of fiction created by that scholar has been overemphasized, and hence, is the answer.

Option B: There is no overemphasis in this option. Since humans have achieved these feats, and these feats do manipulate the objective reality around us, Option B can be eliminated.

Option C: Here too, the importance of fiction has not been overemphasized, but the importance of truth has been downplayed.

Option D: Option D presents a statement, which is unrelated to the emphasis being placed on the importance of myths.

The main points of the paragraph are:

1. As compared to physicists, biologists are more conservative when it comes to the subject of preprints.
2. Preprints allow faster dissemination of knowledge.

A: Misses out the comparison between biologists and physicists.

B: Captures both the points appropriately and is the answer.

C: Also misses out the comparison between biologists and physicists.

D: Factually incorrect, physicists and not biologists are open to the idea of preprints.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph is about the change needed in the way we go about development. 2 introduces the topic at hand, that this is a watershed moment when it comes to the subject of development. 41 make a mandatory pair, which talks about what the purpose of development was at the beginning and how it needs to be altered to suit the needs of today. 3 then aptly ends the paragraph, suggesting the measures that could be taken to counter the same. Hence, he proper sequence would be 2413.

The sentences have been taken from Harvard's Justice, and have been modified considerably. Since a paragraph has not been directly taken here, the better way of elimination here would be to evaluate the major points of each sentence and see which one runs tangent to the discussion at hand. (During the examination, one must try both ways to solve: arranging and eliminating.)

1. Using the debate on biotechnology to evaluate moral arguments.

2. Why is bioengineering disputed?

3. The promise of bioengineering.

4. Ethics of bioengineering based on theology.

5. The theological argument.

We can see here that the last four sentences try to examine why bioengineering is disputed in spite of its huge potential. Then reasons are given about the question on its ethicality, and how it is closely associated with theology on the matter.

1 however runs tangential to the discussion. The main focus is bioengineering while 1 aims to shift the focus and use the debate on the matter as a stepping stone to reach another goal: evaluating/formulating moral arguments. Hence, 1 is the odd one out here.

A brief reading of the sentences tells us that the paragraph must be about the industry of neuromarketing, which is still in its embryonic phase. 3 can be the opening sentence to the paragraph, as it introduces the topic at hand. All the other sentences need a sentence before them that introduces what is being talked about. 

1,4, and 2 then go on to talk about the opinion of differernt associated parties on the matter. It has taken the advertising industry by storm. Others feel that this 'art' is being masked as a science, and many lack enthusiasm on the matter.

5 however, does not fit in here. The reason is that it talks about 'psychology', which is different from the use of neural science. Even if one is not familiar with the difference, we can see that it goes a step forward to talk about the application of a science, whereas the paragraph is mostly concerned with a growing science and how it is shaping public opinion. Hence, 5 is the odd one out.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph is about great inventions, focusing on the importance of scientific method and how it forms the foundation for other great inventions. 32 forms an introductory pair that claims that the modern scientific method must be the greatest of all inventions and then talks about its mode of inquiry.

1 then presents an invention that could solve many problems in the future. 4 then claims that the invention would have been impossible if the scientific method did not precede it. Hence, the coherent arrangement is 3214.

The main points of the paragraph are:

1. The value of creativity to economic progress has been realised, with serious investment being done to study/promote it.

2. But this success fires back. Policing its meaning can lead to obsession, hampering creativity itself.

A: It is extreme in approach. The paragraph does not imply that it has become impossible to define the concept, but it becomes difficult to practice creativity when it is being forced on oneself.

B: It is also extreme. The obsession hampers, not completely destroys the creative process.

C: This option is a distortion and fails to capture the above points.

D: Comes the closest to capturing the above two points, and hence, is the answer.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph is about the dispute between the US and Canada over the Northwest passage.

2 is a better opening sentence than 1 as 21 forms a good introduction into the dispute. 2 mentions that Canada claims ownership over the passage, and 1 then mentions the counterclaim the US offers: the passage is an international route.

43 becomes a mandatory pair which follows 21. 4 mentions the historical development in the dispute: it has not been legally settled yet. 3 then hints about the future of this dispute: the dispute itself would vanish once the entire Arctic begins to stay ice-free in summer.

Hence, the coherent arrangement is 2143.

The main points of the paragraph are:

1. In an economic disaster, the atypical alliance of established industrialist and unemployed workers proves powerful.

2. Anxieties and anticipation lead them to look after their interests.

3. It is the industrialist that benefits the most as he is able to use the latter to achieve his vested political interests.

A: Comes the closest in capturing all three points, and hence, is the answer.

B: Distortion. This purpose has not been mentioned in the passage.

C: Distortion. It has not been mentioned that an economic downturn creates competition. It has been mentioned that during such a disaster, the industrialist is more likely to focus on the downsides emerging from free-market (competition) than the upsides.

D: Distortion. It has been implied that the industrialist manipulates the situation to fulfill his own political agenda, and not that the two parties come together to achieve a single goal.