Test: Reading Comprehension- 2 - CAT MCQ

The answer to this question can be found in the last paragraph. The author starts by saying that "utopia and dystopia evidently share more in common.... indeed, they might be twins...". He further adds "Yet we should not mistake this argument..." From this we can say that 1 is definitely incorrect, and cannot be inferred. You might wonder as to the evidence for option 2. But the author mentions "More", who was the first author of a book on Utopia, and further mentions Tommaso who also wrote a book on Utopia. We have enough evidence in the passage that shows that in literature we have enough material that have dealt with the idea of Utopia. 3 can be inferred from the last sentence of second paragraph, and 4 can be inferred from last sentence of first paragraph.

This is a very simple question. It can be easily answered. There is no mention of "competitive heterogeneity" in the passage. Thus 1 goes out. There is no mention of 2. 3 is true, as there is enough evidence for it in the first paragraph. 4 is the exact opposite of what utopian society wants. It wants homogeneity and uniformity, which would imply restraints on one's individuality.

We know that the last paragraph discusses "international community". It can be seen at the end of last paragraph. The second last paragraph discusses "homogeneity", which can be seen at the end of second paragraph. Thus 4 is the best choice.

This might be a time-consuming question, as it asks us to pick the argument that is "NOT" made in the passage. We can immediately spot choice 2. It states exact opposite of what the passage says. In the first para the author says "in More's time...given the plenty and security on offer, such restraints would not have seemed unreasonable" (it means that in More's time such restraints would have seemed reasonable), suggesting that restraints were there. 1 states the exact opposite. Thus 1 is the best choice. All the other three options are given in the passage.

This question asks to pick a choice that best reflects the argument being made in the given sentence. The author says we cannot get a glimpse of things in themselves...above the process of our conceiving it. It means that we don't know how things actually are beyond are perception. In fact, they have a reality that is not perceived by our senses. Thus 1 is the best choice. Choice 2 is wrong as it says we cannot perceive our perception. Option 3 is also incorrect, as it says our knowledge is above our perception, it is the reality that is above our perception, not our knowledge. Option 4 talks about our knowledge being merged with the process of our conceiving it, something that is not in tune with the given sentence.

This is not a difficult question. Option 1 goes out because the source of alleged truth is nowhere in the passage. Option 2 goes out because the sceptic says we don't know how the reality is and to want extent it matches with our perception, and there is no way we can ever know it. He never says that we should try to know reality independently. Option 3 is correct because the scandal of philosophy and what it means has been repeated a few times in the passage. With this the author will definitely agree. Option 4 talks about "knowledge being widely held". We have no evidence for this.

This is not a difficult question. Option 1 goes out because the source of alleged truth is nowhere in the passage. Option 2 goes out because the sceptic says we don't know how the reality is and to want extent it matches with our perception, and there is no way we can ever know it. He never says that we should try to know reality independently. Option 3 is correct because the scandal of philosophy and what it means has been repeated a few times in the passage. With this the author will definitely agree. Option 4 talks about "knowledge being widely held". We have no evidence for this.

Option 1 is correct because it is precisely what the scandal of philosophy means. Option 2 is the right answer because the author does not discuss this. He talks about ignoring something, but it is not on "how to deal with scepticism". He says we can never know the reality of things, so the most common way for people to tackle this is to ignore it. So, option 2 is incorrect, as the author does not discuss this in the passage. Both 3 and 4 are discussed in the first paragraph.