CAT Practice Test- 2 (June 2) - CAT MCQ

The question requires you to recognize which of the choices is NOT mentioned in the passage as a way in which senior managers use intuition. The passage does not mention stipulating goals.

The author asserts that the writers in question “display a poor grasp of what intuition is”. The next paragraph presents a view that, according to the author of the passage, characterizes intuition more accurately than the writers on management do.

Isenberg’s research is specifically described as showing the ways in which managers use intuition. Therefore, what Isenberg correctly comprehends, and the writers in question misunderstand, is how managers use intuition, as this choice states.

The question requires you to recognize which of the choices is NOT mentioned in the passage as a component of the classical model of decision analysis. Only this choice, “action undertaken in order to discover more information about a problem,” does not appear in the passage.

The question requires you to compare behavior based on intuition with behavior based on formal decision analysis. This choice specifies that the manager who uses intuition incorporates action into the decision-making process, but the manager who uses formal analysis does not. This distinction is made in several places in the passage.

The passage emphasizes that decision-making and actiontaking are separate steps in formal decision analysis: “making a decision, and only then taking action.” On the other hand, those who use intuition “integrate action into the process of thinking”. Again, the author mentions that in the intuitive style of management, “ ‘thinking’ is inseparable from acting”, and “action is often part of defining the problem”.

The question requires you to identify a statement that can be inferred from information in the passage but is not explicitly stated. The author asserts that intuitive managers can “move rapidly to engender a plausible solution” and that their intuition is based on “experience that builds skill”. This implies that the combination of skill and rapidity enables mangers to employ their practical experience more efficiently, as this choice states.

The second and third paragraphs of the passage indicate that morphogenetic determinants are substances in the embryo that are activated after the egg has been fertilized and that “tell a cell what to become”.

If, as the author asserts in the first paragraph, biologists have succeeded in dividing an embryo into two parts, each of which survives and develops into a normal embryo, it can be concluded that the quantity of morphogenetic determinants in the early embryo is greater than that required for the development of a single individual.

In identifying the main topic of the passage, you must consider the passage as a whole.

In the first paragraph, the author provides a historical context for the debate described.

In the second paragraph, concerning when and how the determination of embryo cells takes place.

The third and forth paragraphs provide a specific example of the “Recent discoveries in molecular biology” that may lead to the resolution of that debate.

According to the author, early investigators arrived at the conclusion that the cells of the embryo are undetermined because they “found that if they separated an invertebrate animal embryo into two parts at an early stage of its life, it would survive and develop as two normal embryos”.

However, later biologists discovered that when an embryo was cut in places different from the one used by the early investigators, it did not form two whole embryos. Because the earlier biologists apparently arrived at their conclusion without attempting to cut an embryo in different planes, it would appear that they assumed, erroneously, that different ways of separating the embryos would not affect the fate of the two embryo parts.

In the third paragraph, the author asserts that substances that function as morphogenetic determinants are located in the cytoplasm of the cell and become active after the cell is fertilized.

In the fourth paragraph we learn that these substances are “maternal messenger RNA’s” and that they “direct, in large part, the synthesis of histones,” which, after being synthesized, “move into the cell nucleus”.

Thus, it can be inferred that after the egg is fertilized, the initial production of histones occurs in the cytoplasm.

Lines in the passage indicate that substances that function as morphogenetic determinants are inactive in the unfertilized egg and that when the egg is fertilized, they “become active and, presumably, govern the behavior of the genes they interact with.”

In the fourth paragraph, we learn that these substances exert their control over the fate of the cell by directing “the synthesis of histones.” Because these histones cannot be synthesized until the substances that function as morphogenetic determinants become active, and because these substances do not become active until the egg is fertilized, it can be inferred that the synthesis of the histones is dependent on the fertilization of the egg.

In his study of sea urchins, Gross “found that an unfertilized egg contains substances that function as morphogetic determinants.”

The passage asserts that the “substances that Gross studied are maternal messenger RNA’s,” and we learn that these maternal messenger RNA’s can be found in “ a wide variety of organisms”.

The first paragraph identifies two major problems faced by the archaeological profession: inadequate funding and illegal digging.

The passage indicates that the author is going to suggest how to remedy both problems, thereby benefiting the archaeological profession. The author proceeds to propose allowing the sale of excavated artifacts and to explain how this would solve both problems . The author then supports the proposal by countering possible objections to it, and in the last paragraph explains how the proposal would curb illegal digging.

Thus, the way information is organized in the passage indicates that the author’s purpose is to suggest that allowing the sale of excavated artifacts would provide funds for the archaeological profession and curb illegal digging.

The question requires you to identify the answer choice that CANNOT be inferred from the passage. Nothing in the passage implies that duplicate artifacts exceed museum objects in quality.

The disadvantages of storing artifacts in museum basements are discussed in the fifth paragraph. The passage states that “There is not enough money…to catalogue the finds” and declare that, as a result stored objects cannot be located.

The author’s argument concerning the effect of the official sale of duplicate artifacts on illegal excavation appears in the passage where the author predicts that such official sale would reduce the demand for “the clandestine product.”

The rhetorical question that follows indicates that the author finds it unlikely that any purchaser would prefer objects of unknown provenance to objects of known origin, or, to rephrase, the author assumes that most people would prefer to purchase objects of authenticated provenance, as this choice states.

The sequence has a CEB link – the author called a person and expected him to present a particular opinion.

The person presented his own opinion and this made the author rethink his own philosophy – there is a logical flow of thought in the sequence CEBA.

And D helps conclude the sequence. It is also the rethought out opinion of the author and logically follows A.

In statement A “this made me think again” refers to Dodd’s comment.

Hence AD should come after CEB.

Option (d) is the answer.

DA is a mandatory pair as “the once plain walls” of D can be linked to “these are not art galleries” of A. This negates options (c) and (d).

CB is another mandatory pair as “restaurants in the city” in C can be linked to the specific example of “Tangerine restaurant” in B. This negates option (b).

The ‘It’ in A refers to the forum in E. EA forms a mandatory pair and this helps rule out option (b).

Option (a) can be ruled out because C does not follow B; however, B can be used to substantiate C – as done in option (d).

Option (c) can be ruled out for the same reason as B is cited as an example and it follows C.

Option (d) is the answer as C .

D, A and C makes up a complete story about the country being the worst for women in spite of the facts presented in A and C.

Since there is no connection between this and the “stirrings of change” in C, it is the odd sentence.

Arranging sentences B, C and A (better than CBA) in that order explains what are “earworms” – Their uniqueness is beside the point even contrary to statement A.

Hence D is the odd sentence.

The paragraph discusses the speeding up of the tunneling work.

Option (a) follows the logical flow by discussing the result of speeding up the work.

Option (b) could have introduced the paragraph but it does not come in logically after the penultimate sentence.

Option (c) is incorrect as it specifies the name of the tunnel and discusses a road for emergencies – both are beyond the scope of the information in the paragraph.

Option (d) deviates from the central idea –the discussion is about the speeding up of work and not about the material used in building the tunnel.

The paragraph states the fear that nuclear technology could have been transferred to terrorists. However, the paragraph then changes its tone and states that experts feel that even if this were true, the technology would not be useful to terrorist groups who would need more resources. The penultimate line before the blank indicates that it will be probably impossible for terror groups to take advantage of any leaks in information or even receipt of equipment.

Option (c) substantiates this by saying that it is difficult for countries themselves to gather the resources needed.

Option (a) is incorrect as it brings attention to an irrelevant detail.

Option (b) is out of context as the paragraph is not concerned with the amount of uranium that has been produced by Pakistan.

The passage begins by indicating that the results of the SBA approach to aiding minority entrepreneurs “were disappointing” . The passage states that “MESBIC’s are now emerging as increasingly important financing sources for minority enterprises.” Much of the passage is devoted to supporting the author’s view that MESBIC have the greater potential for success, and the last sentence in the passage confirms this view.

In the second paragraph, the author describes the MESBIC approach as one in which “large corporations participate in the development of successful and stable minority businesses by making use of government-sponsored venture capital”. There is no indication in the passage that the SBA approach relies on the participation of large corporations.

The author concludes that the results of the SBA approach “were disappointing”. Then he supports the conclusion by citing the fact that “Even 15 years after the program was implemented, minority business receipts were not quite two percent of the national economy’s total receipts”.

Explanation: According to the passage, Anthropology won't stand out without Darwinism, the opposite of this may or may not be true.

Number of athletes tested for the presence of at least one banned substance = Total number athletes tested in February = 105 + 245 + 345 + 130 + 95 = 920
Number of athletes tested for the presence of at least two banned substances = Total number athletes tested in April = 75 + 100 + 87 + 100 + 68 = 430
Therefore, the number of athletes who were tested for the presence of exactly one banned substance = 920 – 430 = 490.

In February, there were 105 + 245 + 345 + 95 = 790 athletes not tested for the presence of banned substance D.
Athletes who were tested for the presence of banned substance D in April, October or December were among these 790 athletes only.
Therefore, the athletes who were not tested for the presence of banned substance D = 790 – 100 – 58 – 35 – 19 = 578.

103 athletes were tested in December out of which 91 passed. This means that 12 athletes did not pass the tests in December.

Even if these 12 athletes were out of the 15 who were tested for the presence of the banned substance B, then at least 3 athletes passed the test for the presence of banned substance B.

In Feb, total of 920 Athletes were tested, out of which 430 passed the test and underwent next round of tests in April.

Therefore Y = 920 – 430 = 490. In feb 105 athletes went test for substance A.

If all of them failed the test due to a substance other than A is 490 -105 = 385.

Therefore minimum value of X when expressed as a % of Y is 385 / 490 x 100 = 78.57%.