Scorecard Solutions

Section-1

Sec 1
Direction for questions (1-4): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] It wasn’t always this way. Many fields of mathematics germinated from the study of real world problems, before the underlying rules and concepts
were identified. These rules and concepts were then defined as abstract structures. For instance, algebra, the part of mathematics in which letters and
other general symbols are used to represent numbers and quantities in formulas and equations was born from solving problems in arithmetic.
Geometry emerged as people worked to solve problems dealing with distances and area in the real world.

That process of moving from the concrete to the abstract scenario is known, appropriately enough, as abstraction. Through abstraction, the underlying
essence of a mathematical concept can be extracted. People no longer have to depend on real world objects, as was once the case, to solve a
mathematical puzzle. They can now generalise to have wider applications or by matching it to other structures can illuminate similar phenomena. An
example is the adding of integers, fractions, complex numbers, vectors and matrices. The concept is the same, but the applications are different. […]

The earliest example of abstraction was when humans counted before symbols existed. […] Today, we use the Arabic numbers (also known as the
Hindu-Arabic numerals): 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 to represent any integer, that is any whole number.

This is another example of abstraction, and it’s powerful. It means we’re able to handle any amount of sheep, regardless of how many stones we have.
We’ve moved from real-world objects – stones, sheep – to the abstract. There is real strength in this: we’ve created a space where the rules are
minimalistic, yet the games that can be played are endless.

Another advantage of abstraction is that it reveals a deeper connection between different fields of mathematics. Results in one field can suggest
concepts and ideas to be explored in a related field. Occasionally, methods and techniques developed in one field can be directly applied to another
field to create similar results.

Of course, abstraction also has its disadvantages. Some of the mathematical subjects taught at university level – Calculus, Real Analysis, Linear
Algebra, Topology, Category Theory, Functional Analysis and Set Theory among them – are very advanced examples of abstraction.

These concepts can be quite difficult to learn. They’re often tough to visualise and their rules rather unintuitive to manipulate or reason with. This
means students need a degree of mathematical maturity to process the shift from the concrete to the abstract.

Many high school kids come to university with an undeveloped level of intellectual maturity to handle abstraction. This is because of the way
mathematics was taught at high school. I have seen many students struggling, giving up or not even attempting to study mathematics because they
weren’t given the right tools at school level and they think that they just “can’t do maths”.

Teachers and lecturers can improve this abstract thinking by being aware of abstractions in their subject and learning to demonstrate abstract
concepts through concrete examples. Experiments are also helpful to familiarise and assure students of an abstract concept’s solidity.

This teaching principle is applied in some school systems, such as Montessori, to help children improve their abstract thinking. Not only does this
guide them better through the maze of mathematical abstractions but it can be applied to other sciences as well.

Q.1 [1250400]
Which of the following best summarises the influence of abstraction on Mathematics?

1 It has made Mathematics less dependent on reality and more useful for application in other disciplines.

2 It has enabled us to extract the hidden essence of mathematical rules and widen their application.

3 It has minimised rules and maximised data extrapolation so that any mathematical principle can be used in a more holistic manner.

4 It has made concepts of advanced Mathematics too complicated to be of any use.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
This is an easy question if we use the process of elimination. In the passage, the author talks about the positive as well as
negative influences of abstraction on Mathematics. However, the overall tone of the author is positive towards the use of
abstraction.

Option 1 – It is a great example of a distorted option. The author says that abstraction has made Mathematics less dependent on real life examples or
scenarios. It’s not the same as being ‘less dependent on reality’.
Option 2 – This is the correct answer. Refer to the lines: “Through abstraction, the underlying essence of a mathematical concept can be extracted.”
Then, the author talks about how abstraction helps mathematical principles to be used in other Sciences. So, this is correct.

Option 3 – This is completely irrelevant. ‘Data extrapolation’ can’t be defined by the passage. We also can’t define ‘minimising’ and ‘maximising’ as used
in the option.

Option 4 – The author mentions that many students find it difficult to grasp the complexities of advanced abstraction when they attend college. This
can’t be equated with abstraction making Mathematics useless as a discipline. So, it is an incorrect option.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (1-4): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] It wasn’t always this way. Many fields of mathematics germinated from the study of real world problems, before the underlying rules and concepts
were identified. These rules and concepts were then defined as abstract structures. For instance, algebra, the part of mathematics in which letters and
other general symbols are used to represent numbers and quantities in formulas and equations was born from solving problems in arithmetic.
Geometry emerged as people worked to solve problems dealing with distances and area in the real world.

That process of moving from the concrete to the abstract scenario is known, appropriately enough, as abstraction. Through abstraction, the underlying
essence of a mathematical concept can be extracted. People no longer have to depend on real world objects, as was once the case, to solve a
mathematical puzzle. They can now generalise to have wider applications or by matching it to other structures can illuminate similar phenomena. An
example is the adding of integers, fractions, complex numbers, vectors and matrices. The concept is the same, but the applications are different. […]

The earliest example of abstraction was when humans counted before symbols existed. […] Today, we use the Arabic numbers (also known as the
Hindu-Arabic numerals): 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 to represent any integer, that is any whole number.

This is another example of abstraction, and it’s powerful. It means we’re able to handle any amount of sheep, regardless of how many stones we have.
We’ve moved from real-world objects – stones, sheep – to the abstract. There is real strength in this: we’ve created a space where the rules are
minimalistic, yet the games that can be played are endless.

Another advantage of abstraction is that it reveals a deeper connection between different fields of mathematics. Results in one field can suggest
concepts and ideas to be explored in a related field. Occasionally, methods and techniques developed in one field can be directly applied to another
field to create similar results.

Of course, abstraction also has its disadvantages. Some of the mathematical subjects taught at university level – Calculus, Real Analysis, Linear
Algebra, Topology, Category Theory, Functional Analysis and Set Theory among them – are very advanced examples of abstraction.

These concepts can be quite difficult to learn. They’re often tough to visualise and their rules rather unintuitive to manipulate or reason with. This
means students need a degree of mathematical maturity to process the shift from the concrete to the abstract.

Many high school kids come to university with an undeveloped level of intellectual maturity to handle abstraction. This is because of the way
mathematics was taught at high school. I have seen many students struggling, giving up or not even attempting to study mathematics because they
weren’t given the right tools at school level and they think that they just “can’t do maths”.

Teachers and lecturers can improve this abstract thinking by being aware of abstractions in their subject and learning to demonstrate abstract
concepts through concrete examples. Experiments are also helpful to familiarise and assure students of an abstract concept’s solidity.

This teaching principle is applied in some school systems, such as Montessori, to help children improve their abstract thinking. Not only does this
guide them better through the maze of mathematical abstractions but it can be applied to other sciences as well.

Q.2 [1250400]
Which of the following best describes the main point of the paragraph that precedes the opening paragraph of this passage?

1 Mathematics, as a discipline, evolved by exposing the underlying rules of real world problems.

2 Mathematics, as a discipline, was believed to be a tool for solving only complex issues.

3 Mathematics, as a discipline, evolved by being a tool for exposing the complexities of different natural phenomena.

4 Mathematics, as a discipline, is believed to be devoid of much real life application or usage.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4
The clue to this question is the opening sentence of the passage: “It wasn’t always this way.” What was this ‘it’? That will be
the main point of the preceding paragraph (note the use of ellipsis at the beginning). The first paragraph of the given
passage discusses how many mathematical rules began with real life scenarios. So, ‘wasn’t’ means that the previous paragraph would talk about the
exact opposite: how Mathematics doesn’t have a direct relationship with real life scenarios. So, only option 4 talks about this.

Option 1 – It is incorrect as this is the theme of the first paragraph.

Options 2 and 3 – These are irrelevant.

Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (1-4): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] It wasn’t always this way. Many fields of mathematics germinated from the study of real world problems, before the underlying rules and concepts
were identified. These rules and concepts were then defined as abstract structures. For instance, algebra, the part of mathematics in which letters and
other general symbols are used to represent numbers and quantities in formulas and equations was born from solving problems in arithmetic.
Geometry emerged as people worked to solve problems dealing with distances and area in the real world.

That process of moving from the concrete to the abstract scenario is known, appropriately enough, as abstraction. Through abstraction, the underlying
essence of a mathematical concept can be extracted. People no longer have to depend on real world objects, as was once the case, to solve a
mathematical puzzle. They can now generalise to have wider applications or by matching it to other structures can illuminate similar phenomena. An
example is the adding of integers, fractions, complex numbers, vectors and matrices. The concept is the same, but the applications are different. […]

The earliest example of abstraction was when humans counted before symbols existed. […] Today, we use the Arabic numbers (also known as the
Hindu-Arabic numerals): 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 to represent any integer, that is any whole number.

This is another example of abstraction, and it’s powerful. It means we’re able to handle any amount of sheep, regardless of how many stones we have.
We’ve moved from real-world objects – stones, sheep – to the abstract. There is real strength in this: we’ve created a space where the rules are
minimalistic, yet the games that can be played are endless.

Another advantage of abstraction is that it reveals a deeper connection between different fields of mathematics. Results in one field can suggest
concepts and ideas to be explored in a related field. Occasionally, methods and techniques developed in one field can be directly applied to another
field to create similar results.

Of course, abstraction also has its disadvantages. Some of the mathematical subjects taught at university level – Calculus, Real Analysis, Linear
Algebra, Topology, Category Theory, Functional Analysis and Set Theory among them – are very advanced examples of abstraction.

These concepts can be quite difficult to learn. They’re often tough to visualise and their rules rather unintuitive to manipulate or reason with. This
means students need a degree of mathematical maturity to process the shift from the concrete to the abstract.

Many high school kids come to university with an undeveloped level of intellectual maturity to handle abstraction. This is because of the way
mathematics was taught at high school. I have seen many students struggling, giving up or not even attempting to study mathematics because they
weren’t given the right tools at school level and they think that they just “can’t do maths”.

Teachers and lecturers can improve this abstract thinking by being aware of abstractions in their subject and learning to demonstrate abstract
concepts through concrete examples. Experiments are also helpful to familiarise and assure students of an abstract concept’s solidity.

This teaching principle is applied in some school systems, such as Montessori, to help children improve their abstract thinking. Not only does this
guide them better through the maze of mathematical abstractions but it can be applied to other sciences as well.

Q.3 [1250400]
Why does the author give the examples of Algebra and Geometry in the first paragraph?

1 To introduce the evolution of abstraction in Mathematics

2 To show how Mathematics remains a realistic subject

3 To introduce the origin of Mathematics in order to contrast it with abstraction

4 To show how Mathematics gradually lost its significance due to the advent of abstraction

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 1
This is a very easy question as the options are easy to eliminate. In the first paragraph, the author mentions how some
mathematical disciplines originated in order to solve real life problems. Then the author goes on to mention how
abstraction widened the scope of Mathematics as a discipline. The author’s tone is not negative in this regard. So, the purpose of giving these examples
can’t be inferred to be negative. Thus, option 1 is the answer.

Option 2 – It doesn’t match the theme of the next paragraph. It also makes an incorrect inference about the current status of Mathematics.

Option 3 – The word ‘contrast’ distorts the tone.

Option 4 – This distorts the tone of the author which is quite positive towards abstraction.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (1-4): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] It wasn’t always this way. Many fields of mathematics germinated from the study of real world problems, before the underlying rules and concepts
were identified. These rules and concepts were then defined as abstract structures. For instance, algebra, the part of mathematics in which letters and
other general symbols are used to represent numbers and quantities in formulas and equations was born from solving problems in arithmetic.
Geometry emerged as people worked to solve problems dealing with distances and area in the real world.

That process of moving from the concrete to the abstract scenario is known, appropriately enough, as abstraction. Through abstraction, the underlying
essence of a mathematical concept can be extracted. People no longer have to depend on real world objects, as was once the case, to solve a
mathematical puzzle. They can now generalise to have wider applications or by matching it to other structures can illuminate similar phenomena. An
example is the adding of integers, fractions, complex numbers, vectors and matrices. The concept is the same, but the applications are different. […]

The earliest example of abstraction was when humans counted before symbols existed. […] Today, we use the Arabic numbers (also known as the
Hindu-Arabic numerals): 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 to represent any integer, that is any whole number.

This is another example of abstraction, and it’s powerful. It means we’re able to handle any amount of sheep, regardless of how many stones we have.
We’ve moved from real-world objects – stones, sheep – to the abstract. There is real strength in this: we’ve created a space where the rules are
minimalistic, yet the games that can be played are endless.

Another advantage of abstraction is that it reveals a deeper connection between different fields of mathematics. Results in one field can suggest
concepts and ideas to be explored in a related field. Occasionally, methods and techniques developed in one field can be directly applied to another
field to create similar results.

Of course, abstraction also has its disadvantages. Some of the mathematical subjects taught at university level – Calculus, Real Analysis, Linear
Algebra, Topology, Category Theory, Functional Analysis and Set Theory among them – are very advanced examples of abstraction.

These concepts can be quite difficult to learn. They’re often tough to visualise and their rules rather unintuitive to manipulate or reason with. This
means students need a degree of mathematical maturity to process the shift from the concrete to the abstract.

Many high school kids come to university with an undeveloped level of intellectual maturity to handle abstraction. This is because of the way
mathematics was taught at high school. I have seen many students struggling, giving up or not even attempting to study mathematics because they
weren’t given the right tools at school level and they think that they just “can’t do maths”.

Teachers and lecturers can improve this abstract thinking by being aware of abstractions in their subject and learning to demonstrate abstract
concepts through concrete examples. Experiments are also helpful to familiarise and assure students of an abstract concept’s solidity.

This teaching principle is applied in some school systems, such as Montessori, to help children improve their abstract thinking. Not only does this
guide them better through the maze of mathematical abstractions but it can be applied to other sciences as well.

Q.4 [1250400]
As per the passage, which of the following would best help students learn abstraction in Mathematics?

1 They should be taught Calculus, Real Analysis, Linear Algebra etc. in high school.

2 They should be taught how to visualise and become more intuitive when they enter college.

3 They should be taught the right tools to become more mathematically mature during high school.

4 They should be taught how to of their mindset of ‘can’t do Maths’.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 3
This is a slightly tricky question.

Option 1 asks students to just learn complex abstraction. The question asks how students can do this. So, it doesn’t answer the question.

Option 4 – It is clearly vague. It doesn’t answer how this can be achieved.

Options 2 and 3 are quite close. But we can eliminate option 2. Refer to the lines: “These concepts can be quite difficult to learn. They’re often tough
to visualise and their rules rather unintuitive to manipulate or reason with. This means students need a degree of mathematical maturity to process
the shift from the concrete to the abstract. Many high school kids come to university with an undeveloped level of intellectual maturity to handle
abstraction.” So, the focus of the author is on the use of right tools during high school. Hence, option 3 is the correct answer.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (5-8): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

The literature of the 18th century includes parodies, satires, and denunciations; however, the role of sentimentality usually comes second when
discussing the literary movements of the century. The author of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman , Laurence Sterne, is commonly
known as he “who introduced the present mode of sentimental writing” (The Sentimental Magazine). Among authors such as Jonathan Swift, Henry
Fielding, and Daniel Defoe his novel stands as a text outside the ordinary and invokes as much empathy as it does laughter. The text continually makes
use of symbols, follows a plot with no linearity, cuts out entire chapters, includes black pages, blank pages, and even a notorious marbled page. At the
same time, his work produces immense feeling, so much so, that his name becomes synonymous with sentimentality itself.

Sterne combines the two mediums of satire and sentimentality within his work to show the relationship between humour and emotion, between the
body and mind, and between character and narrative. Furthermore, by means of the humour of the text it is possible to miss the intricacies of emotion
that Sterne imbeds within his novel. Tristram Shandy presents mathematical proofs in order to show the location of the mind and body; it depicts
characters not through words, but through simple actions such as a soft touching of the hand; it includes metanarratives, which invoke emotion in
other characters as much as they do the narrator and reader; and, above all else it argues for moments of sentimentality, for moments when distraction
and digression fade and all that remains is the resemblance of all mankind.

The sentimentality of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy is present ab ovo and persists throughout the narrative as a complex relationship of mind and body. The
text includes an early definition of their relationship by means of Tristram himself who states, “----I tremble to think what a foundation had been laid
for a thousand weaknesses both of body and mind, which no skill of the physician or the philosopher could ever afterwards have set thoroughly to
rights”. In effect, the body and mind are similar to the middle section of a venn diagram, where it is impossible to set them “to rights” or “into a proper
condition or order” (OED). Furthermore, when there is change in one it effects the other and they share the entirety of their elements, similar to their
weaknesses. This idea is present within an essay on characterization and body in Tristram Shandy , by Juliet McMaster who states, “mind and body—
with the indissoluble links between them, and their simultaneous tragic and comic discontinuity—are surely the major overarching subject of Tristram
Shandy ”.

Q.5 [1250400]
According to the author, the novelist Laurence Sterne’s uniqueness, in comparison to other major novelists of the 18th Century, is exhibited:

1 through his use of sentimentality and satire that pervaded the literary work of the century.

2 through his extraordinary ingenuity that could equally invoke empathy and laughter.

3 through his adherence to the laid down rules of novel writing scrupulously followed by only few other novelists of the century.

4 through the body of his novels that was remarkable for the use of parodies, satires, and denunciations.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
This is a tricky question. It is both factual and inferential in nature.

Among the novelists of the 18th century Laurence Sterne was the only novelist who used sentimentality in his novels. So, option 1 can be eliminated.

Options 3 and 4 are also incorrect because Laurence Sterne did not stick to the convention of novel writing that was prevalent in the 18th century and
he also was known for use of sentimentality.

Option 2 is correct. Refer to the line: “Among authors such as Jonathan Swift, Henry Fielding, and Daniel Defoe his novel stands as a text outside the
ordinary and invokes as much empathy as it does laughter.”
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (5-8): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

The literature of the 18th century includes parodies, satires, and denunciations; however, the role of sentimentality usually comes second when
discussing the literary movements of the century. The author of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman , Laurence Sterne, is commonly
known as he “who introduced the present mode of sentimental writing” (The Sentimental Magazine). Among authors such as Jonathan Swift, Henry
Fielding, and Daniel Defoe his novel stands as a text outside the ordinary and invokes as much empathy as it does laughter. The text continually makes
use of symbols, follows a plot with no linearity, cuts out entire chapters, includes black pages, blank pages, and even a notorious marbled page. At the
same time, his work produces immense feeling, so much so, that his name becomes synonymous with sentimentality itself.

Sterne combines the two mediums of satire and sentimentality within his work to show the relationship between humour and emotion, between the
body and mind, and between character and narrative. Furthermore, by means of the humour of the text it is possible to miss the intricacies of emotion
that Sterne imbeds within his novel. Tristram Shandy presents mathematical proofs in order to show the location of the mind and body; it depicts
characters not through words, but through simple actions such as a soft touching of the hand; it includes metanarratives, which invoke emotion in
other characters as much as they do the narrator and reader; and, above all else it argues for moments of sentimentality, for moments when distraction
and digression fade and all that remains is the resemblance of all mankind.

The sentimentality of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy is present ab ovo and persists throughout the narrative as a complex relationship of mind and body. The
text includes an early definition of their relationship by means of Tristram himself who states, “----I tremble to think what a foundation had been laid
for a thousand weaknesses both of body and mind, which no skill of the physician or the philosopher could ever afterwards have set thoroughly to
rights”. In effect, the body and mind are similar to the middle section of a venn diagram, where it is impossible to set them “to rights” or “into a proper
condition or order” (OED). Furthermore, when there is change in one it effects the other and they share the entirety of their elements, similar to their
weaknesses. This idea is present within an essay on characterization and body in Tristram Shandy , by Juliet McMaster who states, “mind and body—
with the indissoluble links between them, and their simultaneous tragic and comic discontinuity—are surely the major overarching subject of Tristram
Shandy ”.

Q.6 [1250400]
According to the passage, the role of sentimentality in the 18th century novels:

1 occupies a secondary place when the literary movements of the century are discussed.

2 comes as a counteract to the much pragmatic approach to literature assumed by the writers of the 17th century.

3 set a new trend in the literary world and exerted great influence on novelists like Jonathan Swift, Henry Fielding, and Daniel Defoe.

4 is much frowned upon by the novelists of today for its excessive leaning towards emotional imbalance.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 1
This is an easy question as the options can be easily eliminated.

Since sentimentality was found in Laurence Sterne’s novels and it played a less prominent role in the works of other novelists of the 18th century, it
cannot be concluded that it was a counteract to the works of the previous century. Also, it cannot be said that Sterne exerted influences on other
novelists of his time. So, options 2 and 3 are eliminated.

Option 4 is an extreme view that cannot be either inferred or confirmed from the given passage.

Option 1 is the correct answer because it is mentioned in the first sentence of the passage that the role of sentimentality usually comes second when
discussing the literary movements of the century.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (5-8): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

The literature of the 18th century includes parodies, satires, and denunciations; however, the role of sentimentality usually comes second when
discussing the literary movements of the century. The author of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman , Laurence Sterne, is commonly
known as he “who introduced the present mode of sentimental writing” (The Sentimental Magazine). Among authors such as Jonathan Swift, Henry
Fielding, and Daniel Defoe his novel stands as a text outside the ordinary and invokes as much empathy as it does laughter. The text continually makes
use of symbols, follows a plot with no linearity, cuts out entire chapters, includes black pages, blank pages, and even a notorious marbled page. At the
same time, his work produces immense feeling, so much so, that his name becomes synonymous with sentimentality itself.

Sterne combines the two mediums of satire and sentimentality within his work to show the relationship between humour and emotion, between the
body and mind, and between character and narrative. Furthermore, by means of the humour of the text it is possible to miss the intricacies of emotion
that Sterne imbeds within his novel. Tristram Shandy presents mathematical proofs in order to show the location of the mind and body; it depicts
characters not through words, but through simple actions such as a soft touching of the hand; it includes metanarratives, which invoke emotion in
other characters as much as they do the narrator and reader; and, above all else it argues for moments of sentimentality, for moments when distraction
and digression fade and all that remains is the resemblance of all mankind.

The sentimentality of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy is present ab ovo and persists throughout the narrative as a complex relationship of mind and body. The
text includes an early definition of their relationship by means of Tristram himself who states, “----I tremble to think what a foundation had been laid
for a thousand weaknesses both of body and mind, which no skill of the physician or the philosopher could ever afterwards have set thoroughly to
rights”. In effect, the body and mind are similar to the middle section of a venn diagram, where it is impossible to set them “to rights” or “into a proper
condition or order” (OED). Furthermore, when there is change in one it effects the other and they share the entirety of their elements, similar to their
weaknesses. This idea is present within an essay on characterization and body in Tristram Shandy , by Juliet McMaster who states, “mind and body—
with the indissoluble links between them, and their simultaneous tragic and comic discontinuity—are surely the major overarching subject of Tristram
Shandy ”.

Q.7 [1250400]
According to the author, Tristram contends chiefly for instants:

1 that combine the two mediums of satire and sentimentality to show only the association of body and mind.

2 of sentimentality that occasionally rule the better parts of his characters in the novel.

3 when Laurence Sterne would like to be viewed as a progenitor of sentimentality in the English literary world.

4 when disruption and digression disappear and all that remains is the alikeness of all human race.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4
This is a tough fact based question. It requires a thorough reading of the passage. Moreover, this passage is slightly
difficult to read.

The word ‘chiefly’ in the question stem suggests that the answer should be about the main or primary instants. So, instants which are not of primary
importance cannot be the answer. Option 1, therefore, can be eliminated.

Option 2 cannot be correct because it talks about the occasional domination of the characters of the novel by sentimentality.

Option 3 is not mentioned in the passage. Neither can it be inferred from the given context.

Option 4 is the correct answer as it mentioned in the later part of the second paragraph of the given passage.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (5-8): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

The literature of the 18th century includes parodies, satires, and denunciations; however, the role of sentimentality usually comes second when
discussing the literary movements of the century. The author of The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman , Laurence Sterne, is commonly
known as he “who introduced the present mode of sentimental writing” (The Sentimental Magazine). Among authors such as Jonathan Swift, Henry
Fielding, and Daniel Defoe his novel stands as a text outside the ordinary and invokes as much empathy as it does laughter. The text continually makes
use of symbols, follows a plot with no linearity, cuts out entire chapters, includes black pages, blank pages, and even a notorious marbled page. At the
same time, his work produces immense feeling, so much so, that his name becomes synonymous with sentimentality itself.

Sterne combines the two mediums of satire and sentimentality within his work to show the relationship between humour and emotion, between the
body and mind, and between character and narrative. Furthermore, by means of the humour of the text it is possible to miss the intricacies of emotion
that Sterne imbeds within his novel. Tristram Shandy presents mathematical proofs in order to show the location of the mind and body; it depicts
characters not through words, but through simple actions such as a soft touching of the hand; it includes metanarratives, which invoke emotion in
other characters as much as they do the narrator and reader; and, above all else it argues for moments of sentimentality, for moments when distraction
and digression fade and all that remains is the resemblance of all mankind.

The sentimentality of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy is present ab ovo and persists throughout the narrative as a complex relationship of mind and body. The
text includes an early definition of their relationship by means of Tristram himself who states, “----I tremble to think what a foundation had been laid
for a thousand weaknesses both of body and mind, which no skill of the physician or the philosopher could ever afterwards have set thoroughly to
rights”. In effect, the body and mind are similar to the middle section of a venn diagram, where it is impossible to set them “to rights” or “into a proper
condition or order” (OED). Furthermore, when there is change in one it effects the other and they share the entirety of their elements, similar to their
weaknesses. This idea is present within an essay on characterization and body in Tristram Shandy , by Juliet McMaster who states, “mind and body—
with the indissoluble links between them, and their simultaneous tragic and comic discontinuity—are surely the major overarching subject of Tristram
Shandy ”.

Q.8 [1250400]
The main purpose of the passage is to:

1 argue that Trsistram Shandy , despite its sentimentality, has been viewed as a trendsetter in the literary world.

2 show how sentimentality continues throughout Sterne’s Tristram Shandy as a complex relationship of mind and body.

3 depict how Sterne was effective in depicting his characters in Tristram Shandy through words and action.

4 show how Laurence Sterne’s aesthetic aspirations were predominantly ruled by his projection of sentimentality.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
Normally, main idea questions are not too difficult. But this passage is slightly tedious to read if one doesn’t enjoy this
genre. However, if one keeps in mind the critical and unbiased tone of the author, the process of elimination becomes
easier.

Options 1 and 4 sound correct but they cannot be confirmed from the given passage. The facts are not enough to support these. So, they can be called
‘broad’ or ‘beyond the scope’ options.

Option 3 is a distorted piece of information. It twists a narrow part of the passage. It doesn’t encompass the overall idea of the passage.

Option 2 is the correct answer as the passage is about the sentimentality of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy that is present from the beginning and persists
throughout the narrative as a complex relationship of mind and body.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] The souring of Game of Thrones exposes a fundamental shortcoming of our storytelling culture in general: we don’t really know how to tell
sociological stories. At its best, GOT was a beast as rare as a friendly dragon in King’s Landing: it was sociological and institutional storytelling in a
medium dominated by the psychological and the individual. This structural storytelling era of the show lasted through the seasons when it was based
on the novels by George R. R. Martin, who seemed to specialize in having characters evolve in response to the broader institutional settings,
incentives, and norms that surround them. After the show ran ahead of the novels, however, it was taken over by powerful Hollywood showrunners
David Benioff and D. B. Weiss. […] They probably stuck to the narrative points that were given to them, if only in outline form, by the original author.
What they did is something different, but in many ways more fundamental: they steered the narrative lane away from the sociological and shifted to
the psychological. That’s the main, and often only, way Hollywood and most television writers tell stories.

This is an important shift to dissect because whether we tell our stories primarily from a sociological or psychological point of view has great
consequences for how we deal with our world and the problems we encounter. […] Our inability to understand and tell sociological stories is one of the
key reasons we’re struggling with how to respond to the historic technological transition we’re currently experiencing with digital technology and
machine intelligence […]

But all that is surface stuff. Even if the new season had managed to minimize plot holes and avoid clunky coincidences and a clumsy Arya ex machina as
a storytelling device, they couldn’t persist in the narrative lane of the past seasons
seasons.. For Benioff and Weiss, trying to continue what Game of Thrones
had set out to do, tell a compelling sociological story, would be like trying to eat melting ice cream with a fork. Hollywood mostly knows how to tell
psychological, individualized stories. They do not have the right tools for sociological stories, nor do they even seem to understand the job. […]

The appeal of a show that routinely kills major characters signals a different kind of storytelling, where a single charismatic and/or powerful
individual, along with his or her internal dynamics, doesn’t carry the whole narrative and explanatory burden. Given the dearth of such narratives in
fiction and in TV, this approach clearly resonated with a large fan base that latched on to the show.

In sociological storytelling, the characters have personal stories and agency, of course, but those are also greatly shaped by institutions and events
around them. The incentives for characters’ behaviour come noticeably from these external forces, too, and even strongly influence their inner life.

People then fit their internal narrative to align with their incentives, justifying and rationalizing their behaviour along the way. (Thus the famous
Upton Sinclair quip: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”)

The overly personal mode of storytelling or analysis leaves us bereft of deeper comprehension of events and history. Understanding Hitler’s
personality alone will not tell us much about rise of fascism, for example. Not that it didn’t matter, but a different demagogue would probably have
appeared to take his place in Germany in between the two bloody world wars in the 20th century. Hence, the answer to “would you kill baby Hitler,?”
sometimes presented as an ethical time-travel challenge, should be “no,” because it would very likely not matter much. It is not a true dilemma. […]

That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of
Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology but also behaviour that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any
one point. It was something more than that: you could understand why even the characters undertaking evil acts were doing what they did, how their
good intentions got subverted, and how incentives structured behaviour. The complexity made it much richer than a simplistic morality tale, where
unadulterated good fights with evil.

Q.9 [1250400]
Which of the following is the main point of the author in the last paragraph?

1 Game of Thrones managed to not tell an unadulterated story of the fight between the good and the evil.

2 Game of Thrones earlier narrated a complex tale where things were not necessarily black and white.

3 Game of Thrones earned a strong fan base because its characters were never given an easy choice.

4 Game of Thrones became popular due to its focus on resolving the true dilemma of its characters.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
As it is an idea based question, we need to keep in mind the overall tone and focus of the passage. In this passage, the
author analyses the failing narrative power of Game of Thrones because of the shift in focus from sociological storytelling
to psychological narrative. The author also discusses the importance of a sociological tale. S/he laments the dearth of such narratives in Hollywood
and TV. The last paragraph focuses on the earlier seasons of GOT where the focus was on a sociological storytelling method. This is aptly captured by
option 2, the correct choice.

Option 1 – The opening of the passage states that GOT shifted its focus. This option talks about the overall achievement of GOT. So, it misses the point
of the author as GOT didn’t manage to maintain a particular narrative vein. Hence, this is a distorted option.

Option 3 – ‘Never given an easy choice’ is both distorted and factually not proven as per the passage. It’s also not the main focus of the last paragraph.

Option 4 – This is nowhere mentioned in the passage. ‘Resolving the dilemma’ is beyond the scope of the discussion.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] The souring of Game of Thrones exposes a fundamental shortcoming of our storytelling culture in general: we don’t really know how to tell
sociological stories. At its best, GOT was a beast as rare as a friendly dragon in King’s Landing: it was sociological and institutional storytelling in a
medium dominated by the psychological and the individual. This structural storytelling era of the show lasted through the seasons when it was based
on the novels by George R. R. Martin, who seemed to specialize in having characters evolve in response to the broader institutional settings,
incentives, and norms that surround them. After the show ran ahead of the novels, however, it was taken over by powerful Hollywood showrunners
David Benioff and D. B. Weiss. […] They probably stuck to the narrative points that were given to them, if only in outline form, by the original author.
What they did is something different, but in many ways more fundamental: they steered the narrative lane away from the sociological and shifted to
the psychological. That’s the main, and often only, way Hollywood and most television writers tell stories.

This is an important shift to dissect because whether we tell our stories primarily from a sociological or psychological point of view has great
consequences for how we deal with our world and the problems we encounter. […] Our inability to understand and tell sociological stories is one of the
key reasons we’re struggling with how to respond to the historic technological transition we’re currently experiencing with digital technology and
machine intelligence […]

But all that is surface stuff. Even if the new season had managed to minimize plot holes and avoid clunky coincidences and a clumsy Arya ex machina as
a storytelling device, they couldn’t persist in the narrative lane of the past seasons
seasons.. For Benioff and Weiss, trying to continue what Game of Thrones
had set out to do, tell a compelling sociological story, would be like trying to eat melting ice cream with a fork. Hollywood mostly knows how to tell
psychological, individualized stories. They do not have the right tools for sociological stories, nor do they even seem to understand the job. […]

The appeal of a show that routinely kills major characters signals a different kind of storytelling, where a single charismatic and/or powerful
individual, along with his or her internal dynamics, doesn’t carry the whole narrative and explanatory burden. Given the dearth of such narratives in
fiction and in TV, this approach clearly resonated with a large fan base that latched on to the show.

In sociological storytelling, the characters have personal stories and agency, of course, but those are also greatly shaped by institutions and events
around them. The incentives for characters’ behaviour come noticeably from these external forces, too, and even strongly influence their inner life.

People then fit their internal narrative to align with their incentives, justifying and rationalizing their behaviour along the way. (Thus the famous
Upton Sinclair quip: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”)

The overly personal mode of storytelling or analysis leaves us bereft of deeper comprehension of events and history. Understanding Hitler’s
personality alone will not tell us much about rise of fascism, for example. Not that it didn’t matter, but a different demagogue would probably have
appeared to take his place in Germany in between the two bloody world wars in the 20th century. Hence, the answer to “would you kill baby Hitler,?”
sometimes presented as an ethical time-travel challenge, should be “no,” because it would very likely not matter much. It is not a true dilemma. […]

That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of
Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology but also behaviour that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any
one point. It was something more than that: you could understand why even the characters undertaking evil acts were doing what they did, how their
good intentions got subverted, and how incentives structured behaviour. The complexity made it much richer than a simplistic morality tale, where
unadulterated good fights with evil.

Q.10 [1250400]
In the third paragraph, the phrase “trying to eat melting ice cream with a fork” means:

1 Benioff and Weiss were bound to fail in telling the story of GOT as they were from Hollywood.

2 Hollywood makes it impossible for anyone to tell a linear story.

3 Hollywood makes it utterly impossible for TV shows like GOT to have a plot hole free narrative.

4 Benioff and Weiss had an impossible task as they lacked the ability of narrating a sociological tale.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4
Such a question (similar in type) was there in the passage on air pollution in slot 1 of CAT 2018. It’s not merely a contextual
meaning question. Here, we need to understand the author’s intention behind using the given phrase.

The author mentions this phrase when s/he tries to show how Hollywood typically doesn’t have a strong influence of sociological storytelling. The
author calls Benioff and Weiss ‘powerful Hollywood showrunner’. So, they were bound to be influenced by the existing pattern of narrative in
Hollywood. The idiom in question refers to an impossible task. So, option 4 best answers the question.

Option 1 – It is too generic. The author doesn’t say that Benioff and Weiss failed as storytellers. S/he says that they failed to continue the narrative
pattern of the earlier seasons of GOT.

Options 2 and 3 – Both of these are distorted option. The author says that Hollywood primarily deals with linear narratives. The author doesn’t discuss
on the possibility of having a show without any plot hole. Hence, both are incorrect.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] The souring of Game of Thrones exposes a fundamental shortcoming of our storytelling culture in general: we don’t really know how to tell
sociological stories. At its best, GOT was a beast as rare as a friendly dragon in King’s Landing: it was sociological and institutional storytelling in a
medium dominated by the psychological and the individual. This structural storytelling era of the show lasted through the seasons when it was based
on the novels by George R. R. Martin, who seemed to specialize in having characters evolve in response to the broader institutional settings,
incentives, and norms that surround them. After the show ran ahead of the novels, however, it was taken over by powerful Hollywood showrunners
David Benioff and D. B. Weiss. […] They probably stuck to the narrative points that were given to them, if only in outline form, by the original author.
What they did is something different, but in many ways more fundamental: they steered the narrative lane away from the sociological and shifted to
the psychological. That’s the main, and often only, way Hollywood and most television writers tell stories.

This is an important shift to dissect because whether we tell our stories primarily from a sociological or psychological point of view has great
consequences for how we deal with our world and the problems we encounter. […] Our inability to understand and tell sociological stories is one of the
key reasons we’re struggling with how to respond to the historic technological transition we’re currently experiencing with digital technology and
machine intelligence […]

But all that is surface stuff. Even if the new season had managed to minimize plot holes and avoid clunky coincidences and a clumsy Arya ex machina as
a storytelling device, they couldn’t persist in the narrative lane of the past seasons
seasons.. For Benioff and Weiss, trying to continue what Game of Thrones
had set out to do, tell a compelling sociological story, would be like trying to eat melting ice cream with a fork. Hollywood mostly knows how to tell
psychological, individualized stories. They do not have the right tools for sociological stories, nor do they even seem to understand the job. […]

The appeal of a show that routinely kills major characters signals a different kind of storytelling, where a single charismatic and/or powerful
individual, along with his or her internal dynamics, doesn’t carry the whole narrative and explanatory burden. Given the dearth of such narratives in
fiction and in TV, this approach clearly resonated with a large fan base that latched on to the show.

In sociological storytelling, the characters have personal stories and agency, of course, but those are also greatly shaped by institutions and events
around them. The incentives for characters’ behaviour come noticeably from these external forces, too, and even strongly influence their inner life.

People then fit their internal narrative to align with their incentives, justifying and rationalizing their behaviour along the way. (Thus the famous
Upton Sinclair quip: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”)

The overly personal mode of storytelling or analysis leaves us bereft of deeper comprehension of events and history. Understanding Hitler’s
personality alone will not tell us much about rise of fascism, for example. Not that it didn’t matter, but a different demagogue would probably have
appeared to take his place in Germany in between the two bloody world wars in the 20th century. Hence, the answer to “would you kill baby Hitler,?”
sometimes presented as an ethical time-travel challenge, should be “no,” because it would very likely not matter much. It is not a true dilemma. […]

That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of
Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology but also behaviour that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any
one point. It was something more than that: you could understand why even the characters undertaking evil acts were doing what they did, how their
good intentions got subverted, and how incentives structured behaviour. The complexity made it much richer than a simplistic morality tale, where
unadulterated good fights with evil.

Q.11 [1250400]
Which of the following, if true, would weaken the contention of the author that killing Hitler during his childhood wouldn’t have mattered?

1 There were many other leaders who shared the same views as Hitler but only the latter found favour with the masses.

2 The Germans were angry with their status in the world which made it easier for Hitler to manipulate their sentiments.

3 Fascism as a movement predates the rise of Hitler in Germany.

4 Hitler was a charismatic leader who was a master manipulator of people’s psyche.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 1
The author mentions the example of Hitler while discussing “the overly personal mode of storytelling or analysis” of a
central character. The contention of the author is that even if we kill Hitler in his childhood, the fate of Germany wouldn’t
change. This needs to be weakened.

Options 2 and 3 – These show that the rise of Hitler or fascism was influenced by external factors. So, these options strengthen the author’s argument.
Option 4 – It looks close but it won’t exactly weaken the author’s contention. Hitler manipulated the psyche of the Germans. But other leaders could
have done the same too. The option doesn’t mention whether this manipulation was a result of external influences or the personal achievement of
Hitler.

Option 1 – This is the correct answer. It clearly shows that Hitler managed to do something that other leaders couldn’t. So, the credit must be given to
Hitler’s personality. This will weaken the author’s contention in the given context.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (9-12): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

[…] The souring of Game of Thrones exposes a fundamental shortcoming of our storytelling culture in general: we don’t really know how to tell
sociological stories. At its best, GOT was a beast as rare as a friendly dragon in King’s Landing: it was sociological and institutional storytelling in a
medium dominated by the psychological and the individual. This structural storytelling era of the show lasted through the seasons when it was based
on the novels by George R. R. Martin, who seemed to specialize in having characters evolve in response to the broader institutional settings,
incentives, and norms that surround them. After the show ran ahead of the novels, however, it was taken over by powerful Hollywood showrunners
David Benioff and D. B. Weiss. […] They probably stuck to the narrative points that were given to them, if only in outline form, by the original author.
What they did is something different, but in many ways more fundamental: they steered the narrative lane away from the sociological and shifted to
the psychological. That’s the main, and often only, way Hollywood and most television writers tell stories.

This is an important shift to dissect because whether we tell our stories primarily from a sociological or psychological point of view has great
consequences for how we deal with our world and the problems we encounter. […] Our inability to understand and tell sociological stories is one of the
key reasons we’re struggling with how to respond to the historic technological transition we’re currently experiencing with digital technology and
machine intelligence […]

But all that is surface stuff. Even if the new season had managed to minimize plot holes and avoid clunky coincidences and a clumsy Arya ex machina as
a storytelling device, they couldn’t persist in the narrative lane of the past seasons
seasons.. For Benioff and Weiss, trying to continue what Game of Thrones
had set out to do, tell a compelling sociological story, would be like trying to eat melting ice cream with a fork. Hollywood mostly knows how to tell
psychological, individualized stories. They do not have the right tools for sociological stories, nor do they even seem to understand the job. […]

The appeal of a show that routinely kills major characters signals a different kind of storytelling, where a single charismatic and/or powerful
individual, along with his or her internal dynamics, doesn’t carry the whole narrative and explanatory burden. Given the dearth of such narratives in
fiction and in TV, this approach clearly resonated with a large fan base that latched on to the show.

In sociological storytelling, the characters have personal stories and agency, of course, but those are also greatly shaped by institutions and events
around them. The incentives for characters’ behaviour come noticeably from these external forces, too, and even strongly influence their inner life.

People then fit their internal narrative to align with their incentives, justifying and rationalizing their behaviour along the way. (Thus the famous
Upton Sinclair quip: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”)

The overly personal mode of storytelling or analysis leaves us bereft of deeper comprehension of events and history. Understanding Hitler’s
personality alone will not tell us much about rise of fascism, for example. Not that it didn’t matter, but a different demagogue would probably have
appeared to take his place in Germany in between the two bloody world wars in the 20th century. Hence, the answer to “would you kill baby Hitler,?”
sometimes presented as an ethical time-travel challenge, should be “no,” because it would very likely not matter much. It is not a true dilemma. […]

That tension between internal stories and desires, psychology and external pressures, institutions, norms and events was exactly what Game of
Thrones showed us for many of its characters, creating rich tapestries of psychology but also behaviour that was neither saintly nor fully evil at any
one point. It was something more than that: you could understand why even the characters undertaking evil acts were doing what they did, how their
good intentions got subverted, and how incentives structured behaviour. The complexity made it much richer than a simplistic morality tale, where
unadulterated good fights with evil.

Q.12 [1250400]
Which of the following can be inferred from the Upton Sinclair quotation mentioned in the passage?

1 A hungry man can’t be expected to deliberate meditatively on the importance of life.

2 A person who is busy earning his livelihood will lead a law abiding life.

3 A person can’t challenge the authority figures in his/her life.

4 A man guided by personal incentives can have a compromised critical faculty.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4
The given quotation shows that in sociological narratives, characters are influenced by the external agencies such as their
surroundings, the social norms, and the benefits these events hold for them. So, they can’t be expected to challenge or be
impartial towards these events. Option 4 best mentions these points. So, it is the correct answer.

Option 1 is a little vague. Had the second part of the option been ‘…on the merit of food’, it would have been correct.

Options 2 and 3 are irrelevant.

Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

From the perspective of 19th-century visitors to the United States, the country’s system of higher education was a joke. It wasn’t even a system, just a
random assortment of institutions claiming to be colleges that were scattered around the countryside. Underfunded, academically underwhelming,
located in small towns along the frontier, and lacking in compelling social function, the system seemed destined for obscurity. But by the second half of
the 20th century, it had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher education. Compared with peer institutions in other countries, it
came to accumulate greater wealth, produce more scholarship, win more Nobel prizes, and attract a larger proportion of talented students and faculty.
US universities dominate global rankings.

How did this remarkable transformation come about? The characteristics of the system that seemed to be disadvantages in the 19th century turned
out to be advantages in the 20th. Its modest state funding, dependence on students, populist aura, and obsession with football gave it a degree of
autonomy that has allowed it to stand astride the academic world.

The system emerged under trying circumstances early in US history, when the state was weak, the market strong, and the church divided. Lacking the
strong support of church and state, which had fostered the growth of the first universities in medieval Europe, the first US colleges had to rely largely
on support from local elites and tuition-paying student consumers. They came into being with the grant of a corporate charter from state government,
but this only authorised these institutions. It didn’t fund them.

The rationale for starting a college in the 19th century usually had less to do with promoting higher learning than with pursuing profit. For most of US
history, the primary source of wealth was land, but in a country with a lot more land than buyers, the challenge for speculators was how to convince
people to buy their land rather than one of the many other available options. (George Washington, for instance, accumulated some 50,000 acres in the
western territories, and spent much of his life unsuccessfully trying to monetise his holdings.) The situation became even more desperate in the mid-
19th century, when the federal government started giving away land to homesteaders. One answer to this problem was to show that the land was not
just another plot in a dusty agricultural village but prime real estate in an emerging cultural centre. And nothing said culture like a college. Speculators
would ‘donate’ land for a college, gain a state charter, and then sell the land around it at a premium, much like developers today who build a golf course
and then charge a high price for the houses that front on to it.

Of course, chartering a college is not the same as actually creating a functioning institution. So, speculators typically sought to affiliate their emergent
college with a religious denomination, which offered several advantages. One was that it segmented the market. A Presbyterian college would be more
attractive to Presbyterian consumers than the Methodist college in the next town. Another was staffing. Until the late-19th century, nearly all
presidents and most faculty at US colleges were clergymen, who were particularly attractive to college founders for two reasons. They were
reasonably well-educated, and they were willing to work cheap.

Q.13 [1250400]
Which of the following conditions would weaken the efficacy of education in America in the 20th century?

1 The first US colleges had to rely largely on support from local elites and tuition-paying student consumers.

2 Education in America began to be established and institutionalized as a component of ecclesiastical endeavour in its quest for spiritual well-being
of its people.

3 What did not seem to work for education in the 19th century American began to work for it in the 20th century.

4 Education in America had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher education in the second half of the 20th century.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
It is not mentioned in the passage that education in America in the 20th century was based on religion or spiritual
progress. Therefore, option 2 is the correct answer.

Option 1 is mentioned in the passage.

Option 3 is irrelevant contextually because it doesn’t specify anything.

Option 4 supports the passage’s argument. Therefore, it cannot be the correct answer.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

From the perspective of 19th-century visitors to the United States, the country’s system of higher education was a joke. It wasn’t even a system, just a
random assortment of institutions claiming to be colleges that were scattered around the countryside. Underfunded, academically underwhelming,
located in small towns along the frontier, and lacking in compelling social function, the system seemed destined for obscurity. But by the second half of
the 20th century, it had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher education. Compared with peer institutions in other countries, it
came to accumulate greater wealth, produce more scholarship, win more Nobel prizes, and attract a larger proportion of talented students and faculty.
US universities dominate global rankings.

How did this remarkable transformation come about? The characteristics of the system that seemed to be disadvantages in the 19th century turned
out to be advantages in the 20th. Its modest state funding, dependence on students, populist aura, and obsession with football gave it a degree of
autonomy that has allowed it to stand astride the academic world.

The system emerged under trying circumstances early in US history, when the state was weak, the market strong, and the church divided. Lacking the
strong support of church and state, which had fostered the growth of the first universities in medieval Europe, the first US colleges had to rely largely
on support from local elites and tuition-paying student consumers. They came into being with the grant of a corporate charter from state government,
but this only authorised these institutions. It didn’t fund them.

The rationale for starting a college in the 19th century usually had less to do with promoting higher learning than with pursuing profit. For most of US
history, the primary source of wealth was land, but in a country with a lot more land than buyers, the challenge for speculators was how to convince
people to buy their land rather than one of the many other available options. (George Washington, for instance, accumulated some 50,000 acres in the
western territories, and spent much of his life unsuccessfully trying to monetise his holdings.) The situation became even more desperate in the mid-
19th century, when the federal government started giving away land to homesteaders. One answer to this problem was to show that the land was not
just another plot in a dusty agricultural village but prime real estate in an emerging cultural centre. And nothing said culture like a college. Speculators
would ‘donate’ land for a college, gain a state charter, and then sell the land around it at a premium, much like developers today who build a golf course
and then charge a high price for the houses that front on to it.
Of course, chartering a college is not the same as actually creating a functioning institution. So, speculators typically sought to affiliate their emergent
college with a religious denomination, which offered several advantages. One was that it segmented the market. A Presbyterian college would be more
attractive to Presbyterian consumers than the Methodist college in the next town. Another was staffing. Until the late-19th century, nearly all
presidents and most faculty at US colleges were clergymen, who were particularly attractive to college founders for two reasons. They were
reasonably well-educated, and they were willing to work cheap.

Q.14 [1250400]
What is the main idea that the author is trying to highlight in the passage?

1 The seeming disadvantage in one context could prove to be a huge advantage in another context.

2 The vast expanse of land in America had very little commercial value in the 19th century; so, the government evolved a land reform policy.

3 Education in America in the 19th century was seen as disorderly and profit-oriented; however, in the 20th century it saw a great leap and
established itself as the dominant education hub of the world.

4 Education in America was largely imparted in line with the education system prevalent in the Mediaeval Europe.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 3
Options 1 and 2 can be inferred from the given passage but neither of them can be the main idea the author is trying to
highlight.

Option 4 is incorrect contextually.

Option 3 is the correct answer. Refer to “But by the second half of the 20th century, it had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher
education.”
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

From the perspective of 19th-century visitors to the United States, the country’s system of higher education was a joke. It wasn’t even a system, just a
random assortment of institutions claiming to be colleges that were scattered around the countryside. Underfunded, academically underwhelming,
located in small towns along the frontier, and lacking in compelling social function, the system seemed destined for obscurity. But by the second half of
the 20th century, it had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher education. Compared with peer institutions in other countries, it
came to accumulate greater wealth, produce more scholarship, win more Nobel prizes, and attract a larger proportion of talented students and faculty.
US universities dominate global rankings.

How did this remarkable transformation come about? The characteristics of the system that seemed to be disadvantages in the 19th century turned
out to be advantages in the 20th. Its modest state funding, dependence on students, populist aura, and obsession with football gave it a degree of
autonomy that has allowed it to stand astride the academic world.

The system emerged under trying circumstances early in US history, when the state was weak, the market strong, and the church divided. Lacking the
strong support of church and state, which had fostered the growth of the first universities in medieval Europe, the first US colleges had to rely largely
on support from local elites and tuition-paying student consumers. They came into being with the grant of a corporate charter from state government,
but this only authorised these institutions. It didn’t fund them.

The rationale for starting a college in the 19th century usually had less to do with promoting higher learning than with pursuing profit. For most of US
history, the primary source of wealth was land, but in a country with a lot more land than buyers, the challenge for speculators was how to convince
people to buy their land rather than one of the many other available options. (George Washington, for instance, accumulated some 50,000 acres in the
western territories, and spent much of his life unsuccessfully trying to monetise his holdings.) The situation became even more desperate in the mid-
19th century, when the federal government started giving away land to homesteaders. One answer to this problem was to show that the land was not
just another plot in a dusty agricultural village but prime real estate in an emerging cultural centre. And nothing said culture like a college. Speculators
would ‘donate’ land for a college, gain a state charter, and then sell the land around it at a premium, much like developers today who build a golf course
and then charge a high price for the houses that front on to it.

Of course, chartering a college is not the same as actually creating a functioning institution. So, speculators typically sought to affiliate their emergent
college with a religious denomination, which offered several advantages. One was that it segmented the market. A Presbyterian college would be more
attractive to Presbyterian consumers than the Methodist college in the next town. Another was staffing. Until the late-19th century, nearly all
presidents and most faculty at US colleges were clergymen, who were particularly attractive to college founders for two reasons. They were
reasonably well-educated, and they were willing to work cheap.

Q.15 [1250400]
According to the author, the federal government began to give away land to homesteaders because:

1 that way the government could show that the land was not only an agricultural land but a prime real estate and a developing cultural hub.

2 that way the vast land would be populated, and the colleges built in those places would attract students from there.

3 it was the opportune time to gain the confidence of the people and instigate economic reform of America.

4 the government want the settlers to be economically self-sufficient and contribute towards nation building in the 19th century America.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 1
Options 2, 3 and 4 are not the reasons why the federal government started to give away land to homesteaders.

Option 1 is the correct answer. Refer to the lines: “The situation became even more desperate in the mid-19th century, when the federal government
started giving away land to homesteaders. One answer to this problem was to show that the land was not just another plot in a dusty agricultural
village but prime real estate in an emerging cultural centre.”
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for questions (13-16): Read the given passages and answer the questions that follow.

From the perspective of 19th-century visitors to the United States, the country’s system of higher education was a joke. It wasn’t even a system, just a
random assortment of institutions claiming to be colleges that were scattered around the countryside. Underfunded, academically underwhelming,
located in small towns along the frontier, and lacking in compelling social function, the system seemed destined for obscurity. But by the second half of
the 20th century, it had assumed a dominant position in the world market in higher education. Compared with peer institutions in other countries, it
came to accumulate greater wealth, produce more scholarship, win more Nobel prizes, and attract a larger proportion of talented students and faculty.
US universities dominate global rankings.

How did this remarkable transformation come about? The characteristics of the system that seemed to be disadvantages in the 19th century turned
out to be advantages in the 20th. Its modest state funding, dependence on students, populist aura, and obsession with football gave it a degree of
autonomy that has allowed it to stand astride the academic world.

The system emerged under trying circumstances early in US history, when the state was weak, the market strong, and the church divided. Lacking the
strong support of church and state, which had fostered the growth of the first universities in medieval Europe, the first US colleges had to rely largely
on support from local elites and tuition-paying student consumers. They came into being with the grant of a corporate charter from state government,
but this only authorised these institutions. It didn’t fund them.

The rationale for starting a college in the 19th century usually had less to do with promoting higher learning than with pursuing profit. For most of US
history, the primary source of wealth was land, but in a country with a lot more land than buyers, the challenge for speculators was how to convince
people to buy their land rather than one of the many other available options. (George Washington, for instance, accumulated some 50,000 acres in the
western territories, and spent much of his life unsuccessfully trying to monetise his holdings.) The situation became even more desperate in the mid-
19th century, when the federal government started giving away land to homesteaders. One answer to this problem was to show that the land was not
just another plot in a dusty agricultural village but prime real estate in an emerging cultural centre. And nothing said culture like a college. Speculators
would ‘donate’ land for a college, gain a state charter, and then sell the land around it at a premium, much like developers today who build a golf course
and then charge a high price for the houses that front on to it.

Of course, chartering a college is not the same as actually creating a functioning institution. So, speculators typically sought to affiliate their emergent
college with a religious denomination, which offered several advantages. One was that it segmented the market. A Presbyterian college would be more
attractive to Presbyterian consumers than the Methodist college in the next town. Another was staffing. Until the late-19th century, nearly all
presidents and most faculty at US colleges were clergymen, who were particularly attractive to college founders for two reasons. They were
reasonably well-educated, and they were willing to work cheap.

Q.16 [1250400]
On the basis of the passage, which of the following is the reason why clergymen were preferred as presidents and faculty of US colleges by the college
founders in the 19th century?

1 Presidents and faculty of US colleges who were clergymen could also help the students and the society in their spiritual growth.

2 Education was dominated by the Church.

3 The educational system of the time necessitated the college founders to hire a maximum number of teachers with ecclesiastical experience.

4 The college founders found that the clergymen were well-educated, and they were also ready to work for less money.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4
Option 1 is not mentioned in the passage.
Option 2 is too extreme.
Option 3 is unfounded.
Option 4 is the correct answer. Refer to the lines: “Until the late-19th century, nearly all presidents and most faculty at US colleges were clergymen,
who were particularly attractive to college founders for two reasons. They were reasonably well-educated, and they were willing to work cheap.”
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for question (17): The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph.
Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.

Q.17 [1250400]

1. Tiny bits of the mineral zircon were extracted from the lunar material and their age was estimated using uranium-lead radioisotope dating.
2. Lunar rocks and soil collected in 1971 during the Apollo 14 mission have been analyzed to show that the Moon is older than expected, 4.51 billion
years old.
3. This result indicates that the Moon-forming impact occurred much sooner after Earth’s formation, and also that Earth could have cooled down
enough to allow life earlier than previously thought as well.
4. Earlier estimates had postulated that the Moon formed within 100 million to 200 million years after the Solar System formed, but the study put it at
about 60 million years after that event.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2413
The sentences are lengthy. But this is actually a para jumble question that can be answered.
2 is the opening sentence (both thematically and chronologically). It introduces the topic of the paragraph – Lunar rocks
and Moon’s age.
24 is a pair. (‘Earlier estimates’ in 4 provides a contrast to the estimates in 2)
41 is a pair as 1 describes the methods of arriving at the estimates mentioned in 4.
3 is the last sentence. ‘This result’ actually gives a conclusion on the entire discussion. So, 2413 is the correct sequence.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for question (18): The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph.
Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.

Q.18 [1250400]

1. When she was little, doctors said she had an IQ of 34.

2. Mild autism, borderline personality disorder – the verdict seems to have changed almost as often as her medications.
3. And though they were far wrong, the right diagnosis has never been clear.
4. Until recently, Gina had insisted that a cellphone was too complicated for her, a plausible statement given how many things she finds hard.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4132
This is a very easy question. Thematically, it is very similar to the ‘Kathy Perkin’ question that came in CAT 2019 slot 1
paper.
Notice the narrative sequence. 4 is the opening sentence as it introduces Gina, the protagonist of this narration.
41 is a pair. Chronologically, it follows 4 by giving an example of how Gina has always found things hard. ‘She’ refers to Gina.
3 has the word ‘and’. So, it adds to 1. Thus, 13 is a pair.
2 is the last sentence as it summarises the problems with Gina’s diagnosis and treatment. Thus, 4132 is the correct sequence.
Bookmark FeedBack

Q.19 [1250400]
Directions for question (19): The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.

The world’s most lethal and devastating weapon! Able to rectify and destroy, to heal and to harm! This tool, which can be used as the most harmonious
of presents—wrapped and bound with the purest of intentions, has been the same that has ruined entire countries and cultures—delivered with
manipulative vengeance capable of planting lethal thoughts. Even used in the smallest sum, its potency can carry the greatest of meaning. I believe in
the power of words.

1 Words are the most powerful weapons in the world.

2 One should be careful of using words.

3 Words are always disguised as gifts which eventually harm the receiver.

4 Words are potent tools with a lot of potential for causing damage.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 4
This is an easy question as the options are not very close. The paragraph mentions three main points: Words can be potent
weapons; they can destroy as well as heal; they are powerful. Option 4 mentions all these. So, it is the correct answer.

Option 1 – The author doesn’t literally mean words as weapons. Note the use of the exclamatory mark at the end. It’s a figurative description.

Option 2 – This is not a complete summary of the paragraph. It’s an inference that can be drawn from the paragraph.

Option 3 – This is a completely distorted and illogical interpretation of the information provided in the paragraph. Note the use of the adjective
‘always’. It makes the option extreme.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for question (20): Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent
short paragraph. Identify the odd one out.

Q.20 [1250400]

1. The most impacted are children and the elderly.

2. How many lives would it take for our government to wake up?
3. Recent studies have also reported that air pollution is reducing India’s life expectancy by 3.2 years.
4. Why is it that London issues air quality alerts on reaching 66 µg/cum when Delhi does not have any warning on crossing 500 µg/cum?
5. However, not many people in India research on air pollution to find out the severity of these levels.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 5
The correct order is 4132. This is a slightly tricky question. All the sentences deal with the same theme. So, we can’t
identify the odd sentence just based on the main idea. So, we need to eliminate mandatory pairs.
Step 1 – 41 is a pair. ‘The most impacted’ in 1 refers to the people who are impacted by air pollution in Delhi. So, both the sentences will belong to the
paragraph.
Step 2 – Between 2, 3, and 5, 2 will surely belong to the paragraph. It’s a question that summarises the impact of air pollution. So, it acts as a
concluding sentence for the entire paragraph.
Step 3 – The clue for the answer is the word ‘however’ in 5. It suggests that the sentence is providing a thematic contrast to some other sentence in
the paragraph. However, there is no such sentence found in the paragraph. Hence, 5 is the odd one out.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for question (21): The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, and 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph.
Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.

Q.21 [1250400]

1. If that is the focus of juries, attorneys and prosecutors are bound to follow suit in an attempt to attain convictions.
2. An Australian study in 2004 found that consistency was the most frequently cited criterion by which juries assessed the credibility of a victim.
3. They looked for consistency in the statements by the accuser, and also expected consistency in the victim’s post-assault behaviour.
4. Judges sometimes give instructions to juries about ‘explainable’ discrepancies, but such directives are unlikely to pre-empt entrenched, pre-existing
cultural narratives.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2314
This is a moderate level question.
‘An Australian study’ in 2 makes it the opening sentence. The use of the indefinite articles is a good indicator of an opening
sentence.
23 is a pair. ‘They’ in 3 refers to the ‘juries’ in 2.
1 has the phrase ‘if that is the focus...’ It refers to the idea mentioned in 3.
4 gives an example of how sometimes judges try to make the situation better for the victims. However, it turns out to be ineffective. So, 4 explains the
issue raised in 1.
So, 2314 is the correct sequence.
Bookmark FeedBack

Q.22 [1250400]
Directions for question (22): The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.

The corruption of power is one of the most important psychosocial dynamics behind many important turning points in history, and in how the ills of
society arise. In response, we have created elections, checks and balances, and laws and mechanisms that constrain the executive. Destructive
historical figures often believe that they must stay in power because it is they, and only they, who can lead the people—and that any alternative would
be calamitous. Leaders tend to get isolated, become surrounded by sycophants and succumb easily to the human tendency to self-rationalize. There
are several examples in history of a leader who starts in opposition with the best of intentions and ends up acting brutally and turning into a tyrant if
they take power.

1 Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

2 Leaders with the best of intentions inevitably succumb to the lure of power and become corrupt.

3 The corrupting influence of power has been a historical phenomenon, and this has led to the establishment of checks and balances in the society.

4 Corruption has been the core issue in the psychosocial dynamics of our world from ancient times with many powerful leaders becoming sycophants
and delusional.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 3
Effectively, this paragraph mentions its main point in the first two sentences. All the following sentences are just examples.
So, there are two main points here: Corruption of power has been a historical phenomenon (as proven by the various
examples); checks and balances for the executives are the response to these historical lessons. Only option 3 mentions these two points.

Option 1 – It is not a summary but an extreme conclusion.

Option 2 – This is an incomplete option. It just mentions the last example the author gives in the paragraph. It doesn’t talk about the main idea of the
paragraph.

Option 4 – ‘Leaders becoming sycophants’ is a distorted interpretation of the information given in the paragraph. This paragraph too fails to mention
both the points.
Bookmark FeedBack

Direction for question (23): Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent
short paragraph. Identify the odd one out.

Q.23 [1250400]

1. Burning forests, high human populations and unflagging demand for tiger blood, tiger skin and crushed tiger bone means the big cats have to tread a
daily gauntlet of snares, guns and desperate poachers.
2. But even the leopard’s supposed plasticity has not been enough to save them across most of Southeast Asia.
3. And in some cases, it is nearly impossible to survive as a tiger in Southeast Asia.
4. Now, conservationists are discovering, belatedly, that the same is largely true for leopards.
5. Conservationists have long known that it’s hard.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
The correct order is 5314. This is an easy question.
Step 1 – One mandatory pair is 53 (hard – impossible).
Step 2 – sentences 1 and 4 talk about ‘tiger’. Sentence 2 talks about leopard. There is also no justification for the linking word ‘but’ at the beginning of
the sentence. Hence, sentence 2 is the odd one out.
Bookmark FeedBack

Q.24 [1250400]
Directions for question (24): The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.

Logically, somebody who never puts effort into anything should be the master of effortlessness. But it is not so. If you want to know effortlessness, you
need to know effort. When you reach the peak of effort, you become effortless. Only a person who knows what it is to work understands rest.
Paradoxically, those who are always resting know no rest; they only sink into dullness and lethargy. This is the way of life.

1 People first need to understand the value of effort in order to master effortlessness.

2 Only those who are masters of something can understand the value of resting.

3 Only those who do something can afford to do nothing.

4 People need to first in order to understand rest.

Solution:
! Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 1
This is not a very difficult to read paragraph if we keep in mind the main aim of the author. The main aim of the author is
that people need to first master an act before they can afford to not do the same. The example of work and rest drives
home this point. So, the main message of the paragraph is that one should first master the act of effort in order to become effortless. This is mentioned
only in option 1. The other options are distorted conclusions. So, option 1 is the correct answer.
Bookmark FeedBack