NMAT Language Skills MCQ Quiz - 2 - CAT MCQ

Most nuclear fuels undergo spontaneous fission only very slowly, decaying mainly via an alpha/beta decay chain over periods of millennia to eons. In a nuclear reactor or nuclear weapon, most fission events are____ A ____by bombardment with another particle such as a neutron. Nuclear fission differs from other forms of radioactive decay in that it can be harnessed and controlled via a chain reaction: free neutrons released by each fission event can____B____yet more events, which in turn release more neutrons and cause more fission. Concerns over nuclear waste___ C___ and over the destructive potential of nuclear weapons may____ D____ the desirable qualities of fission as an energy source, and give rise to ongoing political debate over nuclear power.

Q. D

Replace the underlined part with the correct option.

Even when dealing with friends and close acquaintances, there are minor "dalliances" that introverts would just really rather avoid if they could.

A sentence is divided into five parts, with a number assigned to each part. Identify the part that has a grammatical error. The number of that part is the answer.

1. Anyone may now publish pages on the Web

2. and professional designers have been scathing

3. about the untutored typographical hotchpotches

4. which have been the result

5. and issue warnings about the need for care.

Replace the underlined part with the correct option.

The "modernity" of body shape varied widely over the last few centuries - The stout were sometimes considered attractive and at other times sick.

Identify the part in the sentence below that has a grammatical error. The number of that part is the answer. Ignore punctuation errors, if any.

1. At the Drones Club and other places,

2 . I am accustomed to frequently,

3. you will often hear comments on my self-control or sangfroid, 

4. as it’s sometimes called,

5. and it is generally agreed that this is considerable.

Fill in the blank with the appropriate option.

If at any time I have slipped into_________for a day or two, its record has been there, staring me in the face, and demanding of me increased________.

Arrange the jumbled sentences in order.

A. The gun went off, and the five racers began to run with great abandon, until one of them fell down.

B. We had watched the grand circle of athletes as they marched around the field.

C. Then another jogged over and hugged from the other side.

D. The closest one responded first, and ran right to her, hugging her and seeing if she was OK.

E. One of the most inspiring moments of my life was watching a group of five runners at a middle school/high school Special Olympics meet in Asheville, N.C.

Arrange the jumbled sentences in order.

A. A graceful loser, feels bad, but puts up a brave front, accepts defeat, congratulates the winner with a smile and makes sure that next time he will put up a brilliant performance.

B . A sore loser gets angry quickly, and blames the winner in som e way.

C. Winning and losing is just a consequence!

D. A graceful loser knows that what is important is to put your heart and soul in the performance or work.

E. If you lose, you have two options - be a sore loser or a graceful loser.

Arrange the jumbled sentences in order.

A. “Our research shows that people consume 40 percent more water if that’s the first thing they see,” Dr. Welle said.

B. Healthier snacks (almonds, peanuts, dried kiwi and dried banana chips) are in transparent glass jars.

C. Candy (M&Ms, plain and peanut; TCHO brand luxury chocolate bars, chewing gum, Life Savers) is in opaque ceramic jars that sport prominent nutritional labels.

D. Perhaps New York City can take a cue from this and hide super size sodas rather than ban them.

E. In Los Angeles, in coolers, sodas are concealed behind translucent glass. A variety of waters and juices are immediately visible.

Arrange the jumbled sentences in order.

A. To another objection likely to be made, that they cover only a part of the ground, it can only be replied that they do not pretend to be systematic or complete.

B. If it be objected that some of these pages are written in a lightness of vein not quite congruous with the gravity of the subject and the seriousness of its issues.

C. The excuse must be that they were written with perfect freedom, most of them as anonymous contributions to popular journals.

D. Some of the essays, however, dealing with points of speculative scientific interest, may redress the balance, and be thought sufficiently heavy if not solid.

E. And also that an argument may not be the less sound or an exposition less effective for being playful.

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions — the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more “productive” pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on “unproductive” pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isn’t it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?

Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.

Q. What is the central idea of the passage?

Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions — the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more “productive” pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on “unproductive” pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isn’t it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?

Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.

Q. What can be inferred from the statement “Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market”?

Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions — the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more “productive” pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on “unproductive” pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isn’t it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?

Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.

Q. What is the antonym of the word “expend”?

Water, electricity, transport, education, health, financial transactions — the average rural resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the average urban resident. The poor urban resident spends much more time on these pursuits than the rich urban resident. Stated differently, since some services have been outsourced, so to speak, the relatively rich person has more time to spend on more “productive” pursuits. Conversely, the relatively poor person spends a lot of time on “unproductive” pursuits that are unnecessarily in-sourced. Isn’t it surprising that there is little research in India on what poor people spend their time on? If you are poor, you will spend more of your income on food. If you are rich, you will have more discretionary income. There is plenty of stuff on distribution of consumption expenditure, nothing on distribution of time. Part of the reason is lack of data, since the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) asks questions on consumption expenditure, not on time expended. But surely it would be interesting to obtain answers to such questions?

Does it make a difference? Low per capita consumption expenditure and high share of time spent on unproductive pursuits are likely to be correlated. If nothing else, it makes a difference in terms of mindset. Consumption and income are outcomes of a process of engaging with the labour market. Time is more in the nature of an input. We have plenty of public expenditure schemes for what can broadly be called public goods and services. If we focus on consumption expenditure, the mindset is one of enhancing consumption expenditure and income and therefore, the lens becomes one of income transfers and subsidies, rather than the causes of low consumption expenditure or income. If, in addition (not as a replacement), we focus on time, we will begin to recognise that in-sourcing occurs because of a lack of collective goods. Whether it is Union or state resources, the kitty for public expenditure is limited. Because of market failures, there is scope for private-sector engagement in such areas, but it is also limited. Therefore, there is a question of prioritisation in the expenditure of public resources.

Q. What is the author's tone in the above passage?

Choose the correct synonym for the word below from the options provided.

Mawkish

Choose the correct antonym for the word below from the options provided.

Polyglot

Choose the correct synonym for the word below from the options provided.

Crepuscular

Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate sequence of prepositions given below.

___ the infants who were exposed ___ the pattern, brain activity was detected ___ the visual areas__the brain, even when the image didn’t appear as expected.

Fill in the blanks with prepositions:

Purported___treat a variety of ailments,_____ fevers____ measles to epilepsy, rhinoceros horns have been prized ingredients___Chinese medicines___ thousands of years.

Fill in the blanks with prepositions:

The way gas is priced ___our country shows that the government is ____ the side of entities that would like___see pro-environment groups banished; it doesn’t behove the government___join those entities____ fearing Greenpeace.

Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate set of words from the given options.

__the time he was waiting he had taken note __ the furniture so that he should not knock __a chair or a table.

Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate set of words from the given options.

You went__side streets__ the harbour,__ the darkness,__ a rickety bridge, till you came __a deserted road.

Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate set of words from the given options.

__the little ferry, threading her way __ the silent sea ,__ all those lovely islands, was enacted a drama__which the captain remained entirely ignorant.

Group Question

A passage is followed by questions pertaining to the passage. Read the passage and answer the questions. Choose the most appropriate answer.

The tangled web of international organizations that constitutes global governance has become so remote and ineffective that few count on it to deliver results anymore. Now, after decades of turf wars and self-marginalization, international organizations must rally around an increasingly pressing global priority: sustainable urbanization. The world is undergoing an unprecedented and irreversible wave of urbanization, with the share of the global population living in cities set to reach 60% by 2030. But rapid urbanization is driving up industrial fossil-fuel consumption and household water consumption, and is increasing demand for food in areas where arable land is scarce. In short, the current urbanization trajectory is not sustainable. But existing efforts to alter the situation remain woefully inadequate.

Moreover, international development players - including UN agencies, NGOs, corporate citizenship programs, and other charitable organizations - rarely coordinate their activities, even though their interventions are increasingly concentrated in densely populated cities. Given that promoting sustainable urbanization and improving coordination would bolster progress in other priority areas (including women’s rights, climate change, youth unemployment, and literacy), sustainable urbanization must become a bureaucratic priority. And it must be complemented by a technological disruption, with investments channeled toward developing and distributing innovations that would make cities more livable, efficient, and sustainable. In fact, many useful innovations, such as energy-generating building materials and zero-emissions transportation, already exist; they simply need to be made accessible to those who need them most.The future impact of global governance rests on forging new alignments that facilitate the flow of vital knowledge and technologies from an increasingly diverse array of sources to urban populations worldwide. The tools needed to make urban life more sustainable are no longer flowing only from North to South and West to East. China has taken the lead in exporting solar photovoltaic cells, while clean-tech parks are arising even in the Arab world.

With new, innovative solutions appearing every day, the real challenge lies in bringing them to scale - and that requires international cooperation. But the “smartest” cities are not necessarily the most technologically advanced. Rather, they are the places where technology and public policy support citizens’ welfare and aspirations. This crucial fact will guide discussion at the New Cities Foundation’s second annual summit in June - the theme of which is “The Human City” - and should be at the heart of sustainable urbanization initiatives. Making sustainable urbanization a strategic priority might be the only way to overcome the interrelated crises of jobless growth, youth unemployment, and income inequality. While some factory jobs can be outsourced or automated, robots cannot yet retrofit buildings, install solar PV cells on rooftops, or construct vertical farms.

Q. What is the thematic highlight of the passage? 

The tangled web of international organizations that constitutes global governance has become so remote and ineffective that few count on it to deliver results anymore. Now, after decades of turf wars and self-marginalization, international organizations must rally around an increasingly pressing global priority: sustainable urbanization. The world is undergoing an unprecedented and irreversible wave of urbanization, with the share of the global population living in cities set to reach 60% by 2030. But rapid urbanization is driving up industrial fossil-fuel consumption and household water consumption, and is increasing demand for food in areas where arable land is scarce. In short, the current urbanization trajectory is not sustainable. But existing efforts to alter the situation remain woefully inadequate.

Moreover, international development players - including UN agencies, NGOs, corporate citizenship programs, and other charitable organizations - rarely coordinate their activities, even though their interventions are increasingly concentrated in densely populated cities. Given that promoting sustainable urbanization and improving coordination would bolster progress in other priority areas (including women’s rights, climate change, youth unemployment, and literacy), sustainable urbanization must become a bureaucratic priority. And it must be complemented by a technological disruption, with investments channeled toward developing and distributing innovations that would make cities more livable, efficient, and sustainable. In fact, many useful innovations, such as energy-generating building materials and zero-emissions transportation, already exist; they simply need to be made accessible to those who need them most.The future impact of global governance rests on forging new alignments that facilitate the flow of vital knowledge and technologies from an increasingly diverse array of sources to urban populations worldwide. The tools needed to make urban life more sustainable are no longer flowing only from North to South and West to East. China has taken the lead in exporting solar photovoltaic cells, while clean-tech parks are arising even in the Arab world.

With new, innovative solutions appearing every day, the real challenge lies in bringing them to scale - and that requires international cooperation. But the “smartest” cities are not necessarily the most technologically advanced. Rather, they are the places where technology and public policy support citizens’ welfare and aspirations. This crucial fact will guide discussion at the New Cities Foundation’s second annual summit in June - the theme of which is “The Human City” - and should be at the heart of sustainable urbanization initiatives. Making sustainable urbanization a strategic priority might be the only way to overcome the interrelated crises of jobless growth, youth unemployment, and income inequality. While some factory jobs can be outsourced or automated, robots cannot yet retrofit buildings, install solar PV cells on rooftops, or construct vertical farms.

Q. Which of the following is a hindrance to sustainable urbanization?

The tangled web of international organizations that constitutes global governance has become so remote and ineffective that few count on it to deliver results anymore. Now, after decades of turf wars and self-marginalization, international organizations must rally around an increasingly pressing global priority: sustainable urbanization. The world is undergoing an unprecedented and irreversible wave of urbanization, with the share of the global population living in cities set to reach 60% by 2030. But rapid urbanization is driving up industrial fossil-fuel consumption and household water consumption, and is increasing demand for food in areas where arable land is scarce. In short, the current urbanization trajectory is not sustainable. But existing efforts to alter the situation remain woefully inadequate.

Moreover, international development players - including UN agencies, NGOs, corporate citizenship programs, and other charitable organizations - rarely coordinate their activities, even though their interventions are increasingly concentrated in densely populated cities. Given that promoting sustainable urbanization and improving coordination would bolster progress in other priority areas (including women’s rights, climate change, youth unemployment, and literacy), sustainable urbanization must become a bureaucratic priority. And it must be complemented by a technological disruption, with investments channeled toward developing and distributing innovations that would make cities more livable, efficient, and sustainable. In fact, many useful innovations, such as energy-generating building materials and zero-emissions transportation, already exist; they simply need to be made accessible to those who need them most.The future impact of global governance rests on forging new alignments that facilitate the flow of vital knowledge and technologies from an increasingly diverse array of sources to urban populations worldwide. The tools needed to make urban life more sustainable are no longer flowing only from North to South and West to East. China has taken the lead in exporting solar photovoltaic cells, while clean-tech parks are arising even in the Arab world.

With new, innovative solutions appearing every day, the real challenge lies in bringing them to scale - and that requires international cooperation. But the “smartest” cities are not necessarily the most technologically advanced. Rather, they are the places where technology and public policy support citizens’ welfare and aspirations. This crucial fact will guide discussion at the New Cities Foundation’s second annual summit in June - the theme of which is “The Human City” - and should be at the heart of sustainable urbanization initiatives. Making sustainable urbanization a strategic priority might be the only way to overcome the interrelated crises of jobless growth, youth unemployment, and income inequality. While some factory jobs can be outsourced or automated, robots cannot yet retrofit buildings, install solar PV cells on rooftops, or construct vertical farms.

Q. What is the tone of the passage?

The tangled web of international organizations that constitutes global governance has become so remote and ineffective that few count on it to deliver results anymore. Now, after decades of turf wars and self-marginalization, international organizations must rally around an increasingly pressing global priority: sustainable urbanization. The world is undergoing an unprecedented and irreversible wave of urbanization, with the share of the global population living in cities set to reach 60% by 2030. But rapid urbanization is driving up industrial fossil-fuel consumption and household water consumption, and is increasing demand for food in areas where arable land is scarce. In short, the current urbanization trajectory is not sustainable. But existing efforts to alter the situation remain woefully inadequate.

Moreover, international development players - including UN agencies, NGOs, corporate citizenship programs, and other charitable organizations - rarely coordinate their activities, even though their interventions are increasingly concentrated in densely populated cities. Given that promoting sustainable urbanization and improving coordination would bolster progress in other priority areas (including women’s rights, climate change, youth unemployment, and literacy), sustainable urbanization must become a bureaucratic priority. And it must be complemented by a technological disruption, with investments channeled toward developing and distributing innovations that would make cities more livable, efficient, and sustainable. In fact, many useful innovations, such as energy-generating building materials and zero-emissions transportation, already exist; they simply need to be made accessible to those who need them most.The future impact of global governance rests on forging new alignments that facilitate the flow of vital knowledge and technologies from an increasingly diverse array of sources to urban populations worldwide. The tools needed to make urban life more sustainable are no longer flowing only from North to South and West to East. China has taken the lead in exporting solar photovoltaic cells, while clean-tech parks are arising even in the Arab world.

With new, innovative solutions appearing every day, the real challenge lies in bringing them to scale - and that requires international cooperation. But the “smartest” cities are not necessarily the most technologically advanced. Rather, they are the places where technology and public policy support citizens’ welfare and aspirations. This crucial fact will guide discussion at the New Cities Foundation’s second annual summit in June - the theme of which is “The Human City” - and should be at the heart of sustainable urbanization initiatives. Making sustainable urbanization a strategic priority might be the only way to overcome the interrelated crises of jobless growth, youth unemployment, and income inequality. While some factory jobs can be outsourced or automated, robots cannot yet retrofit buildings, install solar PV cells on rooftops, or construct vertical farms.

Q.According to the passage, which one of the following statements is false?