CAT Previous Year Questions 2020: Reading Comprehension | Verbal Ability (VA) & Reading Comprehension (RC) PDF Download

This is the simplest RC passage, and many questions here can be solved effortlessly. The question asks us to mark a choice of which the author would be supportive. We have to keep the central idea in mind while going through the options. The author opines that grammar is essential to frame sentences and one can’t do away with grammar. Option 4 perfectly fits in. The author would indeed be supportive of such a software as the one that will standardise the rules of grammar as an aid to writers. Option 1 goes out because it is too narrow a choice, and tends to specifically focus on punctuation and capitalization instead of grammar as a whole. Choice 2 is against grammar, so it goes out, while option does not even mention the keyword grammar, which is the focus on the passage.

Here for this question, we have to mark a choice that cannot be inferred from the passage. For choice 2 we have evidence in the second paragraph of the passage. 2 can be definitely inferred from the second paragraph. Choice 2 is also correct, and can be inferred from the option itself. Police ensure enforcement of law and order, whereas grammar police insist on application of strict grammar rules. Option 4 goes because it too can be inferred. After all, the author is in favour of grammar and it is grammar that helps us form complete sentences. So how can the passage imply that sentences need not be complete. It has to be the other way round. Noun and verb come together to form a complete sentence.

Here we have to pick a choice, which, when falsified, supports the arguments of the passage. Since 1 is supporting the author, it would not the same when falsified, so 1 goes out. 2 says that one must not think that nouns and verbs are necessary for complete sentences. But when falsified it means that nouns and verbs are necessary for complete sentences, so this supports the author, and is therefore the right answer. Choice 4 is irrelevant because the passage is concerned with grammar and not with rhetoric. Whether some writers regard or disregard the rules of rhetoric has nothing to do with the passage’s chief concern, which is grammar.

This is an analogy question. You bring two different things together and what you have is a new thing. The right option must have two different things, which when combined should give us a new thing. 4 precisely does that. Vegetable is the noun, the spices is the verb, and the resulting new sentence is the new dish. There is no such analogy visible in 3. We don’t understand the relevance of “same sports equipment”. The question says “take any noun”, but in 3 we are taking ‘a collection of people’. 2 is logically flawed because without a verb we can’t have a sentence. Option 1 might look close, but planting an apple tree alone in a field will not make the field an orchard. We need to have many such apple trees to make an orchard. 4 is the best.

Here we have mark a choice that captures the main idea of the passage. Since the author highlights the importance of grammar in framing correct sentences, choice 1 becomes the right answer. This is too simple a question to demand why others are not the right choice.

This is an easy passage to read, but some of the questions have very close choices. This question asks to pick a choice that modern currency does not share with the currencies of the Tang era. You must remember that this is an EXCEPT question, and the feature not shared will become the right choice. 1 is a feature shared by both modern and Tang currencies. Last paragraph tells us about modern currencies, whereas the opening tells us about the Tang currencies. Choice 3 also is a feature shared by both, the bolt of silk lost value because of wear and tear. Now many might feel that the last paragraph does not speak anything about modern currencies losing value over time. But this is implied as common knowledge.
The idea of inflation suggests that currency value my not always be the same always. The value of Rs 100 was greater 20 years ago than it is today. Thus 3 is a feature shared by both modern and Tang currencies. 4 is also a feature shared by both because in the modern times we use coins for smaller payments, currency for bigger payments, and electronic methods for still bigger payments. This was true of Tang era as well, as can be seen in the first and second paragraphs. The currencies during the Tang era were static: we had coins, fabric and grains to make payments; there is no transformation implied in these during that era, whereas in the modern times because of technology the currency system is undergoing transformation, as the last paragraph shows. The author says: it is changing in front of our eyes…

The answer to the earlier questions helps us answer this question. If in the earlier question we eliminated choices that modern currencies shared with the currencies of the Tang era, then it implies that currency usage during the Tang era was similar to currency usage of modern times. There is no evidence for choice 1. Copper coins were difficult to mint, the passage says, but that doesn’t mean that copper coins were more valuable. Choice 4 is opposite of what is stated in the passage.

To answer this question, we must look for the word “steady and stable” and examine the context in which the words have been used. These words have come in the third paragraph. The para says “dimensions of a bolt of silk held steady ...” here by dimension, the author implies measurement. Thus 1 is correct, but it goes out because it is an except question. The idea of supply can also be inferred from the first sentence of the third paragraph of the passage. The values of different textiles were more stable because the textiles would not have deteriorated over time. The Passage tells us that the value of textiles depended on the quality of the textile. So stable value means stable quality. The reliability of transportation is not the question here. It is the cost of the transportation that the passage highlights (second last para). Thus 1 is the best choice.

This is a slightly tricky question, but we have to pick the choice that is not economically a sound decision. So the right choice must imply some sort of a loss. Option 1 says that payment was done with a faded bolt of the same value.... since the faded bolt will further deteriorate, using it to pay makes sense. 1 goes out. Making payment in grains would be the most economical way as grains would rot easily, so the payer will gain while the payee will not. Here we have to answer for the payer. Thus both 2 and 3 are economical. 3 is also an economical way because coins, the passage says, lost value over time, but a piece of fabric from a new bolt is not likely to lose value over time, and so would be economically not a wise decision to make payment.

This question is an inference question and asks us to mark the option that suggests why the call pulse rate of male northern elephant seals in the southern rookeries was faster. The evidence for this can be seen in the last part of the second last paragraph. In that paragraph we have “this led Le Boeuf to deduce that dialects were a result of isolation over time...for instance, the first settlers of Ano Nuevo could have had, by chance, calls with low pulse rates.
At other sites, where scientists found faster pulse rates the opposite would have happened-seals with faster rates would have happened to arrive first”. So if the pulse rate of the elephant seals in southern rookeries was faster, it was because the seals with faster call pulse rates might have been the original settlers (or might have arrived there first). Thus C is the best choice. Option A goes out because if that were the case, then the pulse rates of the seals in southern rookeries would have been slower, not faster. Option B also goes because here the question is migration to southern rookeries and not from southern rookeries. For choice D, there is no evidence whatsoever.

This might look a little difficult, but we have a clear evidence that helps us arrive at the right answer. We must read the first sentence of the last 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”. This is a simple concept of average. Now the question is which of the following could have ensured (it means it is asking us for a hypothetical situation) that male northern elephant seals dialects did not disappear. It disappeared because the average changed because of migrant seals.
As more and more seals came, the average regressed to “the pulse rate of the founder colony”. To make the situation opposite, the call tempo of the individual immigrant seal should have changed to match the average tempo of resident male seals of the “host colony.” If option A had happened, the male northern seals dialect would not have disappeared. Option C is the exact opposite of A. We must remember here that the islands kept on receiving immigrants from the original population, and the average pulse rate changed to match the founder colony, not the host colony. That’s why the host colony’s dialects disappeared. Had option A been true, this would not have happened.

This is the only easy question of this passage. The last sentence of the passage says “modern males exhibit more individual diversity, and their calls are more complex...sometimes featuring doublets or triplets”. So to capture the overall history of transformation, we must capture this last part of the passage. There is more of individual variety, but less regional variety. You must be wondering why! The passage clearly tells us that “in the decades that followed, scientists noticed that the geographical variations reported in 1969 were not obvious anymore...”. C is the best choice. A and D go out because they mention “great regional variety”

This is a difficult question but option elimination can help us arrive at the right answer. We have to mark the answer that cannot be inferred, as it is an EXCEPT question. A can be inferred because the seals exhibited dialects because the population was isolated. This isolation was a result of the seal population being almost on the verge of extinction. Since their numbers were very small, the isolation happened. As the population grew there was immigration to different places and this resulted in disappearance of the dialects.
Thus we can infer A. Option B also can be inferred from the para that talks about Ano Nuevo seals. It clearly suggests that the average pulse rate increased from 1970s till the dialects disappeared. Option C is certainly a wrong inference because the influx might have resulted in pulse rate of the seals averaging to that of Isla Guadalupe, but not exceeding. The word “exceeding” makes this a wrong inference, and therefore the right answer. Option D is exactly true to what the passages, as a whole, discusses. The individual call rate did not change throughout, but the immigration made all the difference, by ensuring influx of seals with higher pulse rate, thus increasing the average pulse rate.

This is an application question. We have to pick from the choices the one that explains how the new ruling class might have betrayed the principles of the French Revolution. We have to first understand what, as per the passage, were the principles of the French Revolution. Here we have to understand that the workers and peasants were the oppressed class, and it is they who made the revolution possible. Betrayal means to against someone. 1 cannot be the right choice because the new ruling class was against the destructive impact of the revolution on the market, but not against the workers and peasants. Both in 2 and 3 there is no sign of betrayal. Only in 4 can we see the evidence of betrayal where the new ruling class rode to power on the strength of workers’ revolutionary anger, but then turned to oppress that very class. 4 is the best choice.

The clue to the right answer can be seen in the last paragraph where the author says “there are several traditions of anarchism...one was 19th century American figures who argued that in protecting our own autonomy and associating with others, 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 of mutualism.” Thus there was a difference between free market liberals and the American anarchists. This difference was with respect to mutualism and capitalism. The anarchists favoured mutualism but mistrusted capitalism. Option 2 brings out this difference correctly. The others just go out because none of them talk about mutualism, which the American anarchists favoured, but the liberals did not.

Here we have to eliminate the choice that features in the passage as the author’s argument, and choose as our right answer the one that does not. 1 is true as per the passage and can be verified from the second paragraph of the passage. The first sentence of the last para is evidence for choice 3. From the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, we can derive choice 4. Thus we have evidence for all choices except 2. In fact, we can directly mark 2 without verifying the others because anarchists are in favour of autonomy and mutualism. So anarchists will never mistrust collectivism. The evidence for this can be found in the last paragraph. Thus 2 is not the argument presented by the author in the passage.

The passage clearly says in the first para and the fourth paragraph that state itself is the enemy. Thus 3 is the right choice, unarguably. The others are easy to eliminate

This too is a very simple question because we have to pick the concepts that are there in the passage. Both 1 and 2 go out because they don’t have in them the most important concept: anarchism. Out of 3 and 4, we must pick 3 because the last part of the passage discussed Freedom and individual autonomy. You can refer to the last two paragraphs. Also in option 4 power and state are the same things, there is no need to keep them as two separate things.

The question asks us to pick a choice that the author would be most supportive of. 1 goes out because the author in the last paragraph says that localised renewable energy systems is unlikely to generate high returns for investors. 2 can be definitely inferred because the author clearly says at the end of second last para that disposal of toxic waste has perpetuated social injustice. Thus 2 is the right choice. For many 3 might be a tempting choice, but it is beside the point. The author is not concerned with more environment friendly carbon based fuels. He is talking about renewable energy sources, and the social and financial costs behind it. The whole discussion in the passage is based on the premise that we have already taken the path low carbon based renewable energy path. So the suggestion in 3 is pointless. 4 goes out because the author is not favouring any study. He wants resolution to the problem, so he wants action.

This is a slightly difficult question. But 1 definitely supports the author. It must go out. We can find the evidence in the second paragraph. The second sentence of the last paragraph provides evidence for the 2nd choice. The third choice has already been inferred while solving the earlier question. It can be found in the last sentence of the second last para. 4 is the right answer because there is no reference for it in the passage. We have to mark the answer based on the evidence that we see in the passage.

This is the easiest question of the passage. We have to first falsify the choice and then see whether it is supporting the arguments in the passage. Choice 4, when falsified, says that renewable energy systems have an environmental impact. If that is the case, the author’s arguments find support in the passage. Thus 4 is the right choice. 1 goes out because the author says in the passage that renewable energy systems are not as profitable as nonrenewable energy systems. The Last sentence of the first paragraph provides evidence for this. The profitability aspect has been discussed in the last paragraph of the passage. Thus it takes care of both 2 and 3, because if the profitability is low, it means that the expense is high, and therefore economically unsustainable. Thus all 1,2 and 3 support the author without being negated, whereas 4 supports the author only when it is negated

This question is an easy question because to find the answer we have to read only the first paragraph. The author says “...but renewables need to be further scrutinized...”. This suggests that the author has some reservations or doubts pertaining to renewable energy. Thus 3 is the right choice. A very easy question indeed. 1 goes out because it talks of nonrenewable energy systems. 2 goes out because the author is equally concerned about environmental and social impact of renewable energy systems. 4 finds no mention in the passage and the first paragraph.

This is a pretty interesting question. The author says “renewable energy can be produced at the household or neighbourhood level...but such small scale localised production is unlikely to generate high returns for investors.” This is a double edged sword. 2 goes out because efficiency has not at all been discussed in the last paragraph. Corporate control is indeed discussed but not in reference to democratic distribution of energy. Thus 3 goes out. 1 goes out because renewable energy has been discussed as a single idea, without any forms and types. Thus 1 also is a distortion

This is so simple a question that one will not feel like marking the right choice just because it is too straightforward. The author in the third paragraph says that the study of visual culture is very important to understand the agents, practices and institutions that put images to work. Then he further goes to say that “no amount of social analysis (visual culture) can account fully for the existence of Michelangelo or Leonardo. They were unique creators. Choice 4 is very close to this statement. It is so easy that one is highly likely to miss out on this. Choice 2 is close but a little absurd. It says that because they are genius they cannot be subjected to social analysis. The author says that we may have social analysis of these artists but no matter how much we analyse; the analysis may not be enough.

This question asks us to interpret a phrase given in the passage. For meaningful visual experience, we need the conditions, which operate on the foundation of covenants. 3 precisely captures that meaning. In fact, the question asks us to pick the option that is similar in content to the one given in the question. 1 could have been close but it distorts the idea by saying “when there is foundational condition established in images”. It suggests that the foundation is established in images. Only 3 correctly rephrases the whole idea given in the question

This was an easy question. Two keywords are very important, one is visual images or imagery, and the other is visual culture or practices. Both these are important as per the first paragraph of the passage and only in choice 3 can we find these two keywords. Thus 3 is the best choice. 4 misses on imagery or visual images. 2 misses on the visual culture. 1 misses both visual culture and images.

We have to mark the choice that is not a valid inference. 2 can be inferred from last paragraph. 4 can be inferred from the first paragraph, and also the paragraph that discusses Michelangelo and Leonardo. In the third last paragraph the author says “how artifacts contribute to the construction of a world...”. Thus 3 also can be inferred. 1 cannot be inferred because structures of perception have been discussed as a physiological process, not as an institutional structure. Thus 1 is farfetched and the right choice as it cannot be inferred.

To mark the correct answer, we must understand the meaning of epiphenomenon, which means a secondary effect or a by-product. 3 is the right choice because supplemental means “provided in addition to”. Thus by-product=supplemental.

This is the easiest question of the passage. The clue to the right answer is given in the last part of the first paragraph. Reading that part is enough to spot the right choice. It says there are three variables present in an aggressive act. They are: the aggressor, the circumstances, and the victim.

We must remember that this is an except question. We must pick the choice that is not presented as the author’s argument. Choice 1 goes out because the author discusses it towards the end of the passage. Men have higher levels of testosterone, resulting in higher aggression. The second sentence of the last paragraph provides clue for choice 2. Thus 2 is also eliminated. The first paragraph elaborately describes the varying nature of aggression. Thus 3 also is eliminated. The moderation of death instinct is nowhere discussed in the passage, although the presence of death instinct is discussed. Thus 4 is the right choice.

Though this is an except question, this question can be easily answered if we look for the phrase “neural regulation” in the passage. The neural inhibition has been discussed with regards to aggressive impulses, not the hormone testosterone. Thus 2 is definitely not implied by the author. Once we have found the right answer there is no need to verify the others. The rest of the options, however, do find indirect reference in the passage.

The point made by the author in the quoted remark is that you may be aggressive without any real feelings of anger or animosity. Why? Because inflicting pain is not the objective, but serves some other end. Thus 3 directly becomes the right choice. This was a very easy question.

This is a passage easy to read and understand. The very first question is author’s tone in the given sentence. Indignant means angry, but there is no anger as the author is relating to something that used to happen 400 years ago. The author is not trying to be analytical, rather he is trying to be ironical. Irony is used to highlight a situation by using contrast in an amusing way. His intention is not to discuss the contrast between peasant life and pirate life way back in the 16th century. 3 is the best choice.

The author by giving the example of Vasco da Gama and the east India company to suggest that they both were not very different from piracy. Options 2 brings out that suggestion appropriately. 1 goes out because the author does consider them as pirates. 3 might look like a good choice but the phrase “laid the ground for modern piracy” brings something that is not implied or stated in the passage. 4 could have been another close choice, but the author’s intention is not to compare the disorganized piracy of today with the organized piracy of the past. His intention is to compare the disorganized small piracy of the past with the renegades of today. It is small Vs small, and not small Vs big. 2 is the right answer.

At the end of the fourth paragraph the author says that “root causes of piracy today are the same as they were a couple of hundred years ago”. What were the causes a couple of hundred years ago? According to the author it is poverty. Thus he believes that eliminating poverty will solve the problem. Thus 3 is the right choice. All the other choices are mentioned only to show that they haven’t brought the desired results.

We have to pick the choice that is not the cause behind the rise in piracy. 1 goes out because it is the cause. The first sentence of the fourth paragraph offers the clue. The third paragraph says that “the main motive for piracy has always been a combination of need and greed...”. Thus 3 also is correct, as a cause of piracy. The fourth paragraph has clue to option 4 as well. Thus 2 is the right choice. The author believes that surveillance can never be an effect solution because it is not addressing the root cause.

This is a slightly challenging question. To find the right answer, we have to read the entire second paragraph. The author towards the end says “Said’s work became a model for demonstrating cultural forms of imperialism in travel texts... legitimating discourses such as those articulated through travel writing” ...to legitimise something means to give approval to something or justify something. Thus choice 2 is the right option, without a shade of doubt. Option 4 goes out because colonial domination and cultural imperialism seem to be one and the same thing. For the other choices we don’t see any significant evidence.

This question is specifically about how Victorian women experienced self-development through their travels. The answer to this question can be found in the last few sentences of the last paragraph. The second last sentence of the last paragraph says that “...many studies demonstrated the ways in which women’s gendered identities were negotiated differently “at home” than they were “away”, thereby showing women’s self-development through travel. Thus without the slightest doubt we can mark 1 as the right choice

This is a slightly tricky question. There are a few close choices, but by elimination we can arrive at the right choice. We have to answer for American literature of the 1920s. Option 1 goes out because it did not develop the desire for male protagonist’s desire for independence. Instead it expressed their sense of independence they experienced through travel. Thus instead of developing the desire, it celebrated the freedom that travel gives, making choice 3 the right answer. There is no reference for discovering a sense of identity different from others. Option 4 goes out because though there was emphasis on value of rural folk traditions, it doesn’t mean that they participated in it. They could have appreciated the value of rural folk traditions simply by observing those traditions from a distance or by indirectly studying about them. Choice 4 is not as directly stated as option 3.

This is a challenging question and demands careful reading of the last paragraph. The question wants us to pick a choice that would not have influenced feminist scholars' understanding of the experiences of Victorian women. Choice 1 goes out because what is given in the choice did influence. The passage says “from a liberal feminist perspective...”, suggesting that there was a liberal perspective brought in by the feminists. Remember we have to mark for the choice that did not influence the feminists. Option 3 goes out because gender issues can be derived from the fact that there were ideological constructs that posited men as explorers and women tied to home. So there were gender issues.
Thus 3 can be ruled out. The fact that “poststructural turn in studies of Victorian travel writing has focussed attention on women’s diverse and fragmented identities”, suggests that feminists were aware of the ways in which identity was formed. Without being aware of that they would not be able to understand the gendered identities of Victorian women. For option 2 we have the least amount of evidence. The Victorian women were indeed tied to their class, but that doesn’t mean that the feminists had knowledge of class tensions in Victorian society.

This is the easiest of all questions. The question wants us to answer for travel writing in general. Travel writing, from what is discussed in the passage, is very close to autobiographical writing. There is sense of independence, sense of self development through travel, sense of new identity...all these point towards personal experiences. Thus 4 is the best choice.

This is an overall easy passage to read. This question is a sort of factual question, the answer of which can be indirectly seen in this passage, but since the question is based on ‘the author least likely to agree’, the choice that is not there in the passage or the choice that is against the author’s contention is likely to be the right choice. The question asks us to find the least likely reason for ‘the increase in screen-time”. The ones that are stated or implied in the passage are not the right choices, but the one that is not stated or implied will become the right choice.
The evidence for choice 1 can be seen in the fourth paragraph of the passage: “Tech companies worked hard to get public schools to buy into programs that required schools to have one laptop per student, arguing that it would better prepare children for their screenbased future”
The evidence for choice 2 can be seen in the last paragraph of the [passage: “There is a small movement to pass a “right to disconnect” bill, which would allow workers to turn their phones off, but for now a worker can be punished for going offline and not being available”.
The evidence for choice 4 can be seen in the last sentence of the passage: “There is also the reality that in our culture of increasing isolation, in which so many of the traditional gathering places and social structures have disappeared, screens are filling a crucial void”
In the passage, we don’t have any evidence for choice 3. Thus 3 is the best choice.

Since the question asks us a specific detail about Silicon Valley tech, we can go to the part of the passage where we have the noun ‘Silicon Valley’. The second last and the third last para are likely to have the answers. Two things about Silicon Valley are mentioned, one in the third last para and one in the second last para.
The third last para says “…Tech companies worked hard to get public schools to buy into programs that required schools to have one laptop per student, arguing that it would better prepare children for their screen-based future. But this idea isn’t how the people who actually build the screen-based future raise their own children”. From this we can derive option 1 as the right choice because this is precisely how Silicon Valley tech companies have confused the public.
Some of us may feel like marking choice 3 as the right answer, but what is given in choice 3 is a complete distortion of what is given in the passage. The passage says “There are fleets of psychologists and neuroscientists on staff at big tech companies working to hook eyes and minds to the screen as fast as possible and for as long as possible.”
The above sentence tells us that neuroscientists and the psychologists are working to do something, not to hide something. Nowhere does the sentence imply that they are deliberately trying to conceal findings of something. In fact, they are trying to find ways to hook our mind and attention to the screen. Thus option 3 is not the right choice.
Options 2 and 4 in no way can be connected to Silicon Valley tech companies.

To answer this question correctly there is no need to read the passage. The options have enough evidence using which we can mark the right answer. The statement in the question seems to be making a comparison between “the richer, and the not so richer”. In other words, option 3 which mentions the phrase ‘new class marker’ is the right match for the statement given in the question. Moreover, “…comfortable with human engagement”, and “the more you spend to be off-screen” are closely connected because “time spent offscreen=time spend in human engagement”, as per the passage. The other choices are nowhere so closely connected with the statement given in the question as option 3 is.

This question is one of the easiest question of the paper. You can mark option 3 even without looking at the other choices. The author is in favour of real-time human contact, not virtual human contact. So if choice 3 speaks positively about on-screen time, the author will definitely not agree with it.
Psychologists and neuroscientists are working to make on-time engagement addictive. The passage does not say that directly but this is definitely implied from the second last para of the passage. The evidence for option 4 and 2 can be seen in the passage. Thus 3 is the best choice.

This is a slightly difficult passage to read. Bregman contrasts preagriculutral societies with agricultural societies. In answering the first question, we have to find the opinion of Bregman, who clearly supports Rousseau, clearly demonstrated in the third paragraph. Rousseau believes that “for the better part of 300,000 years, Homo sapiens lived a fulfilling life in harmony with nature . . . Then we discovered agriculture and for the next 10,000 years it was all property, war, greed and injustice.”
From this we see that there is ample support for choice 1. The rest can go out. Bregman is not an environmentalist; he is more of a social scientist. This eliminates 2. Again, choice 3 takes the focus away from bringing out the difference between pre-agricultural society and post -agricultural society. Bregman’s focus in not on population but on “human nature and human conditions”. 1 is the best choice.

This question asks us to pick the option that finds mention in the passage. We have to simply look for the choices in the passage. Choice 1 goes out because nowhere is it given that both Hobbes and Rousseau believed in the need for a strong state. Option 2 goes out because Bregman does not agree with Hobbes; he instead sides with Rousseau. At the end of the passage, the author makes it very clear that the veneer theory is attributed to the Dutch biologist. Towards the end he says that human nature encompasses both Hobbes and Rousseau. Thus 3 also goes out. We are left with 4 as the only plausible choice, and we have enough evidence for it in the first paragraph, where the author says “we see other people as selfish...this was how Hobbes conceived our natural state to be...”. By using the pronoun ‘we’, the author suggests that Hobbes views reflect the views of most people.

This is a slightly tricky question, but the answer is implied in the second last para of the passage. There the author says “in traditional history, the collapse of civilization is seen as ‘dark ages’, but Bregman says it was the other way round in most of human experience. In other words, Bregman wants to say that “collapse of civilization means time of change”. The author goes on to say that the truth is somewhere in between. We have to answer for Bregman, not for the author. Thus B is the best choice.

In this question, for option 1, as far as the author is concerned, he agrees with Bregman. We have evidence for that in the fourth paragraph. The author says “this may be true”. One might feel that 2 is correct, but the author has not stated any opinion contrary to Bregman’s. In fact, there is no evidence for either agreement or disagreement. We have evidence only for choice 4 in the second last para of the passage where the author says “the truth is probably somewhere between...”. which truth is the he talking about? Bregman believes that collapse of civilization brings changes and has not much to do with peace and progress, as much of conventional history depicts. The author by partially disagreeing with this takes an opposite stand. Thus 4 is the best choice.

This question asks us to choose an option that best captures the main argument of the last paragraph of the passage. There are two strong contenders for the right choice, option 2 and option 4. The point is to decide whether the last para focuses on “the presence or the absence of the financial crisis” or “setting aside the ideology of individualism”.
The best choice is 4. The author clearly states that “after decades in which the ideology of the western world was personally and economically individualistic, we have been hit by a crisis...in which we are all together”. This is the reason why option 4 clearly matches what is given in the last paragraph. The point is how to disprove choice 2. If you carefully read choice 2, you will realise that it is the opposite of what is given in the paragraph. Choice 2 says “you will be crazy to think that there is no crisis”, whereas the paragraph in the passage says “...there are large parts of it that you would be crazy to like”. So if you like you would be crazy, and the option says you would be crazy to think that there is no crisis. This option is a distortion of what is given in the passage.
Option 1 is the opposite of what the author wants to say. The author says that economic individualism has taken a hit, whereas the option says “the ideology of individualism will strengthen”. Option 3 says “in decades to come other ideologies will emerge”. Nothing of this sort has been mentioned in the passage.

This question asks to draw an inference from the first sentence of the passage. This is definitely a far less-time-consuming question. The first sentence says “I have been following the economic crisis for more than two years now”.
Option 1 says “the author has witnessed many economic crisis”. Well, we have the phrase “this economic crisis”. From this we can’t infer that he has witnessed many economic crises. Option 1 goes out.
Option 2 says “the author’s preoccupation with the crisis is not less than two years old.” This seems to be correct. If he says that I have been following for two years, it means that his preoccupation is certainly not less than two years. Too simple to be true, right! But this is how inferences are. You derive something on the basis of a given fact.
Option 3 absurdly suggests that the author is being followed, but here the author is following the crisis.
Option 4 says that the crisis outlasted the author’s preoccupation with it. We know that the author is following the crisis, but the crisis and the author’s preoccupation with it are happening in two different time periods. The crisis has already happened and passed, whereas the author is learning about it and following it as a historian. The aftermath of the crisis will definitely be seen for years to come, but about the crisis itself there is no such evidence

This looks like a difficult question because of the way it is worded, but is not a difficult question at all. The choices have to be inversed and then have to be checked whether they support the author. If yes, then that choice is the right choice.
Choice 1 can be the right choice because the choice, when falsified, says “the crisis was failure of collective action to rectify economic problems”. It was indeed a failure of collective action because the author in the passage says “the sluggishness of the world’s governments in not preparing for the crisis was stupefying. The author here suggests that the crisis could have been prevented by world’s governments.
Choice 2 is correct the way it is. If it is falsified, it would be exactly opposite of what the author wants to say.
Choice 3, too, is correct the way it is, but when falsified, it becomes opposite of what the author wants to say.
Choice 4 does not relate to the author’s claims. He says that he has followed the crisis for two years, but there is no evidence for how long the crisis lasted.

For this question, we have to pick the choice that does not support the author’s argument. Option 1 is exactly opposite of what the author argues. In the last paragraph he writes “the ideology of the western world was personally and economically individualistic. But the crisis shows that we are all in it together”. Thus the author implies that the failure of economic system is the failure of their ideologies. Option 1 is the exact opposite of this and is thus not supporting the author in any way. Option 1 is the right answer.
All the other choices find support in the passage. For instance, the author towards the end of the first paragraph says that the finance industry is a kind of priesthood administering its own mysteries, something that supports choice 3.

This is one of the easiest questions of the paper, the author right across the passage argues that we all need financial literacy. So if an education curriculum promotes financial literacy in the masses, the author would be very delighted at the prospect. As far as choice 3 is concerned, the author is not so much in favour of economic research as he is in favour of basic economic education for the layman