Sample RC for CAT | 250 RCs for CAT Exam PDF Download

Reading Comprehension (RC) plays a crucial role in many competitive exams, assessing not only reading ability but also thinking efficiency. This section demands the ability to quickly grasp the core ideas of a passage, interpret the author’s intent, and answer related questions accurately under tight time constraints.

What to Expect

• Reading Comprehension (RC) sections in competitive exams test your ability to understand, analyse, and interpret written passages under time pressure. 
•  Expect 2–4 passages, typically 400–800 words each, covering diverse topics like social issues, science, economics, or philosophy.
•  Each passage comes with 3–6 questions, focusing on the main idea, inference, tone, vocabulary, or specific details.
•  The tone can range from analytical to persuasive, with varying difficulty levels.
• Time management is crucial—allocate 8–12 minutes per passage, including questions. 
•  Success depends on strong reading speed, critical thinking, and the ability to grasp key ideas quickly while avoiding traps in answer choices.

Sample RC

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question. 

Civilisation emerges from the lawless jungle riding on the back of a juridical system that resolves disputes through non-violent means. India has had an uneven history in this regard, but the relatively stable structure that we had inherited from the British is crumbling because people are now often taking the law into their own hands. Justice is being denied to large sections of the population simply because of abnormal delays. There are so many examples of this sorry situation that it is pointless to give specific instances. The fact is too well known. The question is: What can we do about it?

Measurement is the first step that leads to control and, eventually, to improvement. Every one of those 3 crore and more cases needs to be captured in a searchable database. This is not as intractable a problem as it sounds. Every court in the country publishes a daily cause list that has the essential details of every case that is scheduled to be heard on a day. Fortunately, all this data is in digital format, and most of it can be found online. A reasonably sophisticated text analysis software can be developed to extract this data and convert it into a form that can be stored in a structured, searchable database for subsequent analysis.

The next step would be to track changes in the cause list over successive dates and determine the “speed” at which a case is moving through the system. The biggest cause of delay in the system is that hearings are postponed, often on trivial grounds, and the next date of hearing is months away. So, by tracking cause lists over a couple of months, it would be possible to determine how many times each case comes up for hearing and what the interval between these hearings is. From this, it would be possible to build a life history of every case.

Some people may baulk at the sheer volume of the task and the fact that the difference processing must be done every day, but thanks to open-source technologies like Hadoop, this problem can be addressed very comfortably.

Within a short period, this will create a real-time picture of the topology of juridical delay across the entire country. Where are the hot spots? Where are the biggest bottlenecks? What kinds of cases are held up the most?

Which courts are the biggest culprits?

Instead of crying hoarse about the delay in general, we can now seek out troublesome areas and focus the best minds in the juridical system to come out with specific solutions to the most difficult problems. Solutions will emerge once the contours of the problem are clearly visible.

One specific approach to the de-bottlenecking problem would be to motivate judges to improve the efficiency or throughput of the system. Judges have immense authority to allow or disallow adjournments based on their perception of the situation on the ground, and this, in turn, has a direct impact on juridical delay.

However, they are not motivated to expedite matters. Continuing with our belief in measurements, we may consider a mechanism to monitor their performance and offer a set of performance-related rewards—though this may be unheard of in government service.

Those with a deeper understanding of the judicial process may produce a better metric, but one can begin with a simple one that depends on just two factors. First, the number of final judgments that a judge delivers every month, and second, the number or fraction of judgments of a judge that are subsequently overturned on appeal at the next level. The first would be a measure of speed, and the second would be a measure of the quality or reliability of the work done by a judge. By creating a composite metric that gives an appropriate weightage to both factors, it should be possible to measure the performance of most judicial officers in the country.

This simplistic measure may not be appropriate for judges, who are seized of complex matters like constitutional law or international jurisprudence, but it should be good enough for almost all those involved in more run-of-the-mill cases—and this would constitute most cases that are clogging the system.

Such a mechanism is no different from a formal performance appraisal system that is used by most well-managed corporate organisations to evaluate all but the most senior members of the management.

It should not be beneath the dignity of any judge to be evaluated in a similar manner, especially because the evaluation would be done within the framework of the juridical system of the country and not by any external agency that may have a mala fide agenda.

Going along with the corporate analogy, it may be a good idea for judges to view themselves less as lofty dispensers of justice and more as providers of dispute-resolution services. From this perspective, a litigant is no longer a supplicant begging for relief but a customer who, through his court fees and taxes, is paying for the resolution of a dispute.

If judges can reconcile themselves to the fact that the relationship between a litigant and a judge is no different from that between a customer and a vendor, then many of the best practices of the corporate world can be transferred to the rather archaic corridors of the judiciary.

Q1: What is most likely to be the source of this passage?
(a) Law Commission Report
(b) Research Paper on Judicial Reforms
(c) Letter to the Editor of a Daily Newspaper
(d) Opinion Editorial of Journal
Ans: (a)

Sol:  (a) Law Commission Report:
A Law Commission Report is precisely the vehicle through which detailed diagnostics and actionable recommendations are formally presented to policymakers. Its purpose is to measure, analyze and improve the law—exactly the three pillars of this passage’s argument.

(b) Research Paper on Judicial Reforms:

While a research paper on judicial reform certainly digs into systemic problems, it almost always follows a strict academic format—complete with literature reviews, footnotes and citations to earlier studies. Our passage doesn’t reference prior scholarship or include that formal scaffolding.

(c) Letter to Editor of a Daily Newspaper:
A letter to the editor would be concise, personal and tied to a recent news item or published article. By contrast, this passage stands alone, surveying the entire court system, diagnosing its bottlenecks and prescribing a multi-step data-driven solution—far beyond the scope of a reader’s reaction piece.

(d) Opinion Editorial of Journal:
An opinion editorial in a journal is typically more conversational and polemical, focusing on a single facet of an issue and using persuasive rhetoric. Here, we see a methodical blueprint—capturing 3 crore+ cases, building case life histories, defining performance metrics—characteristic of a statutory commission’s mandate to review and recommend concrete legal reforms.

So, the correct answer is (a) because the detailed analysis of problems within the judicial system and the suggestions for reforms align with the purpose and structure of a Law Commission Report.

Q2: Which of the following best describes the author’s opinion on the current judicial system?
(a) Legal Infrastructure is inadequate to handle the volume of cases reaching the courts.
(b) IT department within the judicial machinery is archaic and inept in performing its tasks.
(c) There are abnormal delays in the judicial system due to a lack of visibility and Accountability.
(d) The immense autonomy that lies with judges allows them to act as per their whims and fancies.
Ans: (c)

Sol: (a) Legal Infrastructure is inadequate to handle the volume of cases reaching the courts.
While the passage might hint at issues with the legal infrastructure due to delays, it doesn't explicitly state that the infrastructure is inadequate to handle the volume of cases. The focus of the passage is more on delays and lack of visibility and accountability rather than on the volume of cases.

(b) IT department within the judicial machinery is archaic and inept to perform its tasks.
The passage does mention IT as one factor contributing to delays, but it doesn't solely blame the IT department. Moreover, it doesn't suggest that the IT department is archaic or inept, rather it mentions modernization efforts. Therefore, this option is not the best choice.

(c) There are abnormal delays in the judicial system due to lack of visibility and Accountability.
This option closely aligns with the passage. The author discusses delays and attributes them to the lack of visibility and accountability in the judicial system. Lack of transparency and accountability leads to delays, as mentioned in the passage. Hence, this is the best choice.

(d) The immense autonomy that lies with judges allows them to act as per their whims and fancies.
The passage does not discuss the autonomy of judges as a primary reason for delays. While it mentions judges' discretion, it doesn't suggest that their autonomy leads to delays. Therefore, this option is not the best choice.

So, the correct answer is (c) because it accurately reflects the author's opinion as expressed in the passage.

Q3: Which of the following qualities is shown by the judges according to the author?
(a) They are quite high-headed and don’t see themselves as public servants.
(b) They are incompetent and keep adjourning the cases.
(c) They are not motivated enough to carry out their duties.
(d) They are apathetic to hardships faced by litigants.
Ans: (d)

Sol: (a) They are quite high-headed and don’t see themselves as public servants.
The passage does not explicitly state that judges are high-headed or have a sense of superiority. While it does mention that judges enjoy significant autonomy, it does not suggest that they see themselves as anything other than public servants. Therefore, this option is not supported by the passage.

(b) They are incompetent and keep adjourning the cases.
The passage does not imply that judges are incompetent. It mentions delays in the judicial system, but it attributes these delays to broader systemic issues such as lack of visibility and accountability rather than the incompetence of individual judges. Therefore, this option is not supported by the passage.

(c) They are not motivated enough to carry out their duties.
The passage does not directly address the motivation levels of judges. While it discusses delays and lack of transparency, it does not suggest that judges lack motivation to carry out their duties. Therefore, this option is not supported by the passage.

(d) They are apathetic to hardships faced by litigants.
This option aligns with the information provided in the passage. The passage mentions that judges enjoy significant autonomy, which can lead to decisions being made without sufficient consideration for the impact on litigants. This lack of consideration for the hardships faced by litigants suggests a degree of apathy. Therefore, this option is supported by the passage and is the correct answer.

So, the correct answer is (d) because the passage suggests that judges may be apathetic to the hardships faced by litigants due to the significant autonomy they enjoy.

Q4: The tone of the passage can be best described as:
(a) Laudatory
(b) Searing
(c) Didactic
(d) Persuasive
Ans: (d)

Sol: (a) Laudatory:
A laudatory tone would imply that the passage is praising or expressing admiration for something. However, the passage primarily discusses problems and challenges within the judicial system, such as delays, lack of transparency, and accountability. It does not contain expressions of praise or admiration. Therefore, this option is not the best choice.

(b) Searing:
A searing tone suggests intense criticism or condemnation. While the passage does criticize aspects of the judicial system, such as delays and lack of transparency, it does so in a relatively measured and analytical manner. It doesn't convey a sense of extreme outrage or condemnation. Therefore, this option is not the best choice.

(c) Didactic:
A didactic tone implies that the passage is instructive or educational, aiming to teach or impart knowledge. While the passage does provide information about issues within the judicial system, its primary purpose seems to be to inform the reader rather than to explicitly teach or instruct. The tone is more analytical than didactic. Therefore, this option is not the best choice.

(d) Persuasive:
A persuasive tone aims to convince or sway the reader's opinion. In the passage, the author discusses problems within the judicial system and suggests potential solutions, such as increased transparency and accountability. By presenting these arguments and solutions, the author is attempting to persuade the reader that these changes are necessary. Therefore, this option is the best choice as it accurately reflects the overall tone of the passage.

So, the correct answer is (d) because the passage aims to persuade the reader by presenting arguments and suggesting solutions to problems within the judicial system.

Key Takeaways

1. Understand Purpose & Structure
   RC passages on CAT aren’t just about reading—they test your ability to analyse, infer and evaluate under pressure. Recognise whether a passage is descriptive, analytical or prescriptive, and adjust your approach accordingly.

2. Time-Block Efficiently
   Aim to spend no more than 8–12 minutes per passage (including questions). Skim first for central thesis and sectional roles (e.g. problem-statement, solution-proposal), then dive into questions with targeted rereads.

3. Anchor on Keywords & Phrases
   Always circle or mentally note terms like “abnormal delays,” “performance metrics,” “searchable database”—these are the lifelines that directly map to correct options, especially on inference or tone questions.

4. Sharpen Elimination Skills
   When two options seem close, look for subtle mismatches—e.g., this passage blames visibility/accountability, not infrastructure capacity or judicial arrogance. Eliminate any choice that introduces ideas not grounded in the text.

5. Practice with Purpose
   After every mock RC:

   • Identify the author’s main thesis and supporting pillars.

   • Categorise each question (main idea, inference, tone, vocabulary).

   • Review why each wrong answer fails—this cements your passage-only reasoning.

Keep these takeaways front and centre as you tackle RC in your CAT prep, and you’ll convert more passages into clear, confident correct answers.