Logical Reasoning- 2 - Free MCQ Practice Test with solutions, CLAT Reasoning

Option (c) is correct. The contradiction lies in suppressing public dissent and protest in support of Gaza, while still claiming to uphold democratic freedoms. There are several examples given in the passage to establish this. ‘Local journalists are killed. Foreign aid is blocked. Local relief workers are murdered. International courts and human rights organisations speak with one voice about the criminality of what is occurring. They are summarily ignored or attacked by Israel’s sponsors.’ Hence (c).

Option (c) is correct. The passage suggests that even as audiences become numb, certain images still pierce through and generate moral disruption. It is understood from the following lines of the passage, ‘as cameras capture them piled together, some in entire families. Israel’s assault on Gaza defies inurement. As time goes by, even as the threshold for what is seen as intolerable increases, the graphic and varied forms of killing continue to scale the hurdle of numbness.’ Hence (c).

Option (d) is correct. The passage asserts that despite legal and factual clarity, Israel’s sponsors block accountability, rendering tribunals powerless. The last paragraph states these two lines which indicate the above mentioned emotion in the option (d). ‘And still, despite efforts to block outsiders and silence those inside, the evidence of the illegality and disproportionality of Israel’s campaign in Gaza continues to mount.’ And Tiow many such crimes, committed and buried under cover of Gaza’s darkness, without footage to contradict Israel’s claims, have taken place.’ Hence (d).

Option (b) is correct. The language suggests a moral equivalence between unequal actors, minimizing the scale and nature of the violence. The second paragraph highlights this. ‘All the while, politics does one of two things. Either it smoothes over this historic calamity, resorting to the bland language of encouragements to return to the negotiating table, as if it were all some regrettable falling-out that could be resolved if only heads cooled a little, or the calamity is reversed. Calling for it to stop, rather than being the most natural of human instincts, is now an impulse that in some countries meets the bar of arrest or removal.’ Hence (b).

Option (c) is correct. The footage and testimonies serve as counter-evidence to official claims, reinforcing the reality of what is happening. Throughout the passage it has been pointed out that there are numerous evidences being piled up, but no concrete action is yet taken, nor are these acknowledged. Hence (c).

Option (c) is correct. The option states the contradiction of what the sentence states. It states that the boy was ‘dismayed', that means, he was disheartened at the Lack of ecological consideration. The overall inference is that the boy likely hoped to work on a project that respected or incorporated the local environment, but instead found himself part of a development focused purely on functionality and urbanization, disregarding ecological concerns. This mismatch between expectations and reality caused his dismay. As the preceding sentence states that ‘His alma mater had also been built on extensive terraculture undertaken by Rabindranath Tagore in order to create a biodiverse ecosystem on the rocky-red barrenness of Birbhum.’ The rest of the options are rightly inferred from the sentence. Hence (c).

Option (b) is correct. The questions challenge the way humans categorize and value other living beings based on utility, aesthetics, or convenience, rather than intrinsic worth. Option (a) is incorrect. The questions highlight that our choices (e.g., pets vs. pests, ornamental vs. weeds) are not purely based on objective traits of the species, but rather on human values, perceptions, or societal norms. Option (c) is ruled out because these questions suggest that these labels are not inherent to the animals or plants themselves but are assigned by humans based on context or cultural standards. Hence (b).

Option (d) is correct. It states the opposite of what is conveyed in the passage. The rest of the sentences indicate the difficulty of engaging deeply with language— its nuances, meanings, and power that can be mentally exhausting or intellectually demanding. It implies that the act of analyzing or understanding the complexities and influence of words requires intense mental effort. Hence (d).

Option (c) is correct. It is the contrast of what is suggested in the passage. The second paragraph clearly indicates the rest of the sentences. ‘Manna has long been interested in documenting and preserving narratives of non-human life forms. He works with the weight of the awareness that the Anthropocene has wiped innumerable species off the face of our planet and pushed many more to the brink of extinction. Human consumption has been the driving force that has determined Earth’s fortunes or, more aptly, its misfortunes. Every other form of life has been deemed lesser than that of human beings and can be treated with greed and violence to profit the dominant species.’ Hence (c).

Option (b) is correct.

Option (c) is correct.

Option (c) is correct.

Option (b) is correct.

Option (b) is correct. The core of the argument is that despite education, graduates struggle to find jobs, indicating a systemic mismatch. Option (a) is incorrect as it is stating the opposite of the passage's implication; postgrad fees are unregulated. Option (c) is too strong; it says "most of them can't afford", not "students no longer consider”. Option (d) is unnecessarily exaggerated and not stated. Hence (b).

Option (b) is correct. This supports the author's claim that a bachelor's degree is no longer sufficient, reinforcing the issue of over-qualification and job mismatch. Option (a) is incorrect as it weakens the argument by suggesting postgraduation is worth it. Option (c) gives an irrelevant comparison unless it ties back to UK grads' decisions. Option (d) weakens the point about exclusivity if provision of financial support exists. Hence (b).

Option (d) is correct. If graduate jobs are increasing outside London, it weakens the argument about lack of opportunity and regional inequality. Option (a) is incorrect. It shifts blame to graduates, but doesn't directly refute the argument about systemic failure. Option (b) is incorrect as it might help affordability but doesn't address job availability. Option (c) is incorrect as the law doesn't ensure actual hiring, only mandates fairness. Hence (d).

Option (a) is correct. The author critiques how employers raise the bar (e.g., needing a master's) in response to a glut of applicants, implying this is a workaround for systemic problems like underemployment and poor job creation. Option (b) is incorrect as it opposes the author's concern that high costs limit access and create inequality. Option (c) is incorrect as the author presents moving abroad as a bitter suggestion, not a preferred path. Option (d) is incorrect. The argument focuses more on economic stagnation and rising qualifications, not just an oversupply of graduates. Hence (a).

Option (a) is correct. The author clearly critiques unregulated postgraduate fees and highlights how these costs make certain professions inaccessible for lower- income students. Option (b) is incorrect. The author doesn't discuss networking, so disagreement is uncertain. Option (c) is incorrect. It may be true in some cases, but the author's focus is on inflation of qualifications due to competition, not complexity. Option (d) is incorrect. The author might partially agree, though they might argue it only addresses part of the problem. Hence (a).

Option (a) is correct. The author critiques rising qualification thresholds but doesn't critically explore whether these demands are due to genuine skill requirements or an overflow of candidates. This weakens the depth of analysis. Option (b) is incorrect. The author never claims all students did their best, but this isn't central to the logic. Option (c) is incorrect. While data is sparse, this is more about evidence than logic.
Option (d) is incorrect because the author's argument is about affordability, not individual preference. Hence (a).

Option (a) is correct. If there is documented evidence that other senior royals have stepped back in the past without causing significant disruptions, this would directly counter the portrayal of the event as unprecedented and deeply unsettling. It would suggest that there is a precedent for such actions, reducing the perceived impact and novelty of the couple’s decision on the royal family structure and operations. Option (b) is incorrect because while it might suggest better internal communication, it doesn’t necessarily diminish the significance or disruptiveness of the decision. Option (c) is incorrect as public support does not directly address the internal impact on the royal family’s operations and dynamics. Option (d) is incorrect because financial implications, while important, do not directly weaken the argument regarding the emotional or structural impact on the royal family. Hence (a).

Option (a) is correct. The passage suggests that Harry and Meghan are uncomfortable with the structured nature of royal life and seek to live more like ordinary citizens, indicating they believe such a lifestyle might be less constraining and more suited to their personal inclinations. This supports the assumption that they find an ordinary lifestyle potentially less burdensome. Option (b) is incorrect as the passage does not provide any evidence about the British public’s unanimous support; it instead discusses debates about the cost of royalty to taxpayers. Option (c) is incorrect because the passage does not claim that stepping back will necessarily decrease media scrutiny; indeed, the intense attention they’ve already received suggests the opposite. Option (d) is incorrect as the passage does not imply a complete severance from all royal traditions but rather a step back from their roles as senior royals. Hence (a).

Option (b) is correct. If the royal family is revising its protocols in response to the couple’s decision, this directly supports the argument that their decision has a profound impact, prompting institutional reconsiderations and changes. This suggests the decision has triggered a reevaluation of how royal duties and lifestyles are structured, indicating a significant impact. Option (a) is incorrect because it would actually weaken the author’s argument by suggesting that such actions have historically not caused significant changes. Option (c) is incorrect as public disagreement does not necessarily correlate with the impact on the royal family itself. Option (d) would indeed suggest an impact but does not directly indicate that the royal family is making structural changes, which is a stronger indication of deep-seated impact. Hence (b).

Option (b) is correct. For the author to describe the decision as “deeply unsettling,” it assumes that the royal family values stability and continuity, which are disrupted by such significant deviations from expected behavior. This underlying assumption about the traditional values of the royal family enhances the perceived impact and drama of the couple’s unprecedented decision. Option (a) is potentially supportive but does not directly address why the decision is unsettling. Option (c) is incorrect as it contradicts the premise by suggesting the monarchy is unaffected, which would not lead to being unsettled. Option (d) while possibly true, does not directly relate to why the royal family itself would find the decision unsettling. Hence (b).