Passage - 1
The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance.
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]
The argument presented in the first paragraph can be best described as:
Passage - 1
The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance.
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]
Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument presented in the second paragraph?
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App |
Passage – 1
The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance.
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]
Why does the author say that "he who lives by the sword need not die by it"?
Passage – 1
The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance.
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]
Which of the following is similar to the line of reasoning of the author in the last paragraph?
Passage – 1
The acceptability of imposing death as a form of judicial punishment has declined steadily over Connecticut's nearly 400-year history. Secularization, evolving moral standards, new constitutional and procedural protections, and the availability of incarceration as a viable alternative to execution have resulted in capital punishment being available for far fewer crimes and criminals, and being imposed far less frequently, with a concomitant deterioration in public acceptance.
What has not changed is that, throughout every period of our state's history, the death penalty has been imposed disproportionately on those whom society has marginalized socially, politically, and economically: people of color, the poor and uneducated, and unpopular immigrant and ethnic groups. It always has been easier for us to execute those we see as inferior or less intrinsically worthy. The legislature necessarily has made a determination that he who lives by the sword need not die by it; that life imprisonment without the possibility of release is an adequate and sufficient penalty even for the most horrific of crimes; and that we can express our moral outrage, mete out justice, bring some measure of solace to the families of the victims, and purge the blemish of murder on our community whilst the offender yet lives. If this is true, then, although the death penalty still might serve some minimal retributive function in Connecticut, it lacks any retributive justification.
[Extracted with edits and revisions from: State of Connecticut v. Eduardo Santiago, Supreme Court of Connecticut (SC 17413) - Court's Ruling, October 2015]
Which of the following can be inferred as a view that the author will most definitely agree with?
1. We must protect the rights of society's marginalized.
2. Opposing the death penalty does not indicate a lack of sympathy for murder victims.
Passage - 2
The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]
Which of the following situations is similar in nature to the intuitive decisions mentioned in the passage?
Passage - 2
The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]
Which of the following is LEAST consistent with the author's reasoning in the passage?
Passage - 2
The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]
Which one of the following is NOT consistent with intuition?
(1) Knowledge by acquaintance
(2) Perceived from experience
(3) Immediate insight
Passage - 2
The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]
Which one of the following if true, most weakens the argument made by the author?
Passage - 2
The human mind is wired to see patterns. Not only does the brain process information as it comes in, it also stores insights from all your past experiences. Your intuition has been developing and expanding for as long as you've been alive. Every interaction, happy or sad, is cataloged in your memory. Intuition draws from that deep memory well to inform your decisions going forward. In other words, intuitive decisions are based on data, in a way. When we subconsciously spot patterns, the body starts firing neurochemicals in both the brain and gut. These "somatic markers" are what give us that instant sense that something is right ... or that it's off. Not only are these automatic processes faster than rational thought, but your intuition draws from decades of diverse qualitative experience (sights, sounds, interactions, etc.) - a wholly human feature that big data alone could never accomplish. It's also faster than rational thought, which means intuition is a necessary skill that can help decision-making when time is short and traditional analytics may not be available. Many researchers, including machine learning experts and data scientists, are embracing the role hunches play in breakthrough thinking. Intuition is now considered simply another kind of data-one that's no less valuable than traditional analytics. After all, algorithms are created by people and therefore subject to human error. [Extracted with edits from: "The science of intuition can help you understand how to use it" - by Melody Wilding, Quartz at Work, March 2018]
Which of following is a/are logical corollary(ies) based on the information given on somatic markers?
(1) A mother seeing her child smiling just after taking the CLAT, believes that her child has done well in the CLAT.
(2) A man encountering a feared object like a snake may initiate the fight-or-flight response and cause fear.
(3) A student is feeling very confident before the exam because she has put in considerable hours studying for the exam
Passage - 3
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]
Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the passage?
Passage - 3
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]
Answer the question considering only the following two statements from the passage:
(1) The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable.
(2) The [Law Commission] report says that [hate] speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion.
The relation between the above two statements can be best described as follows:
Passage - 3
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]
The argument of the author depends on which one of the following assumptions:
Passage - 3
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]
Which of the following, if true, strengthens the author's argument?
Passage - 3
"Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended, it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people." Acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie's words, however, will have very few takers in today's India. In a pluralistic society like India, the periphery of free speech is always opaque, and the nebulous distinction between right to dissent and right to offend is even more vague, leaving even the absolutists in an enigmatic dilemma. The right to offend and hate speech are inextricable. Though there is no legal definition of hate speech, a Law Commission report released in March enlists a few criteria to identify it. The report says that the speech must be 'offensive' and project the 'extreme' form of emotion. "The term hate speech has been used invariably to mean expression which is abusive, insulting, intimidating, harassing or which incites violence, hatred or discrimination against groups identified by characteristics such as one's race, religion, language, caste or community, sexual orientation or personal convictions." Sounds like a farrago? The fact that defining feature of sentiments is subjective leads to the rampant misuse of this clause and ultimately to the suppression of free speech. [Extracted with edits and revisions from: "Right to speech, dissent, offend: a conundrum of sorts", by Vinod V.K., The Week, August 2017]
Supreme Court of India on March 2014 dismissed a PIL seeking intervention by the court in directing the Election Commission to curb hate speeches. Dismissing the plea, the Apex Court said ""We cannot curtail fundamental rights of people. It is a precious right guaranteed by Constitution." Based on the author's reasoning in the passage above:
Passage - 4
Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.
The guiding principle of Passage A is that:
Passage - 4
Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.
The guiding principle of Passage B is that:
Passage - 4
Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.
Both the author of Passage A and the author of Passage B would agree with which one of the following?
Passage - 4
Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.
Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan decided to suspend trade relations with India in a five-point plan, in response to India's move to end special status for Jammu & Kashmir and split it into two union territories. If the above statements are true, based on the reasoning of the author of Passage A, which one of the following would be INCORRECT?
Passage - 4
Passage A: Interdependence between the Chinese and American economies would create conditions to prevent conflict and channel China to shoulder more of the burden in international affairs (lessening the burden on the United States), lift people out of poverty, and set conditions for gradual, evolutionary democratization that would cement better Sino-American relations and benefit the cause both of global order and of human rights. A trade war risks all of that by incentivizing conflict and removing the linkages which might cushion tensions, and, by negatively impacting the standard of living of both Chinese and Americans who depend on the trading relationship, can be seen as unethical in that regard. Passage B: The trading relationship has allowed a Chinese regime that is antithetical to liberal values at home and to the existing international system to acquire more power and resources, which it has used to both pursue greater capabilities to act in the world (often at odds with U.S. preferences) but also to more effectively repress its citizens at home. Disconnecting the U.S. and Chinese economies, despite the short-term pain, is ethical in the long run for removing any tacit U.S. support for China's unliberal practices at home which are at odds with American values but also to lessen the economic and technological bases from which China is emerging as a near-peer competitor to the U.S.
U.S. imposed six waves of tariffs on a number of imports of China. The US' losses mounted steadily over the year, as each wave of tariffs affected additional countries and products from washing machines to steel and aluminum. The US' losses hit the hardest after the sixth wave, when the U.S. levied $200 billion in Chinese imports with a 10 percent tariff.
If the above statements are true, based on the reasoning of the author of Passage B:
Calculators have great potential in concept development for children of age group four to eight. For example, what happens when you multiply or divide a number by 10 or 100? These generalisations are spectacularly demonstrated and discovered with a calculator, which frees students to ask more questions about number patterns.
The reasoning in the argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
If you do not have a disciplined approach, you will not be able to prepare for the exam. If you do not prepare well for the exam, then you will not get high grades. Getting high grades is necessary to move to the next level.
If the above statements are true, then which of the following must be true?
In each of the questions below, you are provided with a statement and two assumptions numbered I and II. Read each statement and determine which assumption or assumptions are implicit in the statement.
Statement: Anger is best viewed as a tool that helps us read and respond to upsetting social situations Assumption I: Anger is instigated by upsetting social situations.
Assumption II: There are at least some ways in which one can respond to upsetting social situations
Statement: It's not just fringe conspiracy theorists that can start believing the Earth is flat; many different types of people can be swayed by the arguments of flat Earth.
Assumption I: The arguments of flat earth are persuasive enough for some to consider the case that the earth is flat.
Assumption II: The arguments of flat earth theory is a valid argument that can sway many people.
Statement: We should travel by the metro rail instead of the car because we have to get there on time. Assumption I: T ravelling by metro is more convenient than travelling by car.
Assumption II: There is a metro rail service available for at least part of the distance to destination.
Five people Aditi, Bhavya, Chitra, Disha and Ekta live in a building having five floors numbered 1 to 5 sequentially from bottom to top.
Chitra lives on a floor immediately above the floor on which Bhavya lives.
Aditi does not live on the first floor.
Disha does not live immediately below the floor on which Bhavya lives.
Ekta lives either on the first floor or the fifth floor.
If Aditi lives of the topmost floor, which one the following must be true?
Five people Aditi, Bhavya, Chitra, Disha and Ekta live in a building having five floors numbered 1 to 5 sequentially from bottom to top.
If Aditi lives on floor 3, which one the following could be true?
Five people Aditi, Bhavya, Chitra, Disha and Ekta live in a building having five floors numbered 1 to 5 sequentially from bottom to top.
Who among the following can live on any of the five floors?
In a Law School, 100 students are divided into four batches - J, K, L and M. Four subjects -Accounting, Business Law, Criminal Law, and Drafting - are taught during four days of a week, starting from Monday through Thursday. There is a faculty member for each subject and a faculty can take only one session in a day. On any given day, sessions for all the four batches should run in parallel.
The following facts are known:
An effective way to handle this logical game is to play it like Sudoku.
Let's code the subjects using numbers
Accounting - 1
Business Law - 2
Criminal Law - 3
Drafting - 4
Base on the fact given following can be captured.
Since each faculty takes a different subject and faculty can only one session per day, there cannot be any repetition of subjects (or the numbers)
Which subject is taken on Monday for batch J?
The subjects taken for batch M from Monday through Thursday respectively are: