XAT 2017 - Mock Test - 1 - CAT MCQ

Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.

The current trend indicates that food and vegetable inflations continue la be pain points. Food inflation rose to 7.79 percent in June from 7.47 percent, and vegetable inflation rose to 14.74 percent from 10.85 percent. In the weeks ahead, the volatile food inflation will determine the course of overall inflation.
For RBI too, the trend is a concern since under the current agreement with the government, if the inflation exceeds II percent it will have to explain to the government why it could not be contained (the lower limit is 2 percent).

Q. Which of the following options is the most appropriate?

Complete the sentence by filling in the appropriate blank/blanks from the options provided.

The serious study of popular films by critics is regularly credited with having rendered obsolete a once-dominant view that popular mainstream films are inherently inferior lo an films. Yet the change of attitude may be somewhat _______Although, it is now academically respectable to analyse popular films, the fact that many critics feel compelled to rationalize their own _______ action movies or mass-market fiction reveals, perhaps unwittingly, their continued _________ the old hierarchy of popular and art films.
Consider the following words:  
A. unproductive                                 
B. not appreciated                              
C. overstated
D. penchant for                                   
E. dislike for                                      
F. investment in
G. exposure lo

Q. Which of the following options is the most appropriate sequence that Would meaningfully fit the blanks in the above paragraph?

Identify the most appropriate summary for the paragraph.

Invisible atoms coming together
Revealing themselves in visible forms
Seeds are hugged by the earth
Which renders them as gardens in bloom
And yonder stars, arc they not pearls
Floating on teeming seas?
Scattered, yet strung together in orderly constellations
Love binding them lo one another
And each is perpetually seeking its like?

Q.Which of the following options best captures the spirit of the above stanza?

 A sentence is divided into four parts. Choose the part that is/are grammatically incorrect.

Q. Which of the following options is grammatically correct and meaningful?

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

On Friday morning, Dieting supplement sales Company Herbalife agreed to pay the US Federal Trade Commission a $200m fine. The FTC said Herbalife cheated hopeful salespeople out of hundreds of millions of dollars with a high-pressure multi-level marketing scheme.
Herbalife's stock received an immediate 15% increase following the above news. The company also announced that it would hire a second former FTC commissioner in a press release describing the terms of the settlement.

Q. Which of the following options would imply that the 15 percent increase in stock price is fair?

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

Worldwide, tomatos one of the most important crops. Because this crop can be adapted for cultivation in various environments ranging from tropical to alpine regions, its cultivation area is now expanding worldwide into not so productive regions. On the other hand, traditional cultivation areas, the most favourable for tomato cultivation with warm and dry climate, me contracting.
Every year, traditional cultivation areas lose 2 million hectares (ha) of land to environmental factors such as salinity, drought, and soil erosion.

Q. Which of the following is the coned inference based on the above passage?

A sentence is divided into four parts. Choose the part that is/are grammatically incorrect.

Carefully read the statements below:
A. Chatterjee loves books; therefore, he reads them all the time.
B. Chatterjee loves books. Therefore, he reads them all the time.
C. Chatterjee loves books and, therefore, reads them all the time.

Q. Which of the above statement(s) is (are) correct in grammar and meaning?

Choose the pair of words which best expresses the relationship similar to that expressed in the capitalized pair.

Q. Grotesque is related to Macabre in a similar way as

Choose the word from the options which is most Similar in meaning to the given word.

Q. The suspension of the captain may _________ the number of spectators, who turn up for this match.
Transportation costs will directly ________ the cost of retail goods.
Grandmother's advancing age could _________ her ability to take care of the house.
She ________ a Texan accent throughout the interview.

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

It’s taken me 60 years, but I had an epiphany recently: Everything, without exception, requires additional energy and order to maintain itself. I knew this in the abstract as the famous second law of thermodynamics, which stales that everything is falling apart slowly. This realization is not just the lament of a person getting older. Long ago I learnt that even the most inanimate things we know of—stone, iron columns, copper pipes, gravel roads, a piece of paper—won't last very long without attention and fixing and the loan of additional order. Existence, it seems, is chiefly maintenance.
What has surprised me recently is how unstable even the intangible is. Keeping a website or a software program afloat is like keeping a yacht afloat. It is a black hole for attention, I can understand why a mechanical device like a pump would break down after a while—moisture rusts metal, or the air oxidizes membranes., or lubricants evaporate, all of which require repair. But 1 wasn't thinking that the nonmaterial world of bits would also degrade. What's to break? Apparently everything.
Brand-new computers will ossify, Apps weaken with use. Code corrodes. Fresh software just released will immediately begin to fray. On their own - nothing you did. The more complex the gear, the more (not less) attention it will require. The natural inclination toward change is inescapable, even for the most abstract entities we know of: bits.
And then there is the assault of the changing digital landscape. When everything around you is upgrading. Ibis puts pressure on your digital system and necessitates maintenance. You may not want to upgrade, but you must because everyone else is. It's an upgrade arms race.
I used to upgrade my gear begrudgingly (why upgrade if it still works?) and at the last possible moment. You know how it goes: Upgrade this and suddenly you need to upgrade that, which triggers upgrades everywhere. I would put it off for years because I had the experiences of one "tiny" upgrade of a minor pan disrupting my entire working life. But as our personal technology is becoming more complex, more co-dependents upon peripherals, more like a living ecosystem, delaying upgrading is even more disruptive. If you neglect ongoing minor upgrades, the change backs up so much that the eventual big upgrade reaches traumatic proportions So I now see upgrading a type of hygiene: You do it regularly to keep your tech healthy. Continual upgrades are so critical for technological systems that they are now automatic for the major personal computer operating systems and some software apps, Behind the scenes, the machines will upgrade themselves, slowly changing their features over time. This happens gradually, so we don’t notice they are “becoming."
We lake this evolution as normal.
Technological life in the future will be a series of endless upgrades. And the rate of graduations is accelerating. Features shift, defaults disappear, menus morph. I'll open up a software package E don1) use every day expecting certain choices, and whole "menus will have disappeared.
No matter how long you have been using a tool, endless upgrades make you into a newbie—the new user often seen as clueless. In this era of "becoming," everyone becomes a newbie. Worse, we will be newbies forever. Thai should keep us humble.
That bears repeating. All of us—every one of us—will be endless newbies in the future simply trying to keep up. Here's why: First most of the important technologies that will dominate life 30 years from now have not yet been invented, so naturally you'll be a newbie to Them. Second because the new technology requires endless upgrades, you will remain in the newbie state Third, because the cycle of obsolescence is accelerating (the average lifespan of a phone app is a mere 30 days!), you won't have time to master anything before it is displaced, so you will remain in the newbie mode forever, Endless Newbie is the new default for everyone, no matter your age or experience.

Q. Which of the fallowing statements would the author agree with the most?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

It’s taken me 60 years, but I had an epiphany recently: Everything, without exception, requires additional energy and order to maintain itself. I knew this in the abstract as the famous second law of thermodynamics, which stales that everything is falling apart slowly. This realization is not just the lament of a person getting older. Long ago I learnt that even the most inanimate things we know of—stone, iron columns, copper pipes, gravel roads, a piece of paper—won't last very long without attention and fixing and the loan of additional order. Existence, it seems, is chiefly maintenance.
What has surprised me recently is how unstable even the intangible is. Keeping a website or a software program afloat is like keeping a yacht afloat. It is a black hole for attention, I can understand why a mechanical device like a pump would break down after a while—moisture rusts metal, or the air oxidizes membranes., or lubricants evaporate, all of which require repair. But 1 wasn't thinking that the nonmaterial world of bits would also degrade. What's to break? Apparently everything.
Brand-new computers will ossify, Apps weaken with use. Code corrodes. Fresh software just released will immediately begin to fray. On their own - nothing you did. The more complex the gear, the more (not less) attention it will require. The natural inclination toward change is inescapable, even for the most abstract entities we know of: bits.
And then there is the assault of the changing digital landscape. When everything around you is upgrading. Ibis puts pressure on your digital system and necessitates maintenance. You may not want to upgrade, but you must because everyone else is. It's an upgrade arms race.
I used to upgrade my gear begrudgingly (why upgrade if it still works?) and at the last possible moment. You know how it goes: Upgrade this and suddenly you need to upgrade that, which triggers upgrades everywhere. I would put it off for years because I had the experiences of one "tiny" upgrade of a minor pan disrupting my entire working life. But as our personal technology is becoming more complex, more co-dependents upon peripherals, more like a living ecosystem, delaying upgrading is even more disruptive. If you neglect ongoing minor upgrades, the change backs up so much that the eventual big upgrade reaches traumatic proportions So I now see upgrading a type of hygiene: You do it regularly to keep your tech healthy. Continual upgrades are so critical for technological systems that they are now automatic for the major personal computer operating systems and some software apps, Behind the scenes, the machines will upgrade themselves, slowly changing their features over time. This happens gradually, so we don’t notice they are “becoming."
We lake this evolution as normal.
Technological life in the future will be a series of endless upgrades. And the rate of graduations is accelerating. Features shift, defaults disappear, menus morph. I'll open up a software package E don1) use every day expecting certain choices, and whole "menus will have disappeared.
No matter how long you have been using a tool, endless upgrades make you into a newbie—the new user often seen as clueless. In this era of "becoming," everyone becomes a newbie. Worse, we will be newbies forever. Thai should keep us humble.
That bears repeating. All of us—every one of us—will be endless newbies in the future simply trying to keep up. Here's why: First most of the important technologies that will dominate life 30 years from now have not yet been invented, so naturally you'll be a newbie to Them. Second because the new technology requires endless upgrades, you will remain in the newbie state Third, because the cycle of obsolescence is accelerating (the average lifespan of a phone app is a mere 30 days!), you won't have time to master anything before it is displaced, so you will remain in the newbie mode forever, Endless Newbie is the new default for everyone, no matter your age or experience.

Q. Which of the following quotes would the author agree with the most?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

It’s taken me 60 years, but I had an epiphany recently: Everything, without exception, requires additional energy and order to maintain itself. I knew this in the abstract as the famous second law of thermodynamics, which stales that everything is falling apart slowly. This realization is not just the lament of a person getting older. Long ago I learnt that even the most inanimate things we know of—stone, iron columns, copper pipes, gravel roads, a piece of paper—won't last very long without attention and fixing and the loan of additional order. Existence, it seems, is chiefly maintenance.
What has surprised me recently is how unstable even the intangible is. Keeping a website or a software program afloat is like keeping a yacht afloat. It is a black hole for attention, I can understand why a mechanical device like a pump would break down after a while—moisture rusts metal, or the air oxidizes membranes., or lubricants evaporate, all of which require repair. But 1 wasn't thinking that the nonmaterial world of bits would also degrade. What's to break? Apparently everything.
Brand-new computers will ossify, Apps weaken with use. Code corrodes. Fresh software just released will immediately begin to fray. On their own - nothing you did. The more complex the gear, the more (not less) attention it will require. The natural inclination toward change is inescapable, even for the most abstract entities we know of: bits.
And then there is the assault of the changing digital landscape. When everything around you is upgrading. Ibis puts pressure on your digital system and necessitates maintenance. You may not want to upgrade, but you must because everyone else is. It's an upgrade arms race.
I used to upgrade my gear begrudgingly (why upgrade if it still works?) and at the last possible moment. You know how it goes: Upgrade this and suddenly you need to upgrade that, which triggers upgrades everywhere. I would put it off for years because I had the experiences of one "tiny" upgrade of a minor pan disrupting my entire working life. But as our personal technology is becoming more complex, more co-dependents upon peripherals, more like a living ecosystem, delaying upgrading is even more disruptive. If you neglect ongoing minor upgrades, the change backs up so much that the eventual big upgrade reaches traumatic proportions So I now see upgrading a type of hygiene: You do it regularly to keep your tech healthy. Continual upgrades are so critical for technological systems that they are now automatic for the major personal computer operating systems and some software apps, Behind the scenes, the machines will upgrade themselves, slowly changing their features over time. This happens gradually, so we don’t notice they are “becoming."
We lake this evolution as normal.
Technological life in the future will be a series of endless upgrades. And the rate of graduations is accelerating. Features shift, defaults disappear, menus morph. I'll open up a software package E don1) use every day expecting certain choices, and whole "menus will have disappeared.
No matter how long you have been using a tool, endless upgrades make you into a newbie—the new user often seen as clueless. In this era of "becoming," everyone becomes a newbie. Worse, we will be newbies forever. Thai should keep us humble.
That bears repeating. All of us—every one of us—will be endless newbies in the future simply trying to keep up. Here's why: First most of the important technologies that will dominate life 30 years from now have not yet been invented, so naturally you'll be a newbie to Them. Second because the new technology requires endless upgrades, you will remain in the newbie state Third, because the cycle of obsolescence is accelerating (the average lifespan of a phone app is a mere 30 days!), you won't have time to master anything before it is displaced, so you will remain in the newbie mode forever, Endless Newbie is the new default for everyone, no matter your age or experience.
The CEO of a technology company was thinking of the following policies.
A. Life time employment
B. Promotion based on seniority
C. Hire new competent employees and fire old incompetent employees
D. Regular training and retraining

Q. If a CEO were to consult the author of the passage, which of the above policies should (he author recommend?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation: that's all I do.
You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious altitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, as a wise man, G. K.Chesterton observed, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders."
I, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand meno, that’s too much to ask of anyone - if you can become aware of the miraculousness that I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than an automobile or on airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because - well, because I am seemingly so simple.
Simple? Yes not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when you realize that there are about one and one -half billion of my kind produced in the U.S. each year.
Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye - there's some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.

Q. 'I' in the passage, most likely, refers to:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Writing is both my vocation and my avocation: that's all I do.
You may wonder why I should write a genealogy. Well, to begin with my story is interesting. And, next, I am a mystery more so than a tree or a sunset or even a flash of lightning. But, sadly, I am taken for granted by those who use me, as if I were a mere incident and without background. This supercilious altitude relegates me to the level of the commonplace. This is a species of the grievous error in which mankind cannot too long persist without peril. For, as a wise man, G. K.Chesterton observed, "We are perishing for want of wonder, not for want of wonders."
I, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand meno, that’s too much to ask of anyone - if you can become aware of the miraculousness that I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than an automobile or on airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because - well, because I am seemingly so simple.
Simple? Yes not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when you realize that there are about one and one -half billion of my kind produced in the U.S. each year.
Pick me up and look me over. What do you see? Not much meets the eye - there's some wood, lacquer, the printed labeling, graphite lead, a bit of metal, and an eraser.

Q. A "supercilious attitude" in this passage implies;

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Some psychologists and sociologist believe that psychopathy can be an asset in business and politics and that, as a result psychopathic traits are overrepresented among successful people. This would be a puzzle if n were so. If our moral feelings evolved through natural selection, then it shouldn't be the case dial one would flourish without them. And, in fact, the successful psychopath is probably the exception. Psychopaths have certain deficits. Some of these are subtle. The psychologist Abigail Marsh and her colleagues find that psychopaths are markedly insensitive to the expression of fear. Normal people recognize fear and treat it as a distress cue, but psychopaths have problems seeing it, let alone responding to it appropriately.
Other deficits run deeper. The overall lack of moral sentiments—and specifically, the lack of regard for others—might turn out to be the psychopath's downfall. We non-psychopaths are constantly assessing one another, looking for kindness and shame and the like, using this information to decide whom to trust, whom to affiliate with. The psychopath has to pretend to be one of us. But this is difficult. It's hard to force yourself to comply with moral rules just through a rational appreciation of what you are expected to do. [f you feel like strangling the cat, it's a struggle to hold back just because you know that it is frowned upon.
Without a normal allotment of shame and guilt, psychopaths succumb to bad impulses, doing terrible things out of malice, greed, and simple boredom. And sooner or later, they get caught. While psychopaths can be successful in the short term, they tend to fail in the long term and often end up in prison or worse. Let's take a closer look at what separates psychopaths from the rest of us. There are many symptoms of psychopathy, including pathological lying and lack of remorse or guilt, but the core deficit is indifference toward the suffering of other people. Psychopaths lack compassion. To understand how compassion works for all of us non-psychopaths, it's important to distinguish it from empathy. Now, some contemporary researchers use the terms interchangeably, but there is a big difference between caring about a person (compassion) and putting yourself m the person's shoes (empathy).
I am too much of an adaptationist to think that a capacity as rich as empathy exists as a freak biological accident. It most likely has a function, and the most plausible candidate here is that it motivates us to care about others. Empathy exists to motivate compassion and altruism. Still, the link between empathy (in the sense of mirroring another's feelings) and compassion (in the sense of feeling and acting kindly toward another) is more nuanced than many people believe. First, although empathy can he automatic and unconscious—a crying person can affect your mood, even if you're not aware that This is happening and would rather it didn't—we often choose whether to empathize with another person. So when empathy is present, it may be the product of a moral choice, not the cause of it. Empathy is also influenced by what one thinks of the other person. Second, empathy is not needed to motivate compassion. As the psychologist Steven Pinker points out, "If a child has been frightened by a barking dog and is howling in terror, my sympathetic response is not to howl in terror with her, but to comfort and protect her." Third, just as you can have compassion without empathy, you can have empathy without compassion. You might feel the person's pain and wish to slop feeling it—but choose to solve the problem by distancing yourself from that person instead of alleviating his or her suffering. Even otherwise good people sometimes turn away when faced with depictions of pain and suffering in faraway lands, or when passing a homeless person on a city street.

Q. The core deficit of Psychopaths affects their long term success because

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Some psychologists and sociologist believe that psychopathy can be an asset in business and politics and that, as a result psychopathic traits are overrepresented among successful people. This would be a puzzle if n were so. If our moral feelings evolved through natural selection, then it shouldn't be the case dial one would flourish without them. And, in fact, the successful psychopath is probably the exception. Psychopaths have certain deficits. Some of these are subtle. The psychologist Abigail Marsh and her colleagues find that psychopaths are markedly insensitive to the expression of fear. Normal people recognize fear and treat it as a distress cue, but psychopaths have problems seeing it, let alone responding to it appropriately.
Other deficits run deeper. The overall lack of moral sentiments—and specifically, the lack of regard for others—might turn out to be the psychopath's downfall. We non-psychopaths are constantly assessing one another, looking for kindness and shame and the like, using this information to decide whom to trust, whom to affiliate with. The psychopath has to pretend to be one of us. But this is difficult. It's hard to force yourself to comply with moral rules just through a rational appreciation of what you are expected to do. [f you feel like strangling the cat, it's a struggle to hold back just because you know that it is frowned upon.
Without a normal allotment of shame and guilt, psychopaths succumb to bad impulses, doing terrible things out of malice, greed, and simple boredom. And sooner or later, they get caught. While psychopaths can be successful in the short term, they tend to fail in the long term and often end up in prison or worse. Let's take a closer look at what separates psychopaths from the rest of us. There are many symptoms of psychopathy, including pathological lying and lack of remorse or guilt, but the core deficit is indifference toward the suffering of other people. Psychopaths lack compassion. To understand how compassion works for all of us non-psychopaths, it's important to distinguish it from empathy. Now, some contemporary researchers use the terms interchangeably, but there is a big difference between caring about a person (compassion) and putting yourself m the person's shoes (empathy).
I am too much of an adaptationist to think that a capacity as rich as empathy exists as a freak biological accident. It most likely has a function, and the most plausible candidate here is that it motivates us to care about others. Empathy exists to motivate compassion and altruism. Still, the link between empathy (in the sense of mirroring another's feelings) and compassion (in the sense of feeling and acting kindly toward another) is more nuanced than many people believe. First, although empathy can he automatic and unconscious—a crying person can affect your mood, even if you're not aware that This is happening and would rather it didn't—we often choose whether to empathize with another person. So when empathy is present, it may be the product of a moral choice, not the cause of it. Empathy is also influenced by what one thinks of the other person. Second, empathy is not needed to motivate compassion. As the psychologist Steven Pinker points out, "If a child has been frightened by a barking dog and is howling in terror, my sympathetic response is not to howl in terror with her, but to comfort and protect her." Third, just as you can have compassion without empathy, you can have empathy without compassion. You might feel the person's pain and wish to slop feeling it—but choose to solve the problem by distancing yourself from that person instead of alleviating his or her suffering. Even otherwise good people sometimes turn away when faced with depictions of pain and suffering in faraway lands, or when passing a homeless person on a city street.

Q. Which of the following options is correct according to the author?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Some psychologists and sociologist believe that psychopathy can be an asset in business and politics and that, as a result psychopathic traits are overrepresented among successful people. This would be a puzzle if n were so. If our moral feelings evolved through natural selection, then it shouldn't be the case dial one would flourish without them. And, in fact, the successful psychopath is probably the exception. Psychopaths have certain deficits. Some of these are subtle. The psychologist Abigail Marsh and her colleagues find that psychopaths are markedly insensitive to the expression of fear. Normal people recognize fear and treat it as a distress cue, but psychopaths have problems seeing it, let alone responding to it appropriately.
Other deficits run deeper. The overall lack of moral sentiments—and specifically, the lack of regard for others—might turn out to be the psychopath's downfall. We non-psychopaths are constantly assessing one another, looking for kindness and shame and the like, using this information to decide whom to trust, whom to affiliate with. The psychopath has to pretend to be one of us. But this is difficult. It's hard to force yourself to comply with moral rules just through a rational appreciation of what you are expected to do. [f you feel like strangling the cat, it's a struggle to hold back just because you know that it is frowned upon.
Without a normal allotment of shame and guilt, psychopaths succumb to bad impulses, doing terrible things out of malice, greed, and simple boredom. And sooner or later, they get caught. While psychopaths can be successful in the short term, they tend to fail in the long term and often end up in prison or worse. Let's take a closer look at what separates psychopaths from the rest of us. There are many symptoms of psychopathy, including pathological lying and lack of remorse or guilt, but the core deficit is indifference toward the suffering of other people. Psychopaths lack compassion. To understand how compassion works for all of us non-psychopaths, it's important to distinguish it from empathy. Now, some contemporary researchers use the terms interchangeably, but there is a big difference between caring about a person (compassion) and putting yourself m the person's shoes (empathy).
I am too much of an adaptationist to think that a capacity as rich as empathy exists as a freak biological accident. It most likely has a function, and the most plausible candidate here is that it motivates us to care about others. Empathy exists to motivate compassion and altruism. Still, the link between empathy (in the sense of mirroring another's feelings) and compassion (in the sense of feeling and acting kindly toward another) is more nuanced than many people believe. First, although empathy can he automatic and unconscious—a crying person can affect your mood, even if you're not aware that This is happening and would rather it didn't—we often choose whether to empathize with another person. So when empathy is present, it may be the product of a moral choice, not the cause of it. Empathy is also influenced by what one thinks of the other person. Second, empathy is not needed to motivate compassion. As the psychologist Steven Pinker points out, "If a child has been frightened by a barking dog and is howling in terror, my sympathetic response is not to howl in terror with her, but to comfort and protect her." Third, just as you can have compassion without empathy, you can have empathy without compassion. You might feel the person's pain and wish to slop feeling it—but choose to solve the problem by distancing yourself from that person instead of alleviating his or her suffering. Even otherwise good people sometimes turn away when faced with depictions of pain and suffering in faraway lands, or when passing a homeless person on a city street.
A student approached a faculty pleading to increase his marks because failure in one more subject will result in the student having to leave the program. The faculty said, "I am sorry. But I cannot change your grades as it would be unfair to others" In the given circumstance,

Q. which of the following best describes the faculty?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature, On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animal? (o decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.) According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, -fearing the dark, and jumping at die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that "there is no human nature.... Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he mates himself" For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards: if we care more for our own children than for o(her people's, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.
Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man.
One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.
A business school led by an existentialist director, warned to decide on admission policy for its executive MBA program, which requires candidates to possess minimum five years of managerial experience. With respect to the selection process, which of the following statements will be closest to the director's belief:

 Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature, On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animal? (o decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.) According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, -fearing the dark, and jumping at die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that "there is no human nature.... Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he mates himself" For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards: if we care more for our own children than for o(her people's, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.
Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man.
One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.

Q. Which of the following statements would the author agree with the most?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature, On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animal? (o decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.) According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, -fearing the dark, and jumping at die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that "there is no human nature.... Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he mates himself" For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards: if we care more for our own children than for o(her people's, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.
Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man.
One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.

Q. Who among the following, as staled in the third paragraph, would the author be the most sympathetic to?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Every age has its pet contradictions, A few decades back, we used lo accept Marx and Freud together, and then wonder, like the chameleon an the turkey carpet, why life was so confusing. Today there is similar trouble over the question whether there is, or is not, something called Human Nature, On the one hand, there has been an explosion of animal behavior studies, and comparisons between animals and men have become immensely popular. People use evidence from animal? (o decide whether man is naturally aggressive, or naturally territorial; even whether he has an aggressive or territorial instinct. Moreover, we are still much influenced by Freudian psychology, which depends on the notion of instinct On the other hand, many still hold what may be called the Blank Paper view, that man is a creature entirely without instincts. So do Existentialist philosophers. If man has no instincts, all comparison with animals must be irrelevant. (Both these simple party lines have been somewhat eroded over time, but both are still extremely influential.) According to the Blank Paper view, man is entirely the product of his culture. He starts off infinitely plastic, and is formed completely by the society in which he grows up. There is then no end to the possible variations among cultures; what we take to be human instincts are just the deep-dug prejudices of our own society. Forming families, -fearing the dark, and jumping at die sight of a spider are just results of out conditioning. Existentialism at first appears a very different standpoint, because the Existentialist asserts man's freedom and wilt not let him call himself a product of anything. But Existentialism too denies that man has a nature; if he had, his freedom would not be complete. Thus Sartre insisted that "there is no human nature.... Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world, and defines himself afterwards. If man as the Existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he mates himself" For Existentialism there is only the human condition, which is what happens to man and not what he is born like. If we are afraid of the dark, it is because we choose to be cowards: if we care more for our own children than for o(her people's, it is because we choose to be partial. We must never talk about human nature or human instincts. This implicit moral notion is still very influential, not at all confined to those who use the metaphysic of essence and existence. So I shall sometimes speak of it, not as Existentialist, but at libertarian—meaning that those holding it do not just (like alt of us) think liberty important, but think it supremely important and believe that our having a nature would infringe it.
Philosophers have not yet made much use of informed comparison with other species as a help in the understanding of man.
One reason they have not is undoubtedly the fear of fatalism. Another is the appalling way terms such as instinct and human nature have been misused in the past. A third is the absurdity of some ethological propaganda.

Q. Which sentence in the passage distances man from ‘nature’, the most?

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

Vimla is the domestic help for Shreya and her neighbour Padma; both live in a posh gated community- Vimla not only cleans the house, but also cooks for both the families. Shreya treasures Vimla ever since she joined her family four years ago, Vimla joined Padma's household this year.
A. In the last one year, Shreya had noticed cash missing on three occasions.
B. Shreya's husband also shared that a few notes were missing train his wallet, though he was not sure if they were stolen.
C. Her eldest son had been pestering Shreya for more pocket money for the last three weeks; in the last few days, he had stopped doing so.
D. In the last one year, Vimla had received six mails from her family asking for money.
E. Her eldest son's expenditure had gone up in the last few days.

Q. Which of the following combinations of the above statements would DECREASE the likelihood that Vimla has stolen the money?

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

A. Padma discovered some money missing from her purse. She suspects that Vimla has stolen it. She wants to prevent the stealing from happening again and is contemplating the following actions A. She should let it pass, since lo err is human B.

B. She should confront Vimla and tell her that she knows the truth and the act is unpardonable regardless of her past service and she is thinking of terminating her services.
C. She should tell Vimla that she is aware someone has stolen money from the house but is not sure who it is.
D. She should share with Vim la that neighbours think Vimla has stolen the money though she doesn't, but is interested in finding out the Truth.
E. She should directly ask Vimla if she stole the money, promising her no punishment if she confesses.

Q. Arrange the following combinations of the above actions in the DECREASING order of appropriateness.

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

Genius Consul ring is a boutique consulting firm started by Shirish, Balram. Rahman and Xavier, four friends from a premier business school. They committed themselves to abide by two principles: a) not to indulge in anything unethical and b) share earning equally. 
Genius Consulting could not get a significant project till the following year, when they managed a big one after Rahman's father referred their firm to his top management. Convinced of the team's talent following an impressive presentation, the lop management awarded them the project even though six other referred teams made presentations.
The day following the presentation, they met to decide the way forward for the organization.

Q. Which of the following choices would be the most appropriate for Genius Consulting?

Mrs Biswas was to retire in one year after serving in the construction department of the Gujarat government for more than thirty years. After retirement, she wanted to spend her retired life along with Mr Biswas, a retired school teacher in a small town in Kerala, They had two children, both studying in Bengaluru, the Biswas' wished to construct a house in Kerala with their life savings.
The couple gathered information about owning a house in Kerala. They had four options:

A. Buy a fully furnished house from a big developer.
B. Buy a semi-furnished house from a big developer and furnish it,
C. Get a local unregistered contractor to construct a house and furnish it
D. Mr Biswas wish inpuis from the family could supervise the construction of a house back in Kerala by employing the best material, engineers, masons and labourers.

Q. Which option would ENSURE die best control of quality of construction for the Biswas'?

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

Mrs Biswas was to retire in one year after serving in the construction department of the Gujarat government for more than thirty years. After retirement, she wanted to spend her retired life along with Mr Biswas, a retired school teacher in a small town in Kerala, They had two children, both studying in Bengaluru, the Biswas' wished to construct a house in Kerala with their life savings.
The couple gathered information about owning a house in Kerala. They had four options: A. Buy a fully furnished house from a big developer.
B. Buy a semi-furnished house from a big developer and furnish it, C. Get a local unregistered contractor to construct a house and furnish it D. Mr Biswas wish inpuis from the family could supervise the construction of a house back in Kerala by employing the best material, engineers, masons and labourers.

Q. Which of the following additional information, IF TRUE, would improve the chances of the third option being preferred?

Read the following information and choose the best alternative:

Mrs Biswas was to retire in one year after serving in the construction department of the Gujarat government for more than thirty years. After retirement, she wanted to spend her retired life along with Mr Biswas, a retired school teacher in a small town in Kerala, They had two children, both studying in Bengaluru, the Biswas' wished to construct a house in Kerala with their life savings.
The couple gathered information about owning a house in Kerala. They had four options: A. Buy a fully furnished house from a big developer.
B. Buy a semi-furnished house from a big developer and furnish it, C. Get a local unregistered contractor to construct a house and furnish it D. Mr Biswas wish inpuis from the family could supervise the construction of a house back in Kerala by employing the best material, engineers, masons and labourers.
The Kerala Government recently announced a policy:  In case of major quality infringement, the builder will pay a penalty of 50% of the price of the house in addition to the price of The house, to the client within a year of notice.

Q. Rank in ASCENDING order the options that would ensure "control of quality".