CAT  >  CAT Mock Test- 1 Download as PDF

CAT Mock Test- 1 - CAT


Test Description

66 Questions MCQ Test - CAT Mock Test- 1

CAT Mock Test- 1 for CAT 2023 is part of CAT preparation. The CAT Mock Test- 1 questions and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus.The CAT Mock Test- 1 MCQs are made for CAT 2023 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for CAT Mock Test- 1 below.
Solutions of CAT Mock Test- 1 questions in English are available as part of our course for CAT & CAT Mock Test- 1 solutions in Hindi for CAT course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free. Attempt CAT Mock Test- 1 | 66 questions in 120 minutes | Mock test for CAT preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study for CAT Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 1

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Psychopaths are sick, deranged, lacking in moral conscience. In other words, they’re nothing like you or me. This picture of psychopathy has dominated the thinking of both laypeople and researchers. It’s at once sensational and reassuring. But this is false. There’s no major ability that psychopaths lack altogether, and their deficits are often small and circumscribed. They certainly aren’t incapable of telling right from wrong, making good decisions or experiencing empathy for other people. Instead, they suffer from a host of more mundane problems - such as being overly goal-fixated, fearless and selfish. What’s more, perhaps ‘our’ reactions are closer to ‘theirs’ than we realise. Like psychopaths, we can dial our empathy up and down; and for all the praise we heap on empathy, a closer look at this emotion suggests that it’s nearer to a kind of self-preservation instinct than any ‘warm and fuzzy’ fellow-feeling.

When debating what’s wrong with psychopaths, researchers typically pitch two competing moral theories against one another. One approach, known as rationalism, holds that judging right and wrong is a matter of reason, rather than feeling. The claim that psychopaths don't show rationalism is plain wrong. Psychopaths are as logical as you and me - in fact, they outsmart us all the time, hence their everyday depiction as connivers and con artists. So the fact that they’re rational but still capable of inhuman acts shows that moral sensibility can’t be grounded in reason alone.

Psychopaths struggle with what philosophers call ‘reasons for actions’: considerations that underlie our decisions to act, such as the likelihood that what we’ll do will satisfy our goals and won’t come into conflict with other projects or aims. Psychopaths appear to be poor at integrating all the various factors that go into making good choices, and often have poor reasons for their actions. They usually attend almost exclusively to the task at hand, and ignore relevant contextual information - although when context doesn’t play a role, they do very well. Other studies have found that psychopaths have problems reversing their responses: when actions that were previously rewarded are now punished - or actions that were previously punished are rewarded - they have problems adjusting. Most people desist and find other ways to navigate their way through, psychopaths tend not to. This insensitivity extends to social threats, such as angry faces. If you show a person pictures that they find threatening, they startle much more easily in response to loud sounds. Psychopaths respond normally to direct threats, such as an image of the gaping jaw of a shark or a striking snake, but not to social threats, such as people in pain or distress.

These findings support the rationalist idea that psychopathic immorality comes down to some inability to reason well. But you might have noticed that psychopaths don’t experience fear as often, and in the same situations, as do ordinary people. Last time I looked, fear was an emotion. This brings us back into the camp of people who think that emotion, not reason, is central to ethics. Typically they focus on empathy.

 

Q. Which of the following CANNOT be inferred from the the passage?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 1

Option A is a distortion. At the end of the second paragraph, the author states, "So the fact that they’re rational but still capable of inhuman acts shows that moral sensibility can’t be grounded in reason alone." The author points out that moral sensibility is not grounded in reason alone. However, reason is still relevant and cannot be discounted.

" Like psychopaths, we can dial our empathy up and down;" Option B can be inferred from this line.

"But you might have noticed that psychopaths don’t experience fear as often, and in the same situations, as do ordinary people. Last time I looked, fear was an emotion." From this option C can be inferred.

"There’s no major ability that psychopaths lack altogether, and their deficits are often small and circumscribed... They usually attend almost exclusively to the task at hand, and ignore relevant contextual information - although when context doesn’t play a role, they do very well."  Option D can be inferred from these lines.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 2

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Psychopaths are sick, deranged, lacking in moral conscience. In other words, they’re nothing like you or me. This picture of psychopathy has dominated the thinking of both laypeople and researchers. It’s at once sensational and reassuring. But this is false. There’s no major ability that psychopaths lack altogether, and their deficits are often small and circumscribed. They certainly aren’t incapable of telling right from wrong, making good decisions or experiencing empathy for other people. Instead, they suffer from a host of more mundane problems - such as being overly goal-fixated, fearless and selfish. What’s more, perhaps ‘our’ reactions are closer to ‘theirs’ than we realise. Like psychopaths, we can dial our empathy up and down; and for all the praise we heap on empathy, a closer look at this emotion suggests that it’s nearer to a kind of self-preservation instinct than any ‘warm and fuzzy’ fellow-feeling.

When debating what’s wrong with psychopaths, researchers typically pitch two competing moral theories against one another. One approach, known as rationalism, holds that judging right and wrong is a matter of reason, rather than feeling. The claim that psychopaths don't show rationalism is plain wrong. Psychopaths are as logical as you and me - in fact, they outsmart us all the time, hence their everyday depiction as connivers and con artists. So the fact that they’re rational but still capable of inhuman acts shows that moral sensibility can’t be grounded in reason alone.

Psychopaths struggle with what philosophers call ‘reasons for actions’: considerations that underlie our decisions to act, such as the likelihood that what we’ll do will satisfy our goals and won’t come into conflict with other projects or aims. Psychopaths appear to be poor at integrating all the various factors that go into making good choices, and often have poor reasons for their actions. They usually attend almost exclusively to the task at hand, and ignore relevant contextual information - although when context doesn’t play a role, they do very well. Other studies have found that psychopaths have problems reversing their responses: when actions that were previously rewarded are now punished - or actions that were previously punished are rewarded - they have problems adjusting. Most people desist and find other ways to navigate their way through, psychopaths tend not to. This insensitivity extends to social threats, such as angry faces. If you show a person pictures that they find threatening, they startle much more easily in response to loud sounds. Psychopaths respond normally to direct threats, such as an image of the gaping jaw of a shark or a striking snake, but not to social threats, such as people in pain or distress.

These findings support the rationalist idea that psychopathic immorality comes down to some inability to reason well. But you might have noticed that psychopaths don’t experience fear as often, and in the same situations, as do ordinary people. Last time I looked, fear was an emotion. This brings us back into the camp of people who think that emotion, not reason, is central to ethics. Typically they focus on empathy.

 

Q. The author of the passage is least likely to agree with which of the following?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 2

The author quotes several examples where both rational and emotional responses of psychopaths deviate from normal - For rational, the author quotes "Psychopaths struggle with what philosophers call ‘reasons for actions’: considerations that underlie our decisions to act, such as the likelihood that what we’ll do will satisfy our goals and won’t come into conflict with other projects or aims. Psychopaths appear to be poor at integrating all the various factors that go into making good choices, and often have poor reasons for their actions". And for emotional, "Psychopaths respond normally to direct threats, such as an image of the gaping jaw of a shark or a striking snake, but not to social threats, such as people in pain or distress.". Hence, we can say that both responses show deviation from normal. Hence, the author will not agree with option A.

"Psychopaths struggle with what philosophers call ‘reasons for actions’: considerations that underlie our decisions to act, such as the likelihood that what we’ll do will satisfy our goals and won’t come into conflict with other projects or aims." So, the psychopath is not capable of factoring in how his actions affect his other plans/aims, i.e., the action is devoid of contextual consideration and does not factor in the derivative effects. The author would agree with option B.

" Psychopaths respond normally to direct threats, such as an image of the gaping jaw of a shark or a striking snake, but not to social threats, such as people in pain or distress." Hence, option C is likely to receive approval as well.

"The claim that psychopaths don't show rationalism is plain wrong. Psychopaths are as logical as you and me - in fact, they outsmart us all the time, hence their everyday depiction as connivers and con artists. So the fact that they’re rational but still capable of inhuman acts shows that moral sensibility can’t be grounded in reason alone."-  Using these lines, the author implies that psychopaths are rational because their logical reasoning skills as good as anybody else's. So, their moral decision-making abilities are not dependant on their reasoning ability alone. Option D captures this accurately. The author would agree with option D.

Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 3

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Psychopaths are sick, deranged, lacking in moral conscience. In other words, they’re nothing like you or me. This picture of psychopathy has dominated the thinking of both laypeople and researchers. It’s at once sensational and reassuring. But this is false. There’s no major ability that psychopaths lack altogether, and their deficits are often small and circumscribed. They certainly aren’t incapable of telling right from wrong, making good decisions or experiencing empathy for other people. Instead, they suffer from a host of more mundane problems - such as being overly goal-fixated, fearless and selfish. What’s more, perhaps ‘our’ reactions are closer to ‘theirs’ than we realise. Like psychopaths, we can dial our empathy up and down; and for all the praise we heap on empathy, a closer look at this emotion suggests that it’s nearer to a kind of self-preservation instinct than any ‘warm and fuzzy’ fellow-feeling.

When debating what’s wrong with psychopaths, researchers typically pitch two competing moral theories against one another. One approach, known as rationalism, holds that judging right and wrong is a matter of reason, rather than feeling. The claim that psychopaths don't show rationalism is plain wrong. Psychopaths are as logical as you and me - in fact, they outsmart us all the time, hence their everyday depiction as connivers and con artists. So the fact that they’re rational but still capable of inhuman acts shows that moral sensibility can’t be grounded in reason alone.

Psychopaths struggle with what philosophers call ‘reasons for actions’: considerations that underlie our decisions to act, such as the likelihood that what we’ll do will satisfy our goals and won’t come into conflict with other projects or aims. Psychopaths appear to be poor at integrating all the various factors that go into making good choices, and often have poor reasons for their actions. They usually attend almost exclusively to the task at hand, and ignore relevant contextual information - although when context doesn’t play a role, they do very well. Other studies have found that psychopaths have problems reversing their responses: when actions that were previously rewarded are now punished - or actions that were previously punished are rewarded - they have problems adjusting. Most people desist and find other ways to navigate their way through, psychopaths tend not to. This insensitivity extends to social threats, such as angry faces. If you show a person pictures that they find threatening, they startle much more easily in response to loud sounds. Psychopaths respond normally to direct threats, such as an image of the gaping jaw of a shark or a striking snake, but not to social threats, such as people in pain or distress.

These findings support the rationalist idea that psychopathic immorality comes down to some inability to reason well. But you might have noticed that psychopaths don’t experience fear as often, and in the same situations, as do ordinary people. Last time I looked, fear was an emotion. This brings us back into the camp of people who think that emotion, not reason, is central to ethics. Typically they focus on empathy.

 

Q. Which of the following could be the next line of discussion?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 3

In the passage, the author pitches two competing moral theories against one another. One approach, known as rationalism, links moral sensibility to reason, and towards the end, a second approach links morality to emotion. Also, the author points out that the people promulgating the second approach typically focus on empathy. Hence, the next line of discussion should ideally be centred on the idea of empathy/empathetic concern and how it fares as a basis for explaining moral sensibility.  

Comparing the options, option C captures this theme correctly. Option C is the answer.

The author establishes that psychopaths experience empathy in the first paragraph. (" Like psychopaths, we can dial our empathy up and down; "). Hence, option A does not add much value to the overall discussion.

The author does not expand upon the role of fear in the passage and does not provide hints that suggest fear might have a dual role, as stated in option B. Hence, option B can be eliminated.

Option D is too narrow. The second camp typically focuses on empathy. Moreover, the author does not explicitly highlight the importance of personal distress anywhere in the passage. Hence, option D can be eliminated as well.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 4

Read the passage and answer the following questions:

Psychopaths are sick, deranged, lacking in moral conscience. In other words, they’re nothing like you or me. This picture of psychopathy has dominated the thinking of both laypeople and researchers. It’s at once sensational and reassuring. But this is false. There’s no major ability that psychopaths lack altogether, and their deficits are often small and circumscribed. They certainly aren’t incapable of telling right from wrong, making good decisions or experiencing empathy for other people. Instead, they suffer from a host of more mundane problems - such as being overly goal-fixated, fearless and selfish. What’s more, perhaps ‘our’ reactions are closer to ‘theirs’ than we realise. Like psychopaths, we can dial our empathy up and down; and for all the praise we heap on empathy, a closer look at this emotion suggests that it’s nearer to a kind of self-preservation instinct than any ‘warm and fuzzy’ fellow-feeling.

When debating what’s wrong with psychopaths, researchers typically pitch two competing moral theories against one another. One approach, known as rationalism, holds that judging right and wrong is a matter of reason, rather than feeling. The claim that psychopaths don't show rationalism is plain wrong. Psychopaths are as logical as you and me - in fact, they outsmart us all the time, hence their everyday depiction as connivers and con artists. So the fact that they’re rational but still capable of inhuman acts shows that moral sensibility can’t be grounded in reason alone.

Psychopaths struggle with what philosophers call ‘reasons for actions’: considerations that underlie our decisions to act, such as the likelihood that what we’ll do will satisfy our goals and won’t come into conflict with other projects or aims. Psychopaths appear to be poor at integrating all the various factors that go into making good choices, and often have poor reasons for their actions. They usually attend almost exclusively to the task at hand, and ignore relevant contextual information - although when context doesn’t play a role, they do very well. Other studies have found that psychopaths have problems reversing their responses: when actions that were previously rewarded are now punished - or actions that were previously punished are rewarded - they have problems adjusting. Most people desist and find other ways to navigate their way through, psychopaths tend not to. This insensitivity extends to social threats, such as angry faces. If you show a person pictures that they find threatening, they startle much more easily in response to loud sounds. Psychopaths respond normally to direct threats, such as an image of the gaping jaw of a shark or a striking snake, but not to social threats, such as people in pain or distress.

These findings support the rationalist idea that psychopathic immorality comes down to some inability to reason well. But you might have noticed that psychopaths don’t experience fear as often, and in the same situations, as do ordinary people. Last time I looked, fear was an emotion. This brings us back into the camp of people who think that emotion, not reason, is central to ethics. Typically they focus on empathy.

 

Q. Which of the following statements about empathy can be inferred from the first paragraph?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 4

"and for all the praise we heap on empathy, a closer look at this emotion suggests that it’s nearer to a kind of self-preservation instinct than any ‘warm and fuzzy’ fellow-feeling." The author posits that empathy is more of an instinct to protect oneself from harm rather than a feeling of genuine concern for others. 

Option A is wrong. The person is concerned about his/her own safety and not relieved. 

Option B cannot be inferred. Based on the information presented in the passage, it cannot be established that empathy is absent when someone else's misfortune has no bearing on us. 

Option C captures the author's view correctly. Option C is the answer.

Option D is extreme. Empathy generates concern for one's own safety, but that concern need not necessarily trigger an adaptive response that prepares the self for similar adversity. The cognitive adaption has not been implied in the passage. Hence, option D can be eliminated.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 5

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The history of sport is full of suffering. In 1973, the boxer Muhammad Ali fought with a broken jaw for at least four rounds during his first historic bout with Ken Norton. In 1993, the American footballer Emmitt Smith played the entire second half of an NFL game with a first-degree separated shoulder, his arm hanging limply at his side as he ran for a heroic 168 yards. And in 1997, the basketball player Michael Jordan was delirious with fever when he scored 38 points in Game 5 of the NBA Finals; after the final buzzer, Scottie Pippen had to carry Jordan off the court because he no longer seemed able to support his own body weight.

Why such a drive to suffer and endure? A study by the medical researcher Jonas Tesarz and colleagues at the University of Heidelberg in 2012 found that athletes had significantly higher pain tolerance than normally active people. And yet both groups had similar pain thresholds, the point at which a sensation is recognisable as pain. Training can’t make athletes numb to pain, but it can condition them to tolerate it. And that kind of self-overcoming seems somehow integral to sport itself. And of course, if you’re suffering, the chances are that your opponent is, too. Indifference to pain confers a tactical advantage.

‘I remember the best race I ever had where the pain was almost enjoyable because you see other people hurt more than you,’ one Olympic athlete admitted during a study of pain tolerance. ‘If nothing is going wrong and there are no mechanical problems during the race then sometimes you can just turn the volume up a little higher and then a little higher and other people suffer and you almost enjoy it, even though you are in pain.’

Japanese trainers have gone so far as to enshrine this marriage of pain and athletic discipline in the concept of taibatsu, which translates roughly as ‘corporal punishment’. In his piece on Japanese baseball for The Japan Times last year, Robert Whiting traces the concept to one Suishu Tobita, head coach of the fabled Waseda University team in the 1920s. Tobita advocated ‘a baseball of savage pain and a baseball practice of savage treatment’. Players nicknamed his practice sessions ‘death training’: ‘If the players do not try so hard as to vomit blood in practice,’ he said, ‘then they cannot hope to win games. One must suffer to be good.’ This ethos has survived into the present day.  The Japanese-born New York Yankees pitcher Hiroki Kuroda, has admitted that there were times in elementary school when his buttocks were beaten with a baseball bat until he couldn’t sit down.

In one sense, then, it appears that sport is largely about ignoring pain. And yet pain returns to assert itself in a strange and striking way when we look at the broader category of competitive play. In a way, pain is one of the first games we learn. We live in an inverse relation to it, claiming as ideal any form of civilisation in which the possibility of experiencing pain is minimised. It is the first and most fundamental rule we learn to follow through free will, something that roots our lives in an inescapable game-like quality. We are always ruled by pain, and those capable of breaking its hold for a few moments become our heroes, role models, and victors.

 

Q. Why does the author cite the examples of several sportspersons in the first paragraph? 

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 5

In the opening line of the paragraph, the author states that the history of sport is full of suffering. And then to validate this statement, the author quotes several examples, including that of Micheal Jordan and Mohammed Ali. The author, hence, provides examples to validate his claim that sports are full of suffering. Only option C captures this and hence is the right answer.

Options A and B can be easily eliminated because it has not been implied in the first paragraph that these sports persons were victorious or successful in their endeavour.

Option D is out of scope. The author does not talk about the fear of defeat in the first paragraph.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 6

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The history of sport is full of suffering. In 1973, the boxer Muhammad Ali fought with a broken jaw for at least four rounds during his first historic bout with Ken Norton. In 1993, the American footballer Emmitt Smith played the entire second half of an NFL game with a first-degree separated shoulder, his arm hanging limply at his side as he ran for a heroic 168 yards. And in 1997, the basketball player Michael Jordan was delirious with fever when he scored 38 points in Game 5 of the NBA Finals; after the final buzzer, Scottie Pippen had to carry Jordan off the court because he no longer seemed able to support his own body weight.

Why such a drive to suffer and endure? A study by the medical researcher Jonas Tesarz and colleagues at the University of Heidelberg in 2012 found that athletes had significantly higher pain tolerance than normally active people. And yet both groups had similar pain thresholds, the point at which a sensation is recognisable as pain. Training can’t make athletes numb to pain, but it can condition them to tolerate it. And that kind of self-overcoming seems somehow integral to sport itself. And of course, if you’re suffering, the chances are that your opponent is, too. Indifference to pain confers a tactical advantage.

‘I remember the best race I ever had where the pain was almost enjoyable because you see other people hurt more than you,’ one Olympic athlete admitted during a study of pain tolerance. ‘If nothing is going wrong and there are no mechanical problems during the race then sometimes you can just turn the volume up a little higher and then a little higher and other people suffer and you almost enjoy it, even though you are in pain.’

Japanese trainers have gone so far as to enshrine this marriage of pain and athletic discipline in the concept of taibatsu, which translates roughly as ‘corporal punishment’. In his piece on Japanese baseball for The Japan Times last year, Robert Whiting traces the concept to one Suishu Tobita, head coach of the fabled Waseda University team in the 1920s. Tobita advocated ‘a baseball of savage pain and a baseball practice of savage treatment’. Players nicknamed his practice sessions ‘death training’: ‘If the players do not try so hard as to vomit blood in practice,’ he said, ‘then they cannot hope to win games. One must suffer to be good.’ This ethos has survived into the present day.  The Japanese-born New York Yankees pitcher Hiroki Kuroda, has admitted that there were times in elementary school when his buttocks were beaten with a baseball bat until he couldn’t sit down.

In one sense, then, it appears that sport is largely about ignoring pain. And yet pain returns to assert itself in a strange and striking way when we look at the broader category of competitive play. In a way, pain is one of the first games we learn. We live in an inverse relation to it, claiming as ideal any form of civilisation in which the possibility of experiencing pain is minimised. It is the first and most fundamental rule we learn to follow through free will, something that roots our lives in an inescapable game-like quality. We are always ruled by pain, and those capable of breaking its hold for a few moments become our heroes, role models, and victors.

 

Q. Which of the following is NOT a valid inference based on the passage?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 6

Option A: The author mentions how inviting and turning up the intensity of pain confers a competitive advantage. Tolerating pain a little longer than your competitor could make all the difference {...And of course, if you’re suffering, the chances are that your opponent is, too. Indifference to pain confers a tactical advantage...} He quotes an Olympic athlete in this regard-  "If nothing is going wrong and there are no mechanical problems during the race then sometimes you can just turn the volume up a little higher and then a little higher, and other people suffer, and you almost enjoy it, even though you are in pain." Option A coincides with this idea and hence, is a valid inference. 

Option B: While the author states that "Japanese trainers have gone so far as to enshrine this marriage of pain and athletic discipline in the concept of taibatsu", he quotes Whiting and calls it 'savage'. There is no comparison undertaken in the passage concerning the opinion around 'taibatsu' being acceptable then or now. Hence, Option B is invalid. 

Option C: "We are always ruled by pain, and those capable of breaking its hold for a few moments become our heroes, role models, and victors." The statement in C aligns with the point made towards the end of the discussion, wherein the author emphasises that tolerating pain a little longer raises us to the levels of those we idolise. Thus, Option C is a valid inference. 

Option D: The statement in D correlates to the following lines from the passage: "Training can’t make athletes numb to pain, but it can condition them to tolerate it."

Hence, Option B is the correct choice.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 7

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The history of sport is full of suffering. In 1973, the boxer Muhammad Ali fought with a broken jaw for at least four rounds during his first historic bout with Ken Norton. In 1993, the American footballer Emmitt Smith played the entire second half of an NFL game with a first-degree separated shoulder, his arm hanging limply at his side as he ran for a heroic 168 yards. And in 1997, the basketball player Michael Jordan was delirious with fever when he scored 38 points in Game 5 of the NBA Finals; after the final buzzer, Scottie Pippen had to carry Jordan off the court because he no longer seemed able to support his own body weight.

Why such a drive to suffer and endure? A study by the medical researcher Jonas Tesarz and colleagues at the University of Heidelberg in 2012 found that athletes had significantly higher pain tolerance than normally active people. And yet both groups had similar pain thresholds, the point at which a sensation is recognisable as pain. Training can’t make athletes numb to pain, but it can condition them to tolerate it. And that kind of self-overcoming seems somehow integral to sport itself. And of course, if you’re suffering, the chances are that your opponent is, too. Indifference to pain confers a tactical advantage.

‘I remember the best race I ever had where the pain was almost enjoyable because you see other people hurt more than you,’ one Olympic athlete admitted during a study of pain tolerance. ‘If nothing is going wrong and there are no mechanical problems during the race then sometimes you can just turn the volume up a little higher and then a little higher and other people suffer and you almost enjoy it, even though you are in pain.’

Japanese trainers have gone so far as to enshrine this marriage of pain and athletic discipline in the concept of taibatsu, which translates roughly as ‘corporal punishment’. In his piece on Japanese baseball for The Japan Times last year, Robert Whiting traces the concept to one Suishu Tobita, head coach of the fabled Waseda University team in the 1920s. Tobita advocated ‘a baseball of savage pain and a baseball practice of savage treatment’. Players nicknamed his practice sessions ‘death training’: ‘If the players do not try so hard as to vomit blood in practice,’ he said, ‘then they cannot hope to win games. One must suffer to be good.’ This ethos has survived into the present day.  The Japanese-born New York Yankees pitcher Hiroki Kuroda, has admitted that there were times in elementary school when his buttocks were beaten with a baseball bat until he couldn’t sit down.

In one sense, then, it appears that sport is largely about ignoring pain. And yet pain returns to assert itself in a strange and striking way when we look at the broader category of competitive play. In a way, pain is one of the first games we learn. We live in an inverse relation to it, claiming as ideal any form of civilisation in which the possibility of experiencing pain is minimised. It is the first and most fundamental rule we learn to follow through free will, something that roots our lives in an inescapable game-like quality. We are always ruled by pain, and those capable of breaking its hold for a few moments become our heroes, role models, and victors.

 

Q. The author mentions Japanese-born New York Yankees pitcher Hiroki Kuroda to

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 7

In the penultimate paragraph, the author discusses the 'taibatsu' concept, which found popular acceptance in Japan as a form of training in the late 1920s. The taibatsu training is an extreme example of pain being tied with athletic discipline and being made an overt part of athletic training. The example of taibatsu is given to highlight the thinking that pain is an integral part of sports and sports training - it is in fact reflective of the athlete's discipline. Kuroda's example is given to show that this thinking continues to exist to this day.

Option D conveys the author's view correctly, as elucidated above. Option D is the answer.

Option A is far-fetched. The author does not present sufficient examples for us to conclude that the concept has produced several successful athletes.

Option B is not incorrect but is not the reason why the author mentions the Japanese pitcher.

Option C gives the reason behind why taibatsu is mentioned. But not why Kuroda is mentioned. Hence, D is the right answer.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 8

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The history of sport is full of suffering. In 1973, the boxer Muhammad Ali fought with a broken jaw for at least four rounds during his first historic bout with Ken Norton. In 1993, the American footballer Emmitt Smith played the entire second half of an NFL game with a first-degree separated shoulder, his arm hanging limply at his side as he ran for a heroic 168 yards. And in 1997, the basketball player Michael Jordan was delirious with fever when he scored 38 points in Game 5 of the NBA Finals; after the final buzzer, Scottie Pippen had to carry Jordan off the court because he no longer seemed able to support his own body weight.

Why such a drive to suffer and endure? A study by the medical researcher Jonas Tesarz and colleagues at the University of Heidelberg in 2012 found that athletes had significantly higher pain tolerance than normally active people. And yet both groups had similar pain thresholds, the point at which a sensation is recognisable as pain. Training can’t make athletes numb to pain, but it can condition them to tolerate it. And that kind of self-overcoming seems somehow integral to sport itself. And of course, if you’re suffering, the chances are that your opponent is, too. Indifference to pain confers a tactical advantage.

‘I remember the best race I ever had where the pain was almost enjoyable because you see other people hurt more than you,’ one Olympic athlete admitted during a study of pain tolerance. ‘If nothing is going wrong and there are no mechanical problems during the race then sometimes you can just turn the volume up a little higher and then a little higher and other people suffer and you almost enjoy it, even though you are in pain.’

Japanese trainers have gone so far as to enshrine this marriage of pain and athletic discipline in the concept of taibatsu, which translates roughly as ‘corporal punishment’. In his piece on Japanese baseball for The Japan Times last year, Robert Whiting traces the concept to one Suishu Tobita, head coach of the fabled Waseda University team in the 1920s. Tobita advocated ‘a baseball of savage pain and a baseball practice of savage treatment’. Players nicknamed his practice sessions ‘death training’: ‘If the players do not try so hard as to vomit blood in practice,’ he said, ‘then they cannot hope to win games. One must suffer to be good.’ This ethos has survived into the present day.  The Japanese-born New York Yankees pitcher Hiroki Kuroda, has admitted that there were times in elementary school when his buttocks were beaten with a baseball bat until he couldn’t sit down.

In one sense, then, it appears that sport is largely about ignoring pain. And yet pain returns to assert itself in a strange and striking way when we look at the broader category of competitive play. In a way, pain is one of the first games we learn. We live in an inverse relation to it, claiming as ideal any form of civilisation in which the possibility of experiencing pain is minimised. It is the first and most fundamental rule we learn to follow through free will, something that roots our lives in an inescapable game-like quality. We are always ruled by pain, and those capable of breaking its hold for a few moments become our heroes, role models, and victors.

 

Q.  The central idea of the passage is that

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 8

The author starts off by saying that pain and suffering are common in sports. He goes on to add that learning to tolerate pain is crucial to excelling in sports. Those who can tolerate pain better, gain a tactical advantage. Pain is almost seen as a positive - and is thus tied to the idea of sports discipline. The author concludes by saying that we have a complicated relationship with pain - on one hand, we try to minimize it and on the other, we idolize those who learn to tolerate it. Hence, the central idea of the passage is that tolerating pain is an integral part of sports and those who learn to do this gain a tactical advantage and rise above others.

Comparing the options, option A comes closest to the view given above. Option A is the answer.

The passage revolves around the role of pain in sports. While the author does extend this to broader life in the last paragraph, the focus remains on sports throughout the passage. Thus, options B and C, which miss the context of sports, can be eliminated.

Option D contains two distortions - enjoy pain and emerge as victors. The author states that putting one's competitors through greater pain is enjoyable to sportspersons. However, it does not state that learning to enjoy pain offers one any specific advantage. Secondly, the author does not state that those who tolerate pain better emerge as victors. The ability to tolerate pain is an advantage but not the sole advantage needed to succeed. Hence, D is incorrect.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 9

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

Fantasy politics starts from the expectation that wishes should come true, that the best outcome imaginable is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely. The great appeal of fantasy politics is that it puts you in complete control. Using the power of your imagination, you get to control not only what you will do but also how everyone else will react. Everyone recognises your awesomeness and competes to serve your interests, whether motivated by admiration or fear. 

Why is fantasy politics so popular these days? One reason is that it is so much easier than real politics. In real politics, we try to address multiple, intersecting, complicated collective action problems - like the high cost of housing or sexism in the labour market - while at the same time grappling with the deep diversity of beliefs, values, and interests within and between societies. Real politics is a difficult and time-consuming activity that usually requires dissatisfactory compromise with reality and what other people want. It is much easier to make-believe our way to our favoured outcomes.

Fantasy politics is also much more inherently satisfying than real politics. It gives us the opportunity to express our political values and loyalties and this is something that feels good in itself and has an immediate psychic payoff, regardless of whether anything we are doing is actually contributing to bringing about the outcome we claim to want. Raising the stakes in our imagination, for example by elevating a mundane legislative election to a decisive battle between good and evil, immediately makes us feel more vital and significant. Conspiracy theorising similarly raises the stakes, casting us in the role of a band of heroes, such as QAnon followers, fighting to bring to light and bring down depraved evil. All this contrasts with the meagre psychic rewards of participating in real politics, as merely one voice among millions of equals no more special than anyone else. 

The psychic benefits of fantasy politics seem especially attractive to those who feel neglected and unheard by the political system, such as the white working class in towns left behind by the modern economy. For these losers, animated by grievance, fantasy politics offers their only way to feel politically significant. Moreover, like the victim’s dreams of revenge against their bully, these resentment driven fantasies are not kind. In the mid-term, the failure of populist fantasies like Brexit (a classic example of fantasy politics) will no doubt reinforce their followers' cynicism and alienation.

It should also be mentioned that fantasy politics is everywhere these days because fantasy itself is so popular. The kookiness of America’s gun rights movement, for example, has a lot to do with its animating hero fantasy of the regular guy standing up against the bad guys or evil government. In these movie screenplays that they write themselves, the good guy never misses and the bad guys never manage to shoot straight; and when the police arrive they can immediately tell who the good guys are.

Finally, demand creates its own supply. Political entrepreneurs like Trump or Farage or Boris come out of the woodwork and start pitching more fantasy products for voters to buy- so long as large numbers of our fellow citizens are disinterested in outcomes and prefer wallowing in fantasy, populist politicians will make hay.

 

Q. The author ascribes the pervasiveness of fantasy politics today to all of the following factors EXCEPT:

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 9

The statement in Option A has not been presented in the passage. The author, in no manner, portrays that fantasy politics enables previously "unheard voices" to be heard/noticed. He indicates that people feel significant and powerful. And this feeling especially draws those who feel neglected or unheard. But this does not mean that those people are actually neglected and then heard after coming together. Hence, option A cannot be inferred.

"Fantasy politics is also much more inherently satisfying than real politics....and has an immediate psychic pay off". Therefore, Option B can be inferred from this excerpt.

"It should also be mentioned that fantasy politics is everywhere these days because fantasy itself is so popular." Hence, Option C can be inferred from this line.

"Why is fantasy politics so popular these days? One reason is that it is so much easier than real politics...Real politics is a difficult and time-consuming activity that usually requires dissatisfactory compromise with reality and what other people want." Thus, Option D aligns with the ideas that the author discusses. 

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 10

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

Fantasy politics starts from the expectation that wishes should come true, that the best outcome imaginable is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely. The great appeal of fantasy politics is that it puts you in complete control. Using the power of your imagination, you get to control not only what you will do but also how everyone else will react. Everyone recognises your awesomeness and competes to serve your interests, whether motivated by admiration or fear. 

Why is fantasy politics so popular these days? One reason is that it is so much easier than real politics. In real politics, we try to address multiple, intersecting, complicated collective action problems - like the high cost of housing or sexism in the labour market - while at the same time grappling with the deep diversity of beliefs, values, and interests within and between societies. Real politics is a difficult and time-consuming activity that usually requires dissatisfactory compromise with reality and what other people want. It is much easier to make-believe our way to our favoured outcomes.

Fantasy politics is also much more inherently satisfying than real politics. It gives us the opportunity to express our political values and loyalties and this is something that feels good in itself and has an immediate psychic payoff, regardless of whether anything we are doing is actually contributing to bringing about the outcome we claim to want. Raising the stakes in our imagination, for example by elevating a mundane legislative election to a decisive battle between good and evil, immediately makes us feel more vital and significant. Conspiracy theorising similarly raises the stakes, casting us in the role of a band of heroes, such as QAnon followers, fighting to bring to light and bring down depraved evil. All this contrasts with the meagre psychic rewards of participating in real politics, as merely one voice among millions of equals no more special than anyone else. 

The psychic benefits of fantasy politics seem especially attractive to those who feel neglected and unheard by the political system, such as the white working class in towns left behind by the modern economy. For these losers, animated by grievance, fantasy politics offers their only way to feel politically significant. Moreover, like the victim’s dreams of revenge against their bully, these resentment driven fantasies are not kind. In the mid-term, the failure of populist fantasies like Brexit (a classic example of fantasy politics) will no doubt reinforce their followers' cynicism and alienation.

It should also be mentioned that fantasy politics is everywhere these days because fantasy itself is so popular. The kookiness of America’s gun rights movement, for example, has a lot to do with its animating hero fantasy of the regular guy standing up against the bad guys or evil government. In these movie screenplays that they write themselves, the good guy never misses and the bad guys never manage to shoot straight; and when the police arrive they can immediately tell who the good guys are.

Finally, demand creates its own supply. Political entrepreneurs like Trump or Farage or Boris come out of the woodwork and start pitching more fantasy products for voters to buy- so long as large numbers of our fellow citizens are disinterested in outcomes and prefer wallowing in fantasy, populist politicians will make hay.

 

Q. The author is likely to agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 10

In the entire passage, the author attempts to bring out the fallacies of fantasy politics and make a case for real politics. Also, in the antepenultimate paragraph, the author states, "In the mid-term, the failure of populist fantasies like Brexit will no doubt reinforce their followers' cynicism and alienation." Hence, in the long-term, there is no other bona fide alternative except real politics. The author would agree with statement A.

Option B is a distortion. "..so long as large numbers of our fellow citizens are disinterested in outcomes and prefer wallowing in fantasy, populist politicians will make hay." The author argues that the citizens are disinterested, not unaware. Hence, the author is likely to disagree with the statement in option B.

"Real politics is a difficult and time-consuming activity that usually requires dissatisfactory compromise with reality and what other people want. It is much easier to make-believe our way to our favoured outcomes". Option C can be inferred.

"In the mid-term, the failure of populist fantasies like Brexit will no doubt reinforce their followers' cynicism and alienation." The author would agree with the statement in option D as well.

Option B is the answer.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 11

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

Fantasy politics starts from the expectation that wishes should come true, that the best outcome imaginable is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely. The great appeal of fantasy politics is that it puts you in complete control. Using the power of your imagination, you get to control not only what you will do but also how everyone else will react. Everyone recognises your awesomeness and competes to serve your interests, whether motivated by admiration or fear. 

Why is fantasy politics so popular these days? One reason is that it is so much easier than real politics. In real politics, we try to address multiple, intersecting, complicated collective action problems - like the high cost of housing or sexism in the labour market - while at the same time grappling with the deep diversity of beliefs, values, and interests within and between societies. Real politics is a difficult and time-consuming activity that usually requires dissatisfactory compromise with reality and what other people want. It is much easier to make-believe our way to our favoured outcomes.

Fantasy politics is also much more inherently satisfying than real politics. It gives us the opportunity to express our political values and loyalties and this is something that feels good in itself and has an immediate psychic payoff, regardless of whether anything we are doing is actually contributing to bringing about the outcome we claim to want. Raising the stakes in our imagination, for example by elevating a mundane legislative election to a decisive battle between good and evil, immediately makes us feel more vital and significant. Conspiracy theorising similarly raises the stakes, casting us in the role of a band of heroes, such as QAnon followers, fighting to bring to light and bring down depraved evil. All this contrasts with the meagre psychic rewards of participating in real politics, as merely one voice among millions of equals no more special than anyone else. 

The psychic benefits of fantasy politics seem especially attractive to those who feel neglected and unheard by the political system, such as the white working class in towns left behind by the modern economy. For these losers, animated by grievance, fantasy politics offers their only way to feel politically significant. Moreover, like the victim’s dreams of revenge against their bully, these resentment driven fantasies are not kind. In the mid-term, the failure of populist fantasies like Brexit (a classic example of fantasy politics) will no doubt reinforce their followers' cynicism and alienation.

It should also be mentioned that fantasy politics is everywhere these days because fantasy itself is so popular. The kookiness of America’s gun rights movement, for example, has a lot to do with its animating hero fantasy of the regular guy standing up against the bad guys or evil government. In these movie screenplays that they write themselves, the good guy never misses and the bad guys never manage to shoot straight; and when the police arrive they can immediately tell who the good guys are.

Finally, demand creates its own supply. Political entrepreneurs like Trump or Farage or Boris come out of the woodwork and start pitching more fantasy products for voters to buy- so long as large numbers of our fellow citizens are disinterested in outcomes and prefer wallowing in fantasy, populist politicians will make hay.

 

Q. Which of the following is a valid inference from the passage?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 11

Option A cannot be inferred. The author is wary of the popularity of fantasy politics and its impractical promises. But the author does not refer to these populist theories as evil anywhere in the passage. 

Option B has not implied in the passage. Though the failure results in followers relapsing into a state of scepticism and alienation, it cannot be inferred whether the leaders were expecting such outcomes. 

The author begins the discussion by stating the following: "Fantasy politics starts from the expectation that wishes should come true, that the best outcome imaginable is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely. The great appeal of fantasy politics is that it puts you in complete control. Using the power of your imagination, you get to control not only what you will do but also how everyone else will react..." Note the author's tone in the passage - he does not appear to be a big fan of fantasy politics. In this introductory part, the author highlights the underlying elements that contribute to the appeal of fantasy politics. There is a subtle tinge of sarcasm wherein the author emphasises the way individuals feel when they engage in fantasy politics - it makes you feel in control; are you truly in control? Not so much! Subsequently, the author delves into the reason behind the appeal of fantasy politics and highlights how quotidian/everyday situations are elevated to the level of decisive moral battles. Thus, given the points underlined in the passage, the false sense of control imparted by indulgence in fantasy politics adds to its appeal. Option C aligns with this idea.

Option D is incorrect. The author does not make such an assertion. 

Hence, Option C is the correct choice.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 12

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

Fantasy politics starts from the expectation that wishes should come true, that the best outcome imaginable is not just possible but overwhelmingly likely. The great appeal of fantasy politics is that it puts you in complete control. Using the power of your imagination, you get to control not only what you will do but also how everyone else will react. Everyone recognises your awesomeness and competes to serve your interests, whether motivated by admiration or fear. 

Why is fantasy politics so popular these days? One reason is that it is so much easier than real politics. In real politics, we try to address multiple, intersecting, complicated collective action problems - like the high cost of housing or sexism in the labour market - while at the same time grappling with the deep diversity of beliefs, values, and interests within and between societies. Real politics is a difficult and time-consuming activity that usually requires dissatisfactory compromise with reality and what other people want. It is much easier to make-believe our way to our favoured outcomes.

Fantasy politics is also much more inherently satisfying than real politics. It gives us the opportunity to express our political values and loyalties and this is something that feels good in itself and has an immediate psychic payoff, regardless of whether anything we are doing is actually contributing to bringing about the outcome we claim to want. Raising the stakes in our imagination, for example by elevating a mundane legislative election to a decisive battle between good and evil, immediately makes us feel more vital and significant. Conspiracy theorising similarly raises the stakes, casting us in the role of a band of heroes, such as QAnon followers, fighting to bring to light and bring down depraved evil. All this contrasts with the meagre psychic rewards of participating in real politics, as merely one voice among millions of equals no more special than anyone else. 

The psychic benefits of fantasy politics seem especially attractive to those who feel neglected and unheard by the political system, such as the white working class in towns left behind by the modern economy. For these losers, animated by grievance, fantasy politics offers their only way to feel politically significant. Moreover, like the victim’s dreams of revenge against their bully, these resentment driven fantasies are not kind. In the mid-term, the failure of populist fantasies like Brexit (a classic example of fantasy politics) will no doubt reinforce their followers' cynicism and alienation.

It should also be mentioned that fantasy politics is everywhere these days because fantasy itself is so popular. The kookiness of America’s gun rights movement, for example, has a lot to do with its animating hero fantasy of the regular guy standing up against the bad guys or evil government. In these movie screenplays that they write themselves, the good guy never misses and the bad guys never manage to shoot straight; and when the police arrive they can immediately tell who the good guys are.

Finally, demand creates its own supply. Political entrepreneurs like Trump or Farage or Boris come out of the woodwork and start pitching more fantasy products for voters to buy- so long as large numbers of our fellow citizens are disinterested in outcomes and prefer wallowing in fantasy, populist politicians will make hay.

 

Q. The author’s tone towards followers of fantasy politics can best be described as being:

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 12

The author ridicules the popularity of fantasy politics using sarcastic and ironic examples in the passage. Here is one such example- "The psychic benefits of fantasy politics seem especially attractive to those who feel neglected and unheard by the political system, such as the white working class in towns left behind by the modern economy. For these losers, animated by grievance, fantasy politics offers their only way to feel politically significant."

In the third paragraph, the author ridicules those endorsing fantasy politics, claiming that they express their political views while not really making an impact on a personal level. Additionally, in the penultimate paragraph, the author further ridicules fantasy politics, citing the eccentricity of the American gun rights movement.

Hence, Option D is the answer.

The author is not explicitly critical. Option A can be eliminated.

The author is not ambivalent. He is unilaterally in favour of real politics.

The author does not plead for action. Hence, option C can be eliminated.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 13

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The most well-understood dimension of racism involves taking actions that people of colour view as overtly prejudiced—policing black citizens much differently than whites, calling the police on a black bird-watcher in Central Park who is asking you to obey the law, calling somebody the N-word to show them who is boss. This is racism in the first degree. If officers anticipated that they would be held fully accountable for bad policing, they would do more good policing and we could begin healing the wounds they’ve inflicted on black people for centuries.

Then there is opposing or turning one’s back on anti-racism efforts, often justified by the demonization of the people courageously tackling racist behaviour. I call this racism in the second degree, akin to aiding and abetting.
The final, most pernicious category undergirds the everyday black experience. When employers, educational institutions, and governmental entities do not unwind practices that disadvantage people of colour in the competition with whites for economic and career mobility, that is fundamentally racist—not to mention cancerous to our economy and inconsistent with the American dream. For example, the majority of white executives operate as if there is a tension between increasing racial diversity and maintaining the excellence-based “meritocracies” that have made their organizations successful. After all, who in their right mind would argue against the concept of meritocracy?

Employers whose efforts to increase diversity lack the same analytical and executional rigour that is taken for granted in every other part of their business engage in practices that disadvantage black people in the competition for economic opportunity. By default, this behaviour protects white people’s positions of power.

We can increase the cost of this behaviour by calling on major employers to sign on to basic practices that demonstrate that black lives matter to them. Companies that sign on will be recognized and celebrated. Senior management teams that decline to take these basic steps will no longer be able to hide, and they will struggle to recruit and retain top talent of all colours who will prefer firms that have signed on. Then more people of colour will become economically mobile, organizations will become more diverse and competitive, and there will be a critical mass of black leaders whose institutional influence leads to more racially equitable behaviour. These leaders will also have the economic power to further elevate the cost of all other types of racist behaviour, in policing, criminal justice, housing, K-12 education, and health care—systems that for decades have been putting knees on the necks of our most vulnerable citizens and communities.

Third-degree racism can be deadly. For at least the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mandated that in order to get tested, you had to go to a primary care doctor to get a prescription and then, in some areas, also get a referral to a specialist who could approve a test, because they were in limited supply. That process made it much harder for minorities to access tests because they are much less likely to have primary-care physicians. If the people who designed that process knew upfront that they would be exposed as racist, fired, and ostracized if their approach put minorities at a greater health risk than white people, they would have designed it differently and saved black lives. Just having a critical mass of minorities in decision-making roles regarding that test-qualification process would have also saved many lives.

 

Q. Which of the following is an example of second-degree racism?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 13

On referring to the following excerpt from the first paragraph, we can see that Options A and B are examples of racism of the first degree: {...The most well-understood dimension of racism involves taking actions that people of colour view as overtly prejudiced—policing black citizens much differently than whites, calling the police on a black bird-watcher in Central Park who is asking you to obey the law, calling somebody the N-word to show them who is boss. This is racism in the first degree...}

{...The final, most pernicious category undergirds the everyday black experience. When employers, educational institutions, and governmental entities do not unwind practices that disadvantage people of colour in the competition with whites for economic and career mobility...}.These lines highlight the disadvantages that people of colour face at their workplaces, often labelled as third-degree racism. Option D serves as an example of the same. 

The author describes second-degree racism as follows: {...Then there is opposing or turning one’s back on anti-racism efforts, often justified by the demonization of the people courageously tackling racist behaviour. I call this racism in the second degree, akin to aiding and abetting...} Option C is an example reflective of second-degree racism - punishing those who support anti-racism efforts.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice. 

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 14

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The most well-understood dimension of racism involves taking actions that people of colour view as overtly prejudiced—policing black citizens much differently than whites, calling the police on a black bird-watcher in Central Park who is asking you to obey the law, calling somebody the N-word to show them who is boss. This is racism in the first degree. If officers anticipated that they would be held fully accountable for bad policing, they would do more good policing and we could begin healing the wounds they’ve inflicted on black people for centuries.

Then there is opposing or turning one’s back on anti-racism efforts, often justified by the demonization of the people courageously tackling racist behaviour. I call this racism in the second degree, akin to aiding and abetting.
The final, most pernicious category undergirds the everyday black experience. When employers, educational institutions, and governmental entities do not unwind practices that disadvantage people of colour in the competition with whites for economic and career mobility, that is fundamentally racist—not to mention cancerous to our economy and inconsistent with the American dream. For example, the majority of white executives operate as if there is a tension between increasing racial diversity and maintaining the excellence-based “meritocracies” that have made their organizations successful. After all, who in their right mind would argue against the concept of meritocracy?

Employers whose efforts to increase diversity lack the same analytical and executional rigour that is taken for granted in every other part of their business engage in practices that disadvantage black people in the competition for economic opportunity. By default, this behaviour protects white people’s positions of power.

We can increase the cost of this behaviour by calling on major employers to sign on to basic practices that demonstrate that black lives matter to them. Companies that sign on will be recognized and celebrated. Senior management teams that decline to take these basic steps will no longer be able to hide, and they will struggle to recruit and retain top talent of all colours who will prefer firms that have signed on. Then more people of colour will become economically mobile, organizations will become more diverse and competitive, and there will be a critical mass of black leaders whose institutional influence leads to more racially equitable behaviour. These leaders will also have the economic power to further elevate the cost of all other types of racist behaviour, in policing, criminal justice, housing, K-12 education, and health care—systems that for decades have been putting knees on the necks of our most vulnerable citizens and communities.

Third-degree racism can be deadly. For at least the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mandated that in order to get tested, you had to go to a primary care doctor to get a prescription and then, in some areas, also get a referral to a specialist who could approve a test, because they were in limited supply. That process made it much harder for minorities to access tests because they are much less likely to have primary-care physicians. If the people who designed that process knew upfront that they would be exposed as racist, fired, and ostracized if their approach put minorities at a greater health risk than white people, they would have designed it differently and saved black lives. Just having a critical mass of minorities in decision-making roles regarding that test-qualification process would have also saved many lives.

 

Q. Why does the author cite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's COVID-19 pandemic response in the final paragraph?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 14

Through the passage, the author first introduces us to the three forms of racism. She then puts forward ideas to tackle third-degree racism. Finally, in the last paragraph, the author highlights what is at stake - not fighting third-degree racism could cost us many lives. Of the options, only option A highlights the purpose of the example - showing the impact of third-degree racism with the help of an example. 

The example of pandemic response is used to make a larger point of how we need to tackle third-degree racism. As options B and C focus on the example instead of the larger point, they are incorrect. Moreover, option B is an extreme statement.

Option D is in line with the passage - and it is a valid conclusion that can derived from the last paragraph. However, it does not answer "why" the example is given. The purpose behind the example is captured by option A and hence is the right answer.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 15

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The most well-understood dimension of racism involves taking actions that people of colour view as overtly prejudiced—policing black citizens much differently than whites, calling the police on a black bird-watcher in Central Park who is asking you to obey the law, calling somebody the N-word to show them who is boss. This is racism in the first degree. If officers anticipated that they would be held fully accountable for bad policing, they would do more good policing and we could begin healing the wounds they’ve inflicted on black people for centuries.

Then there is opposing or turning one’s back on anti-racism efforts, often justified by the demonization of the people courageously tackling racist behaviour. I call this racism in the second degree, akin to aiding and abetting.
The final, most pernicious category undergirds the everyday black experience. When employers, educational institutions, and governmental entities do not unwind practices that disadvantage people of colour in the competition with whites for economic and career mobility, that is fundamentally racist—not to mention cancerous to our economy and inconsistent with the American dream. For example, the majority of white executives operate as if there is a tension between increasing racial diversity and maintaining the excellence-based “meritocracies” that have made their organizations successful. After all, who in their right mind would argue against the concept of meritocracy?

Employers whose efforts to increase diversity lack the same analytical and executional rigour that is taken for granted in every other part of their business engage in practices that disadvantage black people in the competition for economic opportunity. By default, this behaviour protects white people’s positions of power.

We can increase the cost of this behaviour by calling on major employers to sign on to basic practices that demonstrate that black lives matter to them. Companies that sign on will be recognized and celebrated. Senior management teams that decline to take these basic steps will no longer be able to hide, and they will struggle to recruit and retain top talent of all colours who will prefer firms that have signed on. Then more people of colour will become economically mobile, organizations will become more diverse and competitive, and there will be a critical mass of black leaders whose institutional influence leads to more racially equitable behaviour. These leaders will also have the economic power to further elevate the cost of all other types of racist behaviour, in policing, criminal justice, housing, K-12 education, and health care—systems that for decades have been putting knees on the necks of our most vulnerable citizens and communities.

Third-degree racism can be deadly. For at least the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mandated that in order to get tested, you had to go to a primary care doctor to get a prescription and then, in some areas, also get a referral to a specialist who could approve a test, because they were in limited supply. That process made it much harder for minorities to access tests because they are much less likely to have primary-care physicians. If the people who designed that process knew upfront that they would be exposed as racist, fired, and ostracized if their approach put minorities at a greater health risk than white people, they would have designed it differently and saved black lives. Just having a critical mass of minorities in decision-making roles regarding that test-qualification process would have also saved many lives.

 

Q. Which of the following is the author of the passage most likely to agree with?

Detailed Solution for CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 15

"If officers anticipated that they would be held fully accountable for bad policing, they would do more good policing and we could begin healing the wounds they’ve inflicted on black people for centuries."

"If the people who designed that process knew upfront that they would be exposed as racist, fired, and ostracized if their approach put minorities at a greater health risk than white people, they would have designed it differently and saved black lives."

The above examples suggest that the author blames the apparent impunity for the pervasiveness of racism. Hence, option A is likely to receive the author's approval.

" For example, the majority of white executives operate as if there is a tension between increasing racial diversity and maintaining the excellence-based “meritocracies” that have made their organizations successful."

The above line from the passage means that to a lot of white executives, hiring people of colour is akin to compromising of merit. This has been condemned by the author in the passage. The author, through the passage, means to say that efforts to increase racial diversity and maintain meritocracy are not contrary to each other. Option B is incorrect.

On reading the last para of the passage, we can understand that the author wants the government to make the process of getting vaccinated easier so that the minorities do not face as many difficulties as they actually had to. He does not ask the government to give them more priority over others. Option C is incorrect.

Option D is close but incorrect. The author argues that companies that do not implement basic diversity practices will be shunned by good talent and thus suffer. The author proposes an indirect punishment and not government intervention. As the option goes against the author's proposed policy, we can say that the author is less likely to agree with it.

CAT Mock Test- 1 - Question 16

Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

The most well-understood dimension of racism involves taking actions that people of colour view as overtly prejudiced—policing black citizens much differently than whites, calling the police on a black bird-watcher in Central Park who is asking you to obey the law, calling somebody the N-word to show them who is boss. This is racism in the first degree. If officers anticipated that they would be held fully accountable for bad policing, they would do more good policing and we could begin healing the wounds they’ve inflicted on black people for centuries.

Then there is opposing or turning one’s back on anti-racism efforts, often justified by the demonization of the people courageously tackling racist behaviour. I call this racism in the second degree, akin to aiding and abetting.
The final, most pernicious category undergirds the everyday black experience. When employers, educational institutions, and governmental entities do not unwind practices that disadvantage people of colour in the competition with whites for economic and career mobility, that is fundamentally racist—not to mention cancerous to our e