UPSC CSE Prelims Paper 2 (CSAT) Mock Test - 19 (June 1, 2021) - UPSC MCQ

(M, N, O and P are all different individuals) 
I. M is the daughter of N. 
II. N is the son of O 
III. O is the father of P.

Q. Among the following statements, which is true ?

(M, N, O and P are all different individuals) 
I. M is the daughter of N. 
II. N is the son of O 
III. O is the father of P.

Q. Which among the following statements is contradictory to the above premises?

(M, N, O and P are all different individuals) 
I. M is the daughter of N. 
II. N is the son of O 
III. O is the father of P.

Q. 

If B is the son of N and B has one brother D, then 
I. M is the sister of D. 
II. D and N are brothers. 
III. O is the grandfather of D.

A group of three or four has to be selected from seven persons. Among the seven are two women : Fiza and Kavita, and the five men : Ram, Shyam, David, Peter and Rahim. Ram would not like to be in the group if Shyam is also selected. Shyam and Rahim want to be selected together in the group. Kavita would like to be in the group only if David is also there. David, if selected, would not like Peter in the group. Ram would like to be in the group only if Peter is also there. David insists that Fiza be selected in case he is there in the group.

Q. Which of the following is a feasible group of three ?

A group of three or four has to be selected from seven persons. Among the seven are two women : Fiza and Kavita, and the five men : Ram, Shyam, David, Peter and Rahim. Ram would not like to be in the group if Shyam is also selected. Shyam and Rahim want to be selected together in the group. Kavita would like to be in the group only if David is also there. David, if selected, would not like Peter in the group. Ram would like to be in the group only if Peter is also there. David insists that Fiza be selected in case he is there in the group.

Q. Which of the following is a feasible group of four ?

A group of three or four has to be selected from seven persons. Among the seven are two women : Fiza and Kavita, and the five men : Ram, Shyam, David, Peter and Rahim. Ram would not like to be in the group if Shyam is also selected. Shyam and Rahim want to be selected together in the group. Kavita would like to be in the group only if David is also there. David, if selected, would not like Peter in the group. Ram would like to be in the group only if Peter is also there. David insists that Fiza be selected in case he is there in the group.

Q. Which of the following statements is true ?

A government is assigning each of six embassy office workers - Rajan, Shiv, Vineet, Vijay, Abhishek, and Ritesh - to embassies. There are four embassies. Embassies C and D are located in countries with dry climates, whereas embassies Q and R are located in countries with humid climates. The office workers must be assigned according to the following rules:
Each embassy must have at least one of the workers assigned to it.
At least one embassy in a humid climate must have at least two workers assigned to it. 
Shiv cannot be assigned to the same embassy as Ritesh. 
Vijay must be assigned to an embassy in a dry climate. 
Abhishek must be assigned to an embassy in a humid climate.

Q. Which of the following must be assigned either to embassy C or to embassy D?

A government is assigning each of six embassy office workers - Rajan, Shiv, Vineet, Vijay, Abhishek, and Ritesh - to embassies. There are four embassies. Embassies C and D are located in countries with dry climates, whereas embassies Q and R are located in countries with humid climates. The office workers must be assigned according to the following rules:
Each embassy must have at least one of the workers assigned to it.
At least one embassy in a humid climate must have at least two workers assigned to it. 
Shiv cannot be assigned to the same embassy as Ritesh. 
Vijay must be assigned to an embassy in a dry climate. 
Abhishek must be assigned to an embassy in a humid climate.

Q. Which of the following CANNOT be true?

OABC is a rhombus whose vertices A, B and C lie on a circle with centre at O. If radius of circle is 10cm. The area of the rhombus

The average of 5 numbers is 9 and the average of the 3 numbers out of the 5 is 7. What is the average of the other two numbers?

In Arun's opinion, his weight is greater than 65 kg but less than 72 kg. His brother does not agree with Arun and he thinks that Arun's weight is greater than 60 kg but less than 70 kg. His mother's view is that his weight cannot be greater than 68 kg. If all of them are correct in their estimation, what is the average of different probable weights of Arun?

D is A's son. C is the mother of P and wife of D. How is A related to C ?

A is the father of C. But C is not his son.
E is the daughter of C. F is the spouse of A.
B is the brother of C. D is the son of B.
G is the spouse of B. H is the father of G.

Who is the son of F?

'A' is the son of 'M' whose father is the brother of B. B, is the son of 'E', who is a Doctor. How is 'M' related to E.

Asha, Babli, Cham, Deepti, Eira and Farha are cousins. No two cousions are of the same age, but all have birth days on the same date. The youngest is 17 yrs old and the oldest Eira is 22. Farha is somewhere between Babli and Deepti in age. Asha is older than Babli, Cham is older than Deepti.

Which of the following must be true if Cham is 19 yrs old ?

All the six members of a family A, B, C, D, E and F are travelling together. B is the son of C but C is not the mother of B. A and C are a married couple. E is the brother of C. D is the daughter of A. F is the brother of B.

Who is the mother of B?

In a watch, the minute hand crosses the hour hand for the third time exactly after every 3 hrs, 18 min, 15 sec of watch time. What is the time gained or lost by this watch in one day ?

P, Q, R, S, T, V and W are sitting around a circle facing at the centre. Q is third to the right of W and second to the left of R. P is third to the left of T who is not an immediate neighbour of W. S is third to the left of V, who is not an immediate neighbour of T.

Q. Who is to the immediate right of S?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.
One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill- equipped to deal with them.

Q. With reference to the passage, which of the following statements is correct?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.
One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill- equipped to deal with them.

Q. 

Why does man introduce exotic species into new geographical areas?
1) To breed exotic species with local varieties.
2) To increase agricultural productivity.
3) For beautification and landscaping. 

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.
One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill- equipped to deal with them.

Q. How is homogenization prevented under natural conditions?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.
One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill- equipped to deal with them.

Q. 

How have the human beings influenced the biodiversity?
1) By smuggling live organisms.
2) By building highways.
3) By making ecosystems sensitive so that new species are not allowed.
4) By ensuring that new species do not have major impact on local species.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

Invasions of exotic species into new geographic areas sometimes occur naturally and without human agency. However, human actions have increased this trickle to a flood. Human-caused introductions may occur either accidentally as a consequence of human transport, or intentionally but illegally to serve some private purpose or legitimately to procure some hoped-for public benefit by bringing a pest under control, producing new agricultural products new agricultural products or providing novel recreational opportunities. Many introduced species are assimilated into communities without much obvious effect. However, some have been responsible for dramatic changes to native species and natural communities. For example, the accidental introduction of the brown tree snake Boiga irregularis into Guam, an island in the Pacific, has through nest predation reduced 10 endemic forest bird species to the point of extinction.
One of the major reasons for the world's great biodiversity is the occurrence of centers of endemism so that similar habitats in different parts of the world are occupied by different groups of species that happen to have evolved there. If every species naturally had access to everywhere on the globe, we might expect a relatively small number of successful species to become dominant in each biome. The extent to which this homogenization can happen naturally is restricted by the limited powers of dispersal. By virtue of the transport opportunities offered by humans, these barriers have been breached by an ever-increasing number of exotic species. The effects of introductions have been to convert a hugely diverse range of local community compositions into something much more homogeneous.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that introducing species to a region will inevitably cause a decline in species richness there. For example, there are numerous species of plants, invertebrates and vertebrates found in continental Europe but absent from the British Isles (many because they have so far failed to recolonize after the last glaciations). Their introduction would be likely to significant detrimental effect noted above arises where aggressive species provide a novel challenge to endemic biotas ill- equipped to deal with them.

Q. 

What can be the impact of invasion of exotic species on an ecosystem?
1) Erosion of endemic species.
2) Change in the species composition of the community of the ecosystem.

Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare - they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical split - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?” - often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful - through the 1970s and 1980s and even later - in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy. To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning.) The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy: Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization - important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development. If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conducive to development”, we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constituent components” of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.

Q. According to the passage, why is a serious tension perceived between democracy and development by the detractors of democracy?

Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare - they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical split - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?” - often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful - through the 1970s and 1980s and even later - in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy. To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning.) The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy: Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization - important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development. If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conducive to development”, we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constituent components” of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.

Q. According to the passage, what should be the ultimate assessment/aim/view of development?

Most champions of democracy have been rather reticent in suggesting that democracy would itself promote development and enhancement of social welfare - they have tended to see them as good but distinctly separate and largely independent goals. The detractors of democracy, on the other hand, seemed to have been quite willing to express their diagnosis of what they see as serious tensions between democracy and development. The theorists of the practical split - “Make up your mind: do you want democracy, or instead, do you want development?” - often came, at least to start with, from East Asian countries, and their voice grew in influence as several of these countries were immensely successful - through the 1970s and 1980s and even later - in promoting economic growth without pursuing democracy. To deal with these issues we have to pay particular attention to both the content of what can be called development and to the interpretation of democracy (in particular to the respective roles of voting and of public reasoning.) The assessment of development cannot be divorced from the lives that people can lead and the real freedom that they enjoy: Development can scarcely be seen merely in terms of enhancement of inanimate objects of convenience, such as a rise in the GNP (or in personal incomes), or industrialization - important as they may be as means to the real ends. Their value must depend on what they do to the lives and freedom of the people involved, which must be central to the idea of development. If development is understood in a broader way, with a focus on human lives, then it becomes immediately clear that the relation between development and democracy has to be seen partly in terms of their constitutive connection, rather than only through their external links. Even though the question has often been asked whether political freedom is “conducive to development”, we must not miss the crucial recognition that political liberties and democratic rights are among the “constituent components” of development. Their relevance for development does not have to be established indirectly through their contribution to the growth of GNP.

Q. What does a “constitutive” connection between democracy and development imply?

Find the number of squares in the given figure.