XAT 2022 RC Passages | Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) - CAT PDF Download

Passage - 1

Read the poem carefully, and answer the following question.
I smiled at you because I thought that you
Were someone else; you smiled back; and there
grew
Between two strangers in a library
Something that seems like love; but you loved
me
(If that’s the word) because you thought that I
Was other than I was. And by and by
We found we’d been mistaken all the while
From that first glance, that first mistaken smile

Q: Which of the following CANNOT be inferred from the poem?
A. The idea of love is different for the parties involved.
B. Love may start with small acts like glancing and smiling.
C. We make mistakes in love.
D. We don’t fall in love with others but with ourselves.
E. We fall in love with strangers.

Ans: D
Sol:
Option A can be inferred as that poet states that you thought I was other. Option B can also be inferred as love started between the poet and the other person by glancing and smiling only. Option C and E can also be inferred. Option D is wrong as the poet and the other persons clearly falls in love with one another so we cannot say that we don't fall in love with others.

Passage - 2

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to. This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends upon deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are. It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.

Q1: Which of the following statements can be BEST inferred from the passage?
A. Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent the truth
B. Both the liar and the bullshitter intend to deceive in their own ways
C. Both the liar and the bullshitter are guided by the truth
D. Both the liar and the bullshitter live in their own worlds of realities
E. Both the liar and the bullshitter are not bound by any conviction

Ans: B
Sol:
The passage states: "Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends upon deceiving us about that."
While the object of their deception differs (liar deceives about reality, bullshitter deceives about their lack of concern for truth), the passage clearly indicates that both have an intention to deceive in order to be successful in their respective "enterprises."
Hence, the correct answer is B. Both the liar and the bullshitter intend to deceive in their own ways.

Q2: Why does the author say that the bullshitter’s intention “is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it?”
A. Because bullshitters are not convinced about the truth
B. Because bullshitters know the truth
C. Because bullshitters do not like to deceive
D. Because bullshitters do not find the truth useful
E. Because bullshitters are respectful to the truth

Ans: D
Sol:
The line preceding the given line: "The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him". So, bullshitters do not find the truth to be useful. Therefore, option D is the correct answer.
The other options are not correct as per the passage

Q3: When will a liar BEST turn into a bullshitter?
A. When a liar stops responding to the truth
B. When a liar stops worrying about the correct comprehension of reality
C. When a liar focusses only on the outcome and not on telling lies
D. When a liar lies to people about his intention
E. When a liar stops misrepresenting the state of affairs

Ans: C
Sol: 
We are told that a liar believes that he knows the truth and attempts to convince us of the opposite, while a bullshitter is not concerned about either the truth or lies but only about deceiving the listener. Hence, their agendas differ largely - the former focuses on lying, while the latter engages in deception [ the end outcome]. Hence, for a liar to become a bullshitter, he needs to focus on the outcome - i.e. deceiving others. Option C comes closest to capturing this idea.
Option A: The statement here is quite vague - deception is involved in both cases. The liar much be unconcerned by/detached from the truth [it is unclear if this relates to the idea of 'not responding']
Option B: We cannot conclusively state that a liar can transform into a bullshitter by not being worried about the correct 'apprehension of reality' - the idea is not relevant to the discussion on a bullshitter [i.e. the author has not presented it as a trait of a bullshitter]
Option D: The same applies to the bullshitter - both categories of individuals conceal their intentions [only that in the case of bullshitters, they are much less or not at all concerned about the truth]
Option E: Note that a bullshitter is not concerned with the state of affairs as demonstrated by these lines - "What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs."

Passage - 3

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.
Stupidity is a very specific cognitive failing. Crudely put, it occurs when you don’t have the right conceptual tools for the job. The result is an inability to make sense of what is happening and a resulting tendency to force phenomena into crude, distorting pigeonholes.
This is easiest to introduce with a tragic case. British high command during the First World War frequently understood trench warfare using concepts and strategies from the cavalry battles of their youth. As one of Field Marshal Douglas Haig’s subordinates later remarked, they thought of the trenches as ‘mobile operations at the halt’: i.e., as fluid battle lines with the simple caveat that nothing in fact budged for years. Unsurprisingly, this did not serve them well in formulating a strategy: they were hampered, beyond the shortage of material resources, by a kind of ‘conceptual obsolescence’, a failure to update their cognitive tools to fit the task in hand. In at least some cases, intelligence actively abets stupidity by allowing pernicious rationalisation.
Stupidity will often arise in cases like this, when an outdated conceptual framework is forced into service, mangling the user’s grip on some new phenomenon. It is important to distinguish this from mere error. We make mistakes for all kinds of reasons. Stupidity is rather one specific and stubborn cause of error. Historically, philosophers have worried a great deal about the irrationality of not taking the available means to achieve goals: Tom wants to get fit, yet his running shoes are quietly gathering dust. The stock solution to Tom’s quandary is simple willpower. Stupidity is very different from this. It is rather a lack of the necessary means, a lack of the necessary intellectual equipment. Combatting it will typically require not brute willpower but the construction of a new way of seeing our self and our world. Such stupidity is perfectly compatible with intelligence: Haig was by any standard a smart man.

Q1: Which of the following statements BEST summarizes the author's view on stupidity?
A. Comprehending a problem by applying our existing world view is stupidity
B. The inability to avoid forcing our current views on a new situation is stupidity
C. Pushing our extant solution to fix an alien problem is stupidity
D. The inability to comprehend what is happening around us is stupidity
E. The novelty of the problem, in relation to our cognitive capacity, is the cause of stupidity

Ans: C
Sol:
"The result is an inability to make sense of what is happening and a resulting tendency to force phenomena into crude, distorting pigeonholes."
The author underlines our inability to comprehend/understand a problem and the application of know ideas/solutions to address the same - this, according to him, is stupidity. Option C rewords this point - [Pushing our extant solution to fix an alien problem is stupidity]
Option A: [Comprehending a problem by applying our existing worldview is stupidity] The author states that we are unable to comprehend the problem in the first place - the option emphasises that the way in which we are comprehending the problem is incorrect [distortion #1]. Furthermore, we are applying our existing ideas/solutions to address the problem and not to comprehend it [distortion #2].
Option B: The distortion here is pretty clear - [The inability to avoid forcing our current views on a new situation is stupidity] (completely different from the idea discussed in the passage)
Option D: This does not fully capture the idea presented by the author and hence, can be rejected.
Option E: This is not implied - the author doesn't blame the "novelty of the problem" for our stupidity, and thus, this option is incorrect.

Q2: Which of the following statements BEST explains why stupidity for a smart person is “perfectly compatible with intelligence”?
A. Intelligence is poorly defined, and is usually a perception, making it compatible with stupidity.
B. A new phenomenon creates fear, rushing intelligent people to explain it to put others at ease.
C. Past successes make us believe that we are intelligent and capable of explaining any new phenomenon.
D. Intelligent people are scared to admit their lack of knowledge, and therefore, try to explain everything, including things they do not understand.
E. Intelligence, when perceived through past successes, makes any rationalization of a new phenomenon acceptable.

Ans: C
Sol:
"...they were hampered, beyond the shortage of material resources, by a kind of ‘conceptual obsolescence’, a failure to update their cognitive tools to fit the task in hand. In at least some cases, intelligence actively abets stupidity by allowing pernicious rationalisation..."
The author underscores how using past/obsolete models to fit novel situations qualifies as stupidity; he adds that intelligence furthers such stupidity by providing "pernicious rationalisation" - in a way, conveying how we justify the usage of past models to fit the current situation [as is the case with Haig]. Hence, our success with past models makes us presume that they'll function in new situations. Option C comes closest to presenting the author's intention when he correlates intelligence and stupidity. 
Options A, B and D, can be easily eliminated since they do not relate to the discussion [are not implied]. Option E, while closer to the idea in C, focuses on the idea around 'rationalisation' rather than the application of past models to new problems. Furthermore, we cannot discern what is meant by "rationalization...acceptable."
Hence, the correct answer is Option C.     

Q3: Based on the passage, which of the following can BEST help a leader avoid stupidity?
A. Be ready to discuss with everyone before taking a decision
B. Being aware that our current answers are only applicable to the current context
C. Being aware that we are short of the required resources
D. Be cautious in taking a decision until the future unfolds
E. Being aware that we must handle future with a different cognitive tool

Ans: B
Sol:
To combat stupidity, according to the passage what is needed is "the construction of a new way of seeing ourselves and our world." So, to avoid stupidity a leader must be aware that current answers are only applicable to the current content and that they must not be force-fit into crude pigeonholes. So option B is the correct answer here.
Option A: Talking to others doesn't guarantee you'll get the right way of thinking for the problem itself.
Option C: The passage says lack of resources wasn't the main reason for stupidity in their example.
Option D: Stupidity is about not understanding the current situation, not just being unsure about the future.
Option E: The passage emphasizes the need to question if your current thinking fits the situation, not just preparing for the future.

Passage - 4

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

What does a good life look like to you? For some, the phrase may conjure up images of a close-knit family, a steady job, and a Victorian house at the end of a street arched with oak trees. Others may focus on the goal of making a difference in the world, whether by working as a nurse or teacher, volunteering, or pouring their energy into environmental activism. According to Aristotlean theory, the first kind of life would be classified as “hedonic”—one based on pleasure, comfort, stability, and strong social relationships. The second is“eudaimonic,” primarily concerned with the sense of purpose and fulfilment one gets by contributing to the greater good. The ancient Greek philosopher outlined these ideas in his treatise Nicomachean Ethics, and the psychological sciences have pretty much stuck with them ever since when discussing the possibilities of what people might want out of their time on Earth. But a new paper, published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Review, suggests there’s another way to live a good life. It isn’t focused on happiness or purpose, but rather it’s a life that’s “psychologically rich.”
What is a psychologically rich life? According to authors Shige Oishi, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and Erin Westgate, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida, it’s one characterized by “interesting experiences in which novelty and/or complexity are accompanied by profound changes in perspective.” Studying abroad, for example, is one way that college students often introduce psychological richness into their lives. As they learn more about a new country’s customs and history, they’re often prompted to reconsider the social mores of their own cultures. Deciding to embark on a difficult new career path or immersing one’s self in avant-garde art(the paper gives a specific shout-out to James Joyce’s Ulysses) also could make a person feel as if their life is more psychologically rich.
Crucially, an experience doesn’t have to be fun in order to qualify as psychologically enriching. It might even be a hardship. Living through war or a natural disaster might make it hard to feel as though you’re living a particularly happy or purposeful life, but you can still come out of the experience with psychological richness. Or you might encounter less dramatic but nonetheless painful events: infertility, chronic illness, unemployment. Regardless of the specifics, you may experience suffering but still find value in how your experience shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you.

Q1: Which of the following statements BEST contrasts Hedonic from Eudaimonic?
A. Hedonic focuses on the emptiness from seeking pleasure, while Eudaimonic focuses onthe fulfilment by giving pleasure to others
B. Hedonic focuses on what gives pleasure to self, while Eudaimonic focuses on whathe/she believes benefits the society
C. Hedonic believes that pleasure leads to fulfilment while Eudaimonic believes thatfulfilment leads to pleasure
D. Hedonic believes in seeking pleasure while Eudaimonic focuses on depriving oneself ofpleasure
E. Hedonic focuses on pleasure to self while Eudaimonic focuses on pleasure to the other

Ans: B
Sol:
'...According to Aristotlean theory, the first kind of life would be classified as “hedonic”—one based on pleasure, comfort, stability, and strong social relationships. The second is “eudaimonic,” primarily concerned with the sense of purpose and fulfilment one gets by contributing to the greater good..'
From the above lines of the passage, it can be inferred that Hedonic focused on pleasure and comfort, while Eudaimonic focused more on their contribution to the greater good.
Options A, C, and D are distorted inferences and can be easily eliminated.
Option E is a close answer, but the greater good has a broader scope than just giving pleasure to others.
Option B is the right option, as it describes the difference most aptly.

Q2: Which of the following statements BEST defines a “psychologically rich life”?
A. A life that offers interesting experiences that makes you question what life is
B. Any novel experience that affects us cognitively makes us psychologically rich
C. A life that is filled with learning opportunities that makes us an expert in a particular area
D. A life that is filled with novel experiences which changes our view of what a good life is
E. A life where novel experiences result in a fundamental change to our existing views

Ans: E
Sol:
'... it's one characterized by "interesting experiences in which novelty and/or complexity are accompanied by profound changes in perspective."'
In the context of the passage, a "psychologically rich life" refers to a life in which different experiences lead to a change of perspective of our views.
Option E describes this meaning in the most accurate manner.
Options A, B and option C are a total misrepresentation of the idea. Option D has a very narrow scope, and the author does not specifically talk about the change in perspective of how a good life should be.
Thus, the correct answer is E.

Q3: Which of the following statements can be BEST concluded from the passage?
A. A psychologically rich life is a good life.
B. A bad experience can enrich someone psychologically.
C. An unpleasant experience can enable a good life.
D. A good life should not be seen in binary terms.
E. Life need not be good, but can still be psychologically rich.

Ans: C
Sol:
Given the elements discussed in the passage, identifying the conclusion can be quite tricky, perhaps even causing inextricable confusion. A way around this would be to trace the dominant ideas discussed here - at the centre of the discussion lies the question: "What qualifies as a good life?". The author presents two perspectives that have been considered so far - hedonic [happiness] and eudaimonic [purpose]. A third way to view this question is then presented - a standpoint with "psychological richness" at its core. The author elaborates on this concept and  emphasises that positive and negative experiences can be labelled as psychologically rich. He then builds on this idea, conveying that even bad experiences can help a person lead a good life [this appears to be the primary conclusion mainly because it ties in with the question that the author poses at the beginning of the discussion]. Option C correctly presents this. 
Option A: The statement here is assertive - a better version would be: "A psychologically rich life can/could be a good life." Furthermore, this is not necessarily the primary conclusion since it misses out on a portion of the discussion presented towards the end.
Option B: While true, the author uses this point to answer the question posed at the beginning; thus, this is an ancillary idea and not the primary conclusion. 
Option D: The author presents a third alternative; however, he doesn't seek to merely underline that "a good life should not be seen in binary terms." [there is more to the passage than this - the author builds on the idea of psychological richness]
Option E: This is not implied in the passage and, thus, can be rejected.

Passage - 5

Read the passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

What Arendt does for us is to remind us that our “publicness” is as important to our flourishing as our sociability and our privacy. She draws a distinction between what it means to act “socially” and what is means to act “politically.” The social realm for Arendt is both the context where all our basic survival needs “are permitted to appear in public” and also the realm of “behaviour.” One of the things she fears about modern societies is that society - focused on how we behave and what we will permit for ourselves and others -becomes the realm of conformism. This is worrying not just because we don’t really get vibrant societies out of conformism and sameness, but also, Arendt says because there is a risk that we think this is all there is to our living together. We lose ourselves in the tasks of managing behaviour and forget that our true public task is to act, and to distinguish ourselves in doing so. The risk, says Arendt, is therefore that we confuse behaviour with action , that in modern liberal societies “behaviour replaces action as the foremost mode of human relationship.” This confusion can happen in any area of our modern lives and institutions, secular or faith-based. None is immune.
Arendt wants to drive home the point that the healthy public life requires that we do not just see ourselves as social actors but also as fully public persons, committed to judging and acting as members of a common world we want to inhabit and pass on. Arendt tells us that public action is action in which we stand out, are individuated, become in some way excellent in a manner that is of service to others and a greater good. This is the space where we take risks, subject our common life to scrutiny, seek justice (that sometimes requires us to transgress what seem like accepted laws) in order to be increasingly open to the claims and needs of other humans - ones who are not our household and our kin.

Q1: According to the passage, who can be BEST categorised as a “public person”?
A. An NGO employee who was tasked to lead a campaign against tribal land acquisition.
B. A wildlife photographer who highlighted the plight of poverty-stricken migrants by posting their pictures.
C. An online fraud victim who ran a campaign against online fraudsters.
D. A parent who organized protests against the random fee hike by a local school.
E. A local politician who filed RTI applications to unearth financial scams by a village panchayat.

Ans: B
Sol:
According to the passage, a “public person” is someone who is committed to judging and acting as a member of a common world for the greater good, often taking risks and seeking justice for those beyond their immediate family and friends. Their actions are individual and make them stand out.
The wildlife photographer fits this description because they used their own skills and initiative to highlight the struggles of poverty-stricken migrants. This action goes beyond their personal life and aims to raise awareness and potentially inspire help for a vulnerable group in the wider world. This demonstrates a commitment to the common world and a desire to serve a greater good by bringing attention to the needs of others outside their immediate circle, aligning with Arendt's concept of a "public person."
Options C and D are incorrect as they seek justice for their cause. Option A and E are incorrect as they are paid for what they do. In option B, a wildlife photographer posts pictures of migrants and seeks justice for the public. Therefore, he is considered as a public person.
The answer is option B.

Q2: Based on the passage, which of the following options BEST describes “public action”?
A. Acting based on our core beliefs while being mindful of what society thinks
B. Acting for a just cause regardless of what society thinks about it
C. Acting in a way that is perceived to be anti-social
D. Acting based on our conviction regardless of what society thinks
E. Acting in a way that is seen as acceptable to the society

Ans: B
Sol:
Arendt describes public action as a way to "stand out, are individuated, become in some way excellent in a manner that is of service to others and a greater good." This often involves taking risks and scrutinizing common life to "seek justice (that sometimes requires us to transgress what seem like accepted laws)." This indicates that public action is driven by a commitment to justice and a greater good, even if it goes against prevailing societal opinions or norms.
The answer is option B.

Q3: Which of the following is the BEST reason for focusing on behaviour instead of acting in public?
A. We are dependent on each other, leading to focus on what is accepted by others
B. Our fear of being called out on our imperfect thoughts leads us to behave
C. Our focus is to survive and not to flourish
D. To survive is not to distinguish ourselves from others
E. The foundation of any vibrant society is based on cooperation and not confrontation

Ans: A
Sol:
We focus on "behaviour" (just following the rules and fitting in) because we live together and want to be accepted by others. This makes us more concerned with what's allowed than with taking real "action" to make things better.
Hence, answer is option A.

Passage - 6

Read the poem carefully, and answer the questions that follow.

It hurts to walk on new legs:
The curse of consonants. The wobble of vowels.
And you for whom I gave up a kingdom
Can never love that thing I was.
When you look into my past
You see
Only weeds and scales.
Once I had a voice.
Now I have legs.
Sometimes I wonder
Was it a fair trade?

Q1: Which of the following statements BEST reflects the theme of the poem?
A. Our concern for loss is more than what we gain.
B. Our quest for love is accompanied with pain.
C. Our loss of identity is irreparable.
D. As the future unfolds, our distant past looks pleasant.
E. Nostalgic recollection undermines materialistic gains.

Ans: B
Sol: 
The poem is about someone who gave up a lot ("a kingdom") for love. But this change has been painful ("It hurts to walk") and the person they did it for can't even appreciate who they used to be. The big question at the end ("Was it a fair trade?") shows that this journey of love has brought pain and makes the speaker question the cost. So, the main idea is that trying to find love can sometimes be painful.
Among the options, B is the most suitable choice.

Q2: What does the author BEST mean by “Once I had a voice. /Now I have legs?”
A. The poet is contemplative of his/her identity
B. The poet has lost his/her speech
C. The poet puts less value on the new world
D. The poet’s actions speak louder than his/her words now
E. The poet is indecisive about choosing between the two worlds

Ans: A
Sol: 
"Once I had a voice / Now I have legs / Sometimes I wonder / Was it a fair trade?"
Option E indicates that the poet has a choice, which is invalid according to the lines. Hence, it is eliminated.
Option B is being literal about the poet losing their speech. Hence, it is also eliminated.
Options C and D are vague and not reflected in the poem.
Option A is the best choice for the answer.