Mock Test For CAT

1.

It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race – a misfortune because surplus is always more dangerous than scarcity. Scarcity means that valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable, which upsets and confuses people.

To make a historical analogy with the last major spread of new publishing technology: you could earn a living in 1500 simply by knowing how to read and write. The spread of those abilities in the subsequent century had the curious property of making literacy both more essential and less professional; literacy became critical at the same time as the scribes lost their jobs.

The same thing is happening with publishing due to the Internet. In the twentieth century, the mere fact of owning the apparatus to make something public – whether a printing press or a TV tower – made you a person of considerable importance. Today, though, publishing, in the sense of making things public, is becoming similarly deprofessionalized. YouTube is now in the position of having to stop eight-year-olds from becoming global publishers of video. The mere fact of being able to publish to a global audience is the new literacy – formerly valuable, now so widely available that you can’t make any money with the basic capability anymore.

So it falls to us to make sure that that isn’t the only consequence.

The twentieth-century model of publishing is inadequate to the kind of sharing possible today. As we know from Wikipedia, post hoc peer review can support astonishing creations of shared value. As we know from the search for Mersenne primes, whole branches of mathematical exploration are now best taken on by groups. As we know from open-source efforts such as Linux, collaboration between loosely joined parties can work at scales and over time frames previously unimagined. As we know from NASA clickworkers, groups of amateurs can sometimes replace single experts. As we know from www.patientslikeme.com, patient involvement accelerates medical research. And so on.

The beneficiaries of the system in which making things public was a privileged activity – academics, politicians, reporters, doctors – will complain about the way the new abundance of public thought upends the old order, but those complaints are like keening at a wake: the change they are protesting is already in the past. The real action is elsewhere.

The Internet’s primary effect on how we think will reveal itself only when it affects the cultural milieu of thought, not just the behaviour of individual users. We will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant and global (both in the sense of ‘comes from everyone’ and in the sense of ‘goes everywhere’). We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won’t matter much, but the norms we set will.

Question 1

The author likens the effect of the Internet to that of the spread of literacy after 1500 in order to show that:

2.

It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race – a misfortune because surplus is always more dangerous than scarcity. Scarcity means that valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable, which upsets and confuses people.

To make a historical analogy with the last major spread of new publishing technology: you could earn a living in 1500 simply by knowing how to read and write. The spread of those abilities in the subsequent century had the curious property of making literacy both more essential and less professional; literacy became critical at the same time as the scribes lost their jobs.

The same thing is happening with publishing due to the Internet. In the twentieth century, the mere fact of owning the apparatus to make something public – whether a printing press or a TV tower – made you a person of considerable importance. Today, though, publishing, in the sense of making things public, is becoming similarly deprofessionalized. YouTube is now in the position of having to stop eight-year-olds from becoming global publishers of video. The mere fact of being able to publish to a global audience is the new literacy – formerly valuable, now so widely available that you can’t make any money with the basic capability anymore.

So it falls to us to make sure that that isn’t the only consequence.

The twentieth-century model of publishing is inadequate to the kind of sharing possible today. As we know from Wikipedia, post hoc peer review can support astonishing creations of shared value. As we know from the search for Mersenne primes, whole branches of mathematical exploration are now best taken on by groups. As we know from open-source efforts such as Linux, collaboration between loosely joined parties can work at scales and over time frames previously unimagined. As we know from NASA clickworkers, groups of amateurs can sometimes replace single experts. As we know from www.patientslikeme.com, patient involvement accelerates medical research. And so on.

The beneficiaries of the system in which making things public was a privileged activity – academics, politicians, reporters, doctors – will complain about the way the new abundance of public thought upends the old order, but those complaints are like keening at a wake: the change they are protesting is already in the past. The real action is elsewhere.

The Internet’s primary effect on how we think will reveal itself only when it affects the cultural milieu of thought, not just the behaviour of individual users. We will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant and global (both in the sense of ‘comes from everyone’ and in the sense of ‘goes everywhere’). We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won’t matter much, but the norms we set will.

Question 2

The word ‘publishing’ is used in this passage primarily to refer to:

3. It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race – a misfortune because surplus is always more dangerous than Scarcity means that valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable, which upsets and confuses people.

To make a historical analogy with the last major spread of new publishing technology: you could earn a living in 1500 simply by knowing how to read and write. The spread of those abilities in the subsequent century had the curious property of making literacy both more essential and less professional; literacy became critical at the same time as the scribes lost their jobs.

The same thing is happening with publishing due to the Internet. In the twentieth century, the mere fact of owning the apparatus to make something public – whether a printing press or a TV tower – made you a person of considerable importance. Today, though, publishing, in the sense of making things public, is becoming similarly deprofessionalized. YouTube is now in the position of having to stop eight-year-olds from becoming global publishers of video. The mere fact of being able to publish to a global audience is the new literacy – formerly valuable, now so widely available that you can’t make any money with the basic capability anymore.

So it falls to us to make sure that that isn’t the only consequence.

The twentieth-century model of publishing is inadequate to the kind of sharing possible today. As we know from Wikipedia, post hoc peer review can support astonishing creations of shared value. As we know from the search for Mersenne primes, whole branches of mathematical exploration are now best taken on by groups. As we know from open-source efforts such as Linux, collaboration between loosely joined parties can work at scales and over time frames previously unimagined. As we know from NASA clickworkers, groups of amateurs can sometimes replace single experts. As we know from www.patientslikeme.com, patient involvement accelerates medical research. And so on.

The beneficiaries of the system in which making things public was a privileged activity – academics, politicians, reporters, doctors – will complain about the way the new abundance of public thought upends the old order, but those complaints are like keening at a wake: the change they are protesting is already in the past. The real action is elsewhere.

The Internet’s primary effect on how we think will reveal itself only when it affects the cultural milieu of thought, not just the behaviour of individual users. We will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant and global (both in the sense of ‘comes from everyone’ and in the sense of ‘goes everywhere’). We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won’t matter much, but the norms we set will.

Question 3

All of the following are kinds of sharing made possible by the Internet, EXCEPT:

4. It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race – a misfortune because surplus is always more dangerous than Scarcity means that valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable, which upsets and confuses people.

To make a historical analogy with the last major spread of new publishing technology: you could earn a living in 1500 simply by knowing how to read and write. The spread of those abilities in the subsequent century had the curious property of making literacy both more essential and less professional; literacy became critical at the same time as the scribes lost their jobs.

The same thing is happening with publishing due to the Internet. In the twentieth century, the mere fact of owning the apparatus to make something public – whether a printing press or a TV tower – made you a person of considerable importance. Today, though, publishing, in the sense of making things public, is becoming similarly deprofessionalized. YouTube is now in the position of having to stop eight-year-olds from becoming global publishers of video. The mere fact of being able to publish to a global audience is the new literacy – formerly valuable, now so widely available that you can’t make any money with the basic capability anymore.

So it falls to us to make sure that that isn’t the only consequence.

The twentieth-century model of publishing is inadequate to the kind of sharing possible today. As we know from Wikipedia, post hoc peer review can support astonishing creations of shared value. As we know from the search for Mersenne primes, whole branches of mathematical exploration are now best taken on by groups. As we know from open-source efforts such as Linux, collaboration between loosely joined parties can work at scales and over time frames previously unimagined. As we know from NASA clickworkers, groups of amateurs can sometimes replace single experts. As we know from www.patientslikeme.com, patient involvement accelerates medical research. And so on.

The beneficiaries of the system in which making things public was a privileged activity – academics, politicians, reporters, doctors – will complain about the way the new abundance of public thought upends the old order, but those complaints are like keening at a wake: the change they are protesting is already in the past. The real action is elsewhere.

The Internet’s primary effect on how we think will reveal itself only when it affects the cultural milieu of thought, not just the behaviour of individual users. We will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant and global (both in the sense of ‘comes from everyone’ and in the sense of ‘goes everywhere’). We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won’t matter much, but the norms we set will.

Question 4

The author considers the current spread of publishing technology to be a ‘misfortune’ because:

5. It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race – a misfortune because surplus is always more dangerous than Scarcity means that valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable, which upsets and confuses people.

To make a historical analogy with the last major spread of new publishing technology: you could earn a living in 1500 simply by knowing how to read and write. The spread of those abilities in the subsequent century had the curious property of making literacy both more essential and less professional; literacy became critical at the same time as the scribes lost their jobs.

The same thing is happening with publishing due to the Internet. In the twentieth century, the mere fact of owning the apparatus to make something public – whether a printing press or a TV tower – made you a person of considerable importance. Today, though, publishing, in the sense of making things public, is becoming similarly deprofessionalized. YouTube is now in the position of having to stop eight-year-olds from becoming global publishers of video. The mere fact of being able to publish to a global audience is the new literacy – formerly valuable, now so widely available that you can’t make any money with the basic capability anymore.

So it falls to us to make sure that that isn’t the only consequence.

The twentieth-century model of publishing is inadequate to the kind of sharing possible today. As we know from Wikipedia, post hoc peer review can support astonishing creations of shared value. As we know from the search for Mersenne primes, whole branches of mathematical exploration are now best taken on by groups. As we know from open-source efforts such as Linux, collaboration between loosely joined parties can work at scales and over time frames previously unimagined. As we know from NASA clickworkers, groups of amateurs can sometimes replace single experts. As we know from www.patientslikeme.com, patient involvement accelerates medical research. And so on.

The beneficiaries of the system in which making things public was a privileged activity – academics, politicians, reporters, doctors – will complain about the way the new abundance of public thought upends the old order, but those complaints are like keening at a wake: the change they are protesting is already in the past. The real action is elsewhere.

The Internet’s primary effect on how we think will reveal itself only when it affects the cultural milieu of thought, not just the behaviour of individual users. We will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant and global (both in the sense of ‘comes from everyone’ and in the sense of ‘goes everywhere’). We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won’t matter much, but the norms we set will.

Question 5

In the penultimate paragraph the writer says that complaining about the easy sharing of information is futile. He believes it to be a futile exercise because?

6. It is our misfortune to live through the largest increase in expressive capability in the history of the human race – a misfortune because surplus is always more dangerous than Scarcity means that valuable things become more valuable, a conceptually easy change to integrate. Surplus means that previously valuable things stop being valuable, which upsets and confuses people.

To make a historical analogy with the last major spread of new publishing technology: you could earn a living in 1500 simply by knowing how to read and write. The spread of those abilities in the subsequent century had the curious property of making literacy both more essential and less professional; literacy became critical at the same time as the scribes lost their jobs.

The same thing is happening with publishing due to the Internet. In the twentieth century, the mere fact of owning the apparatus to make something public – whether a printing press or a TV tower – made you a person of considerable importance. Today, though, publishing, in the sense of making things public, is becoming similarly deprofessionalized. YouTube is now in the position of having to stop eight-year-olds from becoming global publishers of video. The mere fact of being able to publish to a global audience is the new literacy – formerly valuable, now so widely available that you can’t make any money with the basic capability anymore.

So it falls to us to make sure that that isn’t the only consequence.

The twentieth-century model of publishing is inadequate to the kind of sharing possible today. As we know from Wikipedia, post hoc peer review can support astonishing creations of shared value. As we know from the search for Mersenne primes, whole branches of mathematical exploration are now best taken on by groups. As we know from open-source efforts such as Linux, collaboration between loosely joined parties can work at scales and over time frames previously unimagined. As we know from NASA clickworkers, groups of amateurs can sometimes replace single experts. As we know from www.patientslikeme.com, patient involvement accelerates medical research. And so on.

The beneficiaries of the system in which making things public was a privileged activity – academics, politicians, reporters, doctors – will complain about the way the new abundance of public thought upends the old order, but those complaints are like keening at a wake: the change they are protesting is already in the past. The real action is elsewhere.

The Internet’s primary effect on how we think will reveal itself only when it affects the cultural milieu of thought, not just the behaviour of individual users. We will not live to see what use humanity makes of a medium for sharing that is cheap, instant and global (both in the sense of ‘comes from everyone’ and in the sense of ‘goes everywhere’). We are, however, the people who are setting the earliest patterns for this medium. Our fate won’t matter much, but the norms we set will.

Question 6

According to the passage, the Internet is:

7.

The passage below is accompanied by a set of six Choose the best answer to each question.

In the 1930s, Niko Tinbergen and David Lack began pioneering the systematic, scholarly observation of individual animals. In his bestselling The Life of the Robin (1943), Lack argued that in order to study animal life you had to know the animals individually. Colourcoded rings on the legs of each robin meant that the daily observations of individual birds could accumulate into individual histories, enabling Lack to set present-day behaviour in the context of past events. Similarly, in Curious Naturalists (1958) Tinbergen used coloured dots to identify individual wasps on the sands of Hulshorst in the Netherlands.

These two men, founders in the fields of ethology and ecology, realized that individual identification was the first stage in adopting the animal perspective and exploring the lived consciousness of other species. Rather than using human experiences – that sense of self-conscious subjectivity – as their yardstick, they focused instead on individual animal behaviour as it occurred within the environment in which it had evolved. In many ways, they took the first steps towards being able to see what it might mean to be an animal.

Tinbergen and Lack (among others) were critical of both field scientists who indulged in lazy anthropomorphism, and those who insisted on setting up ‘artificial standards of simplicity’. In particular, they objected to the dismissal of any apparently sophisticated animal action as ‘instinctive’. Such behaviour needed to be investigated, not marginalized: what was instinct, after all? At the same time, they argued that assuming parity between animal and human mental processes was not just wrong, but foolish. Lack was clear that speculating about an animal’s emotional state could provide valuable clues to guide future study, but one should never presume that a bird feels or perceives in the same way as a human.

Lack demonstrated the point with great elegance using a stuffed robin. This was presented to individual birds to see how they would respond to a stranger’s presence; since the ornament itself never changed, it could, argued Lack, be used as a means of objectively testing robin personality or temperament. One day, however, it did change – fatally. An ‘exceptionally violent hen robin attacked [it] so strongly that she removed his head. For a moment, the bird seemed rather startled, but then continued to attack … as violently as before.’ Further investigations established that just a tuft of red feathers could provoke a brutal response that might continue even after the feathers’ complete disappearance. Lack wrote: ‘We tend to think that, clothed in a robin’s body, but retaining a human mind, we would do much the same things in much the same way … We tend to assume that the world the robin sees is much like the world which we see. Suitable experiments show how false this impression is. Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed.’

Tinbergen and others agreed: while their aim was to see the world with animal eyes, they worked with the caveat that animal mentalities were neither similar to nor less than those of humans. They were, instead, different – and different animals possessed different minds, often prioritizing different senses. No matter how hard a human tried to see through animal eyes, they would find it impossible to figure out how a pig’s biography would smell.

Question 7

What is the central idea of this passage?

8. In the 1930s, Niko Tinbergen and David Lack began pioneering the systematic, scholarly observation of individual In his bestselling The Life of the Robin (1943), Lack argued that in order to study animal life you had to know the animals individually. Colourcoded rings on the legs of each robin meant that the daily observations of individual birds could accumulate into individual histories, enabling Lack to set present-day behaviour in the context of past events. Similarly, in Curious Naturalists (1958) Tinbergen used coloured dots to identify individual wasps on the sands of Hulshorst in the Netherlands.

These two men, founders in the fields of ethology and ecology, realized that individual identification was the first stage in adopting the animal perspective and exploring the lived consciousness of other species. Rather than using human experiences – that sense of self-conscious subjectivity – as their yardstick, they focused instead on individual animal behaviour as it occurred within the environment in which it had evolved. In many ways, they took the first steps towards being able to see what it might mean to be an animal.

Tinbergen and Lack (among others) were critical of both field scientists who indulged in lazy anthropomorphism, and those who insisted on setting up ‘artificial standards of simplicity’. In particular, they objected to the dismissal of any apparently sophisticated animal action as ‘instinctive’. Such behaviour needed to be investigated, not marginalized: what was instinct, after all? At the same time, they argued that assuming parity between animal and human mental processes was not just wrong, but foolish. Lack was clear that speculating about an animal’s emotional state could provide valuable clues to guide future study, but one should never presume that a bird feels or perceives in the same way as a human.

Lack demonstrated the point with great elegance using a stuffed robin. This was presented to individual birds to see how they would respond to a stranger’s presence; since the ornament itself never changed, it could, argued Lack, be used as a means of objectively testing robin personality or temperament. One day, however, it did change – fatally. An ‘exceptionally violent hen robin attacked [it] so strongly that she removed his head. For a moment, the bird seemed rather startled, but then continued to attack … as violently as before.’ Further investigations established that just a tuft of red feathers could provoke a brutal response that might continue even after the feathers’ complete disappearance. Lack wrote: ‘We tend to think that, clothed in a robin’s body, but retaining a human mind, we would do much the same things in much the same way … We tend to assume that the world the robin sees is much like the world which we see. Suitable experiments show how false this impression is. Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed.’

Tinbergen and others agreed: while their aim was to see the world with animal eyes, they worked with the caveat that animal mentalities were neither similar to nor less than those of humans. They were, instead, different – and different animals possessed different minds, often prioritizing different senses. No matter how hard a human tried to see through animal eyes, they would find it impossible to figure out how a pig’s biography would smell.

Question 8

Which of the following is true about David Lack, as per this passage?

9. In the 1930s, Niko Tinbergen and David Lack began pioneering the systematic, scholarly observation of individual In his bestselling The Life of the Robin (1943), Lack argued that in order to study animal life you had to know the animals individually. Colourcoded rings on the legs of each robin meant that the daily observations of individual birds could accumulate into individual histories, enabling Lack to set present-day behaviour in the context of past events. Similarly, in Curious Naturalists (1958) Tinbergen used coloured dots to identify individual wasps on the sands of Hulshorst in the Netherlands.

These two men, founders in the fields of ethology and ecology, realized that individual identification was the first stage in adopting the animal perspective and exploring the lived consciousness of other species. Rather than using human experiences – that sense of self-conscious subjectivity – as their yardstick, they focused instead on individual animal behaviour as it occurred within the environment in which it had evolved. In many ways, they took the first steps towards being able to see what it might mean to be an animal.

Tinbergen and Lack (among others) were critical of both field scientists who indulged in lazy anthropomorphism, and those who insisted on setting up ‘artificial standards of simplicity’. In particular, they objected to the dismissal of any apparently sophisticated animal action as ‘instinctive’. Such behaviour needed to be investigated, not marginalized: what was instinct, after all? At the same time, they argued that assuming parity between animal and human mental processes was not just wrong, but foolish. Lack was clear that speculating about an animal’s emotional state could provide valuable clues to guide future study, but one should never presume that a bird feels or perceives in the same way as a human.

Lack demonstrated the point with great elegance using a stuffed robin. This was presented to individual birds to see how they would respond to a stranger’s presence; since the ornament itself never changed, it could, argued Lack, be used as a means of objectively testing robin personality or temperament. One day, however, it did change – fatally. An ‘exceptionally violent hen robin attacked [it] so strongly that she removed his head. For a moment, the bird seemed rather startled, but then continued to attack … as violently as before.’ Further investigations established that just a tuft of red feathers could provoke a brutal response that might continue even after the feathers’ complete disappearance. Lack wrote: ‘We tend to think that, clothed in a robin’s body, but retaining a human mind, we would do much the same things in much the same way … We tend to assume that the world the robin sees is much like the world which we see. Suitable experiments show how false this impression is. Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed.’

Tinbergen and others agreed: while their aim was to see the world with animal eyes, they worked with the caveat that animal mentalities were neither similar to nor less than those of humans. They were, instead, different – and different animals possessed different minds, often prioritizing different senses. No matter how hard a human tried to see through animal eyes, they would find it impossible to figure out how a pig’s biography would smell.

Question 9

What does Lack mean when he says ‘Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed’?

10. In the 1930s, Niko Tinbergen and David Lack began pioneering the systematic, scholarly observation of individual In his bestselling The Life of the Robin (1943), Lack argued that in order to study animal life you had to know the animals individually. Colourcoded rings on the legs of each robin meant that the daily observations of individual birds could accumulate into individual histories, enabling Lack to set present-day behaviour in the context of past events. Similarly, in Curious Naturalists (1958) Tinbergen used coloured dots to identify individual wasps on the sands of Hulshorst in the Netherlands.

These two men, founders in the fields of ethology and ecology, realized that individual identification was the first stage in adopting the animal perspective and exploring the lived consciousness of other species. Rather than using human experiences – that sense of self-conscious subjectivity – as their yardstick, they focused instead on individual animal behaviour as it occurred within the environment in which it had evolved. In many ways, they took the first steps towards being able to see what it might mean to be an animal.

Tinbergen and Lack (among others) were critical of both field scientists who indulged in lazy anthropomorphism, and those who insisted on setting up ‘artificial standards of simplicity’. In particular, they objected to the dismissal of any apparently sophisticated animal action as ‘instinctive’. Such behaviour needed to be investigated, not marginalized: what was instinct, after all? At the same time, they argued that assuming parity between animal and human mental processes was not just wrong, but foolish. Lack was clear that speculating about an animal’s emotional state could provide valuable clues to guide future study, but one should never presume that a bird feels or perceives in the same way as a human.

Lack demonstrated the point with great elegance using a stuffed robin. This was presented to individual birds to see how they would respond to a stranger’s presence; since the ornament itself never changed, it could, argued Lack, be used as a means of objectively testing robin personality or temperament. One day, however, it did change – fatally. An ‘exceptionally violent hen robin attacked [it] so strongly that she removed his head. For a moment, the bird seemed rather startled, but then continued to attack … as violently as before.’ Further investigations established that just a tuft of red feathers could provoke a brutal response that might continue even after the feathers’ complete disappearance. Lack wrote: ‘We tend to think that, clothed in a robin’s body, but retaining a human mind, we would do much the same things in much the same way … We tend to assume that the world the robin sees is much like the world which we see. Suitable experiments show how false this impression is. Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed.’

Tinbergen and others agreed: while their aim was to see the world with animal eyes, they worked with the caveat that animal mentalities were neither similar to nor less than those of humans. They were, instead, different – and different animals possessed different minds, often prioritizing different senses. No matter how hard a human tried to see through animal eyes, they would find it impossible to figure out how a pig’s biography would smell.

Question 10

Tinbergen and Lack criticized field scientists who called any animal behaviour ‘instinctive’, because:

11. In the 1930s, Niko Tinbergen and David Lack began pioneering the systematic, scholarly observation of individual In his bestselling The Life of the Robin (1943), Lack argued that in order to study animal life you had to know the animals individually. Colourcoded rings on the legs of each robin meant that the daily observations of individual birds could accumulate into individual histories, enabling Lack to set present-day behaviour in the context of past events. Similarly, in Curious Naturalists (1958) Tinbergen used coloured dots to identify individual wasps on the sands of Hulshorst in the Netherlands.

These two men, founders in the fields of ethology and ecology, realized that individual identification was the first stage in adopting the animal perspective and exploring the lived consciousness of other species. Rather than using human experiences – that sense of self-conscious subjectivity – as their yardstick, they focused instead on individual animal behaviour as it occurred within the environment in which it had evolved. In many ways, they took the first steps towards being able to see what it might mean to be an animal.

Tinbergen and Lack (among others) were critical of both field scientists who indulged in lazy anthropomorphism, and those who insisted on setting up ‘artificial standards of simplicity’. In particular, they objected to the dismissal of any apparently sophisticated animal action as ‘instinctive’. Such behaviour needed to be investigated, not marginalized: what was instinct, after all? At the same time, they argued that assuming parity between animal and human mental processes was not just wrong, but foolish. Lack was clear that speculating about an animal’s emotional state could provide valuable clues to guide future study, but one should never presume that a bird feels or perceives in the same way as a human.

Lack demonstrated the point with great elegance using a stuffed robin. This was presented to individual birds to see how they would respond to a stranger’s presence; since the ornament itself never changed, it could, argued Lack, be used as a means of objectively testing robin personality or temperament. One day, however, it did change – fatally. An ‘exceptionally violent hen robin attacked [it] so strongly that she removed his head. For a moment, the bird seemed rather startled, but then continued to attack … as violently as before.’ Further investigations established that just a tuft of red feathers could provoke a brutal response that might continue even after the feathers’ complete disappearance. Lack wrote: ‘We tend to think that, clothed in a robin’s body, but retaining a human mind, we would do much the same things in much the same way … We tend to assume that the world the robin sees is much like the world which we see. Suitable experiments show how false this impression is. Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed.’

Tinbergen and others agreed: while their aim was to see the world with animal eyes, they worked with the caveat that animal mentalities were neither similar to nor less than those of humans. They were, instead, different – and different animals possessed different minds, often prioritizing different senses. No matter how hard a human tried to see through animal eyes, they would find it impossible to figure out how a pig’s biography would smell.

Question 11

What is the incident with the stuffed robin meant to show?

12. In the 1930s, Niko Tinbergen and David Lack began pioneering the systematic, scholarly observation of individual animals. In his bestselling The Life of the Robin (1943), Lack argued that in order to study animal life you had to know the animals individually. Colourcoded rings on the legs of each robin meant that the daily observations of individual birds could accumulate into individual histories, enabling Lack to set present-day behaviour in the context of past events. Similarly, in Curious Naturalists (1958) Tinbergen used coloured dots to identify individual wasps on the sands of Hulshorst in the Netherlands.
These two men, founders in the fields of ethology and ecology, realized that individual identification was the first stage in adopting the animal perspective and exploring the lived consciousness of other species. Rather than using human experiences – that sense of self-conscious subjectivity – as their yardstick, they focused instead on individual animal behaviour as it occurred within the environment in which it had evolved. In many ways, they took the first steps towards being able to see what it might mean to be an animal.
Tinbergen and Lack (among others) were critical of both field scientists who indulged in lazy anthropomorphism, and those who insisted on setting up ‘artificial standards of simplicity’. In particular, they objected to the dismissal of any apparently sophisticated animal action as ‘instinctive’. Such behaviour needed to be investigated, not marginalized: what was instinct, after all? At the same time, they argued that assuming parity between animal and human mental processes was not just wrong, but foolish. Lack was clear that speculating about an animal’s emotional state could provide valuable clues to guide future study, but one should never presume that a bird feels or perceives in the same way as a human.
Lack demonstrated the point with great elegance using a stuffed robin. This was presented to individual birds to see how they would respond to a stranger’s presence; since the ornament itself never changed, it could, argued Lack, be used as a means of objectively testing robin personality or temperament. One day, however, it did change – fatally. An ‘exceptionally violent hen robin attacked [it] so strongly that she removed his head. For a moment, the bird seemed rather startled, but then continued to attack … as violently as before.’ Further investigations established that just a tuft of red feathers could provoke a brutal response that might continue even after the feathers’ complete disappearance. Lack wrote: ‘We tend to think that, clothed in a robin’s body, but retaining a human mind, we would do much the same things in much the same way … We tend to assume that the world the robin sees is much like the world which we see. Suitable experiments show how false this impression is. Even the empty air can contain a rival to be destroyed.’
Tinbergen and others agreed: while their aim was to see the world with animal eyes, they worked with the caveat that animal mentalities were neither similar to nor less than those of humans. They were, instead, different – and different animals possessed different minds, often prioritizing different senses. No matter how hard a human tried to see through animal eyes, they would find it impossible to figure out how a pig’s biography would smell.
Question 12
The reference to ‘how a pig’s biography would smell’ is meant to indicate that:

13.

The passage below is accompanied by a set of six Choose the best answer to each question.

The starting point for understanding inequality in the context of human progress is to recognize that income equality is not a fundamental component of well-being. It is not like health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace and the other areas of progress. The reason is captured in an old joke from the Soviet Union. Igor and Boris are both dirt-poor peasants, barely able to feed their families. The only difference between them is that Boris owns a scrawny goat. One day a fairy appears to Igor and grants him a wish. Igor says, ‘I wish that Boris’s goat would die.’

The point of the joke, of course, is that the two peasants have become more equal but that neither is better off, aside from Igor’s indulging his spiteful envy. The point is made with greater nuance by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his book On Inequality. Frankfurt argues that inequality itself is not morally objectionable; what is objectionable is poverty. If a person lives a long, healthy, pleasurable and stimulating life, then how much money his neighbours earn, how big their house is, and how many cars they drive are morally irrelevant. Frankfurt writes, ‘From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same. What is morally important is that each should have enough.’ Indeed, a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one.

The confusion of inequality with poverty comes straight out of the lump fallacy – the mindset in which wealth is a finite resource, like an antelope carcass, which has to be divvied up in zero-sum fashion, so that if some people end up with more, others must have less. But wealth is not like that: since the Industrial Revolution, it has expanded exponentially. That means that when the rich get richer, the poor can get richer, too. Even experts repeat the lump fallacy, presumably out of rhetorical zeal rather than conceptual confusion. Thomas Piketty, whose bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a talisman in the uproar over inequality, wrote, ‘The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 per cent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910.’ But total wealth today is vastly greater than it was in 1910, so if the poorer half own the same proportion, they are far richer, not ‘as poor’. A more damaging consequence of the lump fallacy is the belief that if some people get richer, they must have stolen more than their share from everyone else. The following illustration shows why this is wrong. Among the world’s billionaires is J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, which were also made into movies. Suppose that a billion people have handed over $10 each for the pleasure of a Harry Potter paperback or movie ticket, with a tenth of the proceeds going to Rowling. She has become a billionaire, increasing inequality, but she has made people better off, not worse off (which is not to say that every rich person has made people better off). This doesn’t mean that Rowling’s wealth is just deserts for her effort or skill; no committee ever judged that she deserved to be that rich. Her wealth arose as a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of book buyers and moviegoers.

Question 13

The author uses the joke about the Soviet peasants to show all these EXCEPT:

14. The starting point for understanding inequality in the context of human progress is to recognize that income equality is not a fundamental component of well- It is not like health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace and the other areas of progress. The reason is captured in an old joke from the Soviet Union. Igor and Boris are both dirt-poor peasants, barely able to feed their families. The only difference between them is that Boris owns a scrawny goat. One day a fairy appears to Igor and grants him a wish. Igor says, ‘I wish that Boris’s goat would die.’

The point of the joke, of course, is that the two peasants have become more equal but that neither is better off, aside from Igor’s indulging his spiteful envy. The point is made with greater nuance by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his book On Inequality. Frankfurt argues that inequality itself is not morally objectionable; what is objectionable is poverty. If a person lives a long, healthy, pleasurable and stimulating life, then how much money his neighbours earn, how big their house is, and how many cars they drive are morally irrelevant. Frankfurt writes, ‘From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same. What is morally important is that each should have enough.’ Indeed, a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one.

The confusion of inequality with poverty comes straight out of the lump fallacy – the mindset in which wealth is a finite resource, like an antelope carcass, which has to be divvied up in zero-sum fashion, so that if some people end up with more, others must have less. But wealth is not like that: since the Industrial Revolution, it has expanded exponentially. That means that when the rich get richer, the poor can get richer, too. Even experts repeat the lump fallacy, presumably out of rhetorical zeal rather than conceptual confusion. Thomas Piketty, whose bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a talisman in the uproar over inequality, wrote, ‘The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 per cent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910.’ But total wealth today is vastly greater than it was in 1910, so if the poorer half own the same proportion, they are far richer, not ‘as poor’. A more damaging consequence of the lump fallacy is the belief that if some people get richer, they must have stolen more than their share from everyone else. The following illustration shows why this is wrong. Among the world’s billionaires is J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, which were also made into movies. Suppose that a billion people have handed over $10 each for the pleasure of a Harry Potter paperback or movie ticket, with a tenth of the proceeds going to Rowling. She has become a billionaire, increasing inequality, but she has made people better off, not worse off (which is not to say that every rich person has made people better off). This doesn’t mean that Rowling’s wealth is just deserts for her effort or skill; no committee ever judged that she deserved to be that rich. Her wealth arose as a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of book buyers and moviegoers.

Question 14

According to the passage, which of the following is true?

15. The starting point for understanding inequality in the context of human progress is to recognize that income equality is not a fundamental component of well- It is not like health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace and the other areas of progress. The reason is captured in an old joke from the Soviet Union. Igor and Boris are both dirt-poor peasants, barely able to feed their families. The only difference between them is that Boris owns a scrawny goat. One day a fairy appears to Igor and grants him a wish. Igor says, ‘I wish that Boris’s goat would die.’

The point of the joke, of course, is that the two peasants have become more equal but that neither is better off, aside from Igor’s indulging his spiteful envy. The point is made with greater nuance by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his book On Inequality. Frankfurt argues that inequality itself is not morally objectionable; what is objectionable is poverty. If a person lives a long, healthy, pleasurable and stimulating life, then how much money his neighbours earn, how big their house is, and how many cars they drive are morally irrelevant. Frankfurt writes, ‘From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same. What is morally important is that each should have enough.’ Indeed, a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one.

The confusion of inequality with poverty comes straight out of the lump fallacy – the mindset in which wealth is a finite resource, like an antelope carcass, which has to be divvied up in zero-sum fashion, so that if some people end up with more, others must have less. But wealth is not like that: since the Industrial Revolution, it has expanded exponentially. That means that when the rich get richer, the poor can get richer, too. Even experts repeat the lump fallacy, presumably out of rhetorical zeal rather than conceptual confusion. Thomas Piketty, whose bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a talisman in the uproar over inequality, wrote, ‘The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 per cent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910.’ But total wealth today is vastly greater than it was in 1910, so if the poorer half own the same proportion, they are far richer, not ‘as poor’. A more damaging consequence of the lump fallacy is the belief that if some people get richer, they must have stolen more than their share from everyone else. The following illustration shows why this is wrong. Among the world’s billionaires is J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, which were also made into movies. Suppose that a billion people have handed over $10 each for the pleasure of a Harry Potter paperback or movie ticket, with a tenth of the proceeds going to Rowling. She has become a billionaire, increasing inequality, but she has made people better off, not worse off (which is not to say that every rich person has made people better off). This doesn’t mean that Rowling’s wealth is just deserts for her effort or skill; no committee ever judged that she deserved to be that rich. Her wealth arose as a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of book buyers and moviegoers.

Question 15

Why, according to the author, is Thomas Piketty’s reasoning incorrect?

16. The starting point for understanding inequality in the context of human progress is to recognize that income equality is not a fundamental component of well- It is not like health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace and the other areas of progress. The reason is captured in an old joke from the Soviet Union. Igor and Boris are both dirt-poor peasants, barely able to feed their families. The only difference between them is that Boris owns a scrawny goat. One day a fairy appears to Igor and grants him a wish. Igor says, ‘I wish that Boris’s goat would die.’

The point of the joke, of course, is that the two peasants have become more equal but that neither is better off, aside from Igor’s indulging his spiteful envy. The point is made with greater nuance by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his book On Inequality. Frankfurt argues that inequality itself is not morally objectionable; what is objectionable is poverty. If a person lives a long, healthy, pleasurable and stimulating life, then how much money his neighbours earn, how big their house is, and how many cars they drive are morally irrelevant. Frankfurt writes, ‘From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same. What is morally important is that each should have enough.’ Indeed, a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one.

The confusion of inequality with poverty comes straight out of the lump fallacy – the mindset in which wealth is a finite resource, like an antelope carcass, which has to be divvied up in zero-sum fashion, so that if some people end up with more, others must have less. But wealth is not like that: since the Industrial Revolution, it has expanded exponentially. That means that when the rich get richer, the poor can get richer, too. Even experts repeat the lump fallacy, presumably out of rhetorical zeal rather than conceptual confusion. Thomas Piketty, whose bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a talisman in the uproar over inequality, wrote, ‘The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 per cent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910.’ But total wealth today is vastly greater than it was in 1910, so if the poorer half own the same proportion, they are far richer, not ‘as poor’. A more damaging consequence of the lump fallacy is the belief that if some people get richer, they must have stolen more than their share from everyone else. The following illustration shows why this is wrong. Among the world’s billionaires is J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, which were also made into movies. Suppose that a billion people have handed over $10 each for the pleasure of a Harry Potter paperback or movie ticket, with a tenth of the proceeds going to Rowling. She has become a billionaire, increasing inequality, but she has made people better off, not worse off (which is not to say that every rich person has made people better off). This doesn’t mean that Rowling’s wealth is just deserts for her effort or skill; no committee ever judged that she deserved to be that rich. Her wealth arose as a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of book buyers and moviegoers.

Question 16

What does the author imply by saying in paragraph 2 that ‘a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one’?

17. The starting point for understanding inequality in the context of human progress is to recognize that income equality is not a fundamental component of well- It is not like health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace and the other areas of progress. The reason is captured in an old joke from the Soviet Union. Igor and Boris are both dirt-poor peasants, barely able to feed their families. The only difference between them is that Boris owns a scrawny goat. One day a fairy appears to Igor and grants him a wish. Igor says, ‘I wish that Boris’s goat would die.’

The point of the joke, of course, is that the two peasants have become more equal but that neither is better off, aside from Igor’s indulging his spiteful envy. The point is made with greater nuance by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his book On Inequality. Frankfurt argues that inequality itself is not morally objectionable; what is objectionable is poverty. If a person lives a long, healthy, pleasurable and stimulating life, then how much money his neighbours earn, how big their house is, and how many cars they drive are morally irrelevant. Frankfurt writes, ‘From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same. What is morally important is that each should have enough.’ Indeed, a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one.

The confusion of inequality with poverty comes straight out of the lump fallacy – the mindset in which wealth is a finite resource, like an antelope carcass, which has to be divvied up in zero-sum fashion, so that if some people end up with more, others must have less. But wealth is not like that: since the Industrial Revolution, it has expanded exponentially. That means that when the rich get richer, the poor can get richer, too. Even experts repeat the lump fallacy, presumably out of rhetorical zeal rather than conceptual confusion. Thomas Piketty, whose bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a talisman in the uproar over inequality, wrote, ‘The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 per cent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910.’ But total wealth today is vastly greater than it was in 1910, so if the poorer half own the same proportion, they are far richer, not ‘as poor’. A more damaging consequence of the lump fallacy is the belief that if some people get richer, they must have stolen more than their share from everyone else. The following illustration shows why this is wrong. Among the world’s billionaires is J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, which were also made into movies. Suppose that a billion people have handed over $10 each for the pleasure of a Harry Potter paperback or movie ticket, with a tenth of the proceeds going to Rowling. She has become a billionaire, increasing inequality, but she has made people better off, not worse off (which is not to say that every rich person has made people better off). This doesn’t mean that Rowling’s wealth is just deserts for her effort or skill; no committee ever judged that she deserved to be that rich. Her wealth arose as a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of book buyers and moviegoers.

Question 17

The author brings up the example of J. K. Rowling in order to show that:

18. The starting point for understanding inequality in the context of human progress is to recognize that income equality is not a fundamental component of well- It is not like health, prosperity, knowledge, safety, peace and the other areas of progress. The reason is captured in an old joke from the Soviet Union. Igor and Boris are both dirt-poor peasants, barely able to feed their families. The only difference between them is that Boris owns a scrawny goat. One day a fairy appears to Igor and grants him a wish. Igor says, ‘I wish that Boris’s goat would die.’

The point of the joke, of course, is that the two peasants have become more equal but that neither is better off, aside from Igor’s indulging his spiteful envy. The point is made with greater nuance by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his book On Inequality. Frankfurt argues that inequality itself is not morally objectionable; what is objectionable is poverty. If a person lives a long, healthy, pleasurable and stimulating life, then how much money his neighbours earn, how big their house is, and how many cars they drive are morally irrelevant. Frankfurt writes, ‘From the point of view of morality, it is not important everyone should have the same. What is morally important is that each should have enough.’ Indeed, a narrow focus on economic inequality can be destructive if it distracts us into killing Boris’s goat instead of figuring out how Igor can get one.

The confusion of inequality with poverty comes straight out of the lump fallacy – the mindset in which wealth is a finite resource, like an antelope carcass, which has to be divvied up in zero-sum fashion, so that if some people end up with more, others must have less. But wealth is not like that: since the Industrial Revolution, it has expanded exponentially. That means that when the rich get richer, the poor can get richer, too. Even experts repeat the lump fallacy, presumably out of rhetorical zeal rather than conceptual confusion. Thomas Piketty, whose bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century became a talisman in the uproar over inequality, wrote, ‘The poorer half of the population are as poor today as they were in the past, with barely 5 per cent of total wealth in 2010, just as in 1910.’ But total wealth today is vastly greater than it was in 1910, so if the poorer half own the same proportion, they are far richer, not ‘as poor’. A more damaging consequence of the lump fallacy is the belief that if some people get richer, they must have stolen more than their share from everyone else. The following illustration shows why this is wrong. Among the world’s billionaires is J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter novels, which were also made into movies. Suppose that a billion people have handed over $10 each for the pleasure of a Harry Potter paperback or movie ticket, with a tenth of the proceeds going to Rowling. She has become a billionaire, increasing inequality, but she has made people better off, not worse off (which is not to say that every rich person has made people better off). This doesn’t mean that Rowling’s wealth is just deserts for her effort or skill; no committee ever judged that she deserved to be that rich. Her wealth arose as a by-product of the voluntary decisions of billions of book buyers and moviegoers.

Question 18

The author mentions the lump fallacy in order to:

19.

The passage below is accompanied by a set of three questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Home, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘A dwelling place; a person’s house or abode; the fixed residence of a family or household; the seat of domestic life and interests’. But more than that, while a house is the physical structure, a home is ‘The place where one lives or was brought up, with reference to the feelings of belonging, comfort, etc., associated with it’. It is a state of being as well as the place where one lives or one’s place of origin.
To speakers of English, or the Germanic and Scandinavian languages, or the FinnoUgric group – that is, the languages of north-western Europe, from Hungary to Finland and Scandinavia, the German-speaking lands, and then descending to the Netherlands and across the Channel to the British Isles – to these peoples, the differences between home and house are obvious. They are two related but distinct things, and therefore they have two separate words. These are languages of what I call ‘home’ countries. Speakers of Romance and Slavic languages, living in ‘house’ countries, have by contrast just one word for both meanings.
The existence of what I call home and house languages suggests something about the societies in which they developed. The latter are societies where the community space, the town, village or hamlet, is the canvas on which life is painted, and where an individual house is only a more private area within that primary space. On the other hand, the former are societies where the house is the focal point, while the town, village or hamlet functions mainly as the route through which one passes in order to reach the essential privates of the houses. The reason for such differences is frequently put down to climate, and it is certainly more pleasant to spend an autumn afternoon in a market square on the Mediterranean than it is in Oslo. But while the weather is an element in the distinction between home and house countries, it is only one element among many.
Question 19
Which of the following best describes what the passage is trying to do?

20. Home, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘A dwelling place; a person’s house or abode; the fixed residence of a family or household; the seat of domestic life and interests’. But more than that, while a house is the physical structure, a home is ‘The place where one lives or was brought up, with reference to the feelings of belonging, comfort, , associated with it’. It is a state of being as well as the place where one lives or one’s place of origin.

To speakers of English, or the Germanic and Scandinavian languages, or the FinnoUgric group – that is, the languages of north-western Europe, from Hungary to Finland and Scandinavia, the German-speaking lands, and then descending to the Netherlands and across the Channel to the British Isles – to these peoples, the differences between home and house are obvious. They are two related but distinct things, and therefore they have two separate words. These are languages of what I call ‘home’ countries. Speakers of Romance and Slavic languages, living in ‘house’ countries, have by contrast just one word for both meanings.

The existence of what I call home and house languages suggests something about the societies in which they developed. The latter are societies where the community space, the town, village or hamlet, is the canvas on which life is painted, and where an individual house is only a more private area within that primary space. On the other hand, the former are societies where the house is the focal point, while the town, village or hamlet functions mainly as the route through which one passes in order to reach the essential privacies of the houses. The reason for such differences is frequently put down to climate, and it is certainly more pleasant to spend an autumn afternoon in a market square on the Mediterranean than it is in Oslo. But while the weather is an element in the distinction between home and house countries, it is only one element among many.

Question 20

In what way do ‘home’ countries primarily differ from ‘house’ countries, as per this passage?

21. Home, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is ‘A dwelling place; a person’s house or abode; the fixed residence of a family or household; the seat of domestic life and interests’. But more than that, while a house is the physical structure, a home is ‘The place where one lives or was brought up, with reference to the feelings of belonging, comfort, , associated with it’. It is a state of being as well as the place where one lives or one’s place of origin.

To speakers of English, or the Germanic and Scandinavian languages, or the FinnoUgric group – that is, the languages of north-western Europe, from Hungary to Finland and Scandinavia, the German-speaking lands, and then descending to the Netherlands and across the Channel to the British Isles – to these peoples, the differences between home and house are obvious. They are two related but distinct things, and therefore they have two separate words. These are languages of what I call ‘home’ countries. Speakers of Romance and Slavic languages, living in ‘house’ countries, have by contrast just one word for both meanings.

The existence of what I call home and house languages suggests something about the societies in which they developed. The latter are societies where the community space, the town, village or hamlet, is the canvas on which life is painted, and where an individual house is only a more private area within that primary space. On the other hand, the former are societies where the house is the focal point, while the town, village or hamlet functions mainly as the route through which one passes in order to reach the essential privacies of the houses. The reason for such differences is frequently put down to climate, and it is certainly more pleasant to spend an autumn afternoon in a market square on the Mediterranean than it is in Oslo. But while the weather is an element in the distinction between home and house countries, it is only one element among many.

Question 21

The author begins this passage with a dictionary definition in order to:

22. The passage below is accompanied by a set of three Choose the best answer to each question.

Have we become too obsessed with giving awards, especially participation awards, for youth sports? With trophies given out like candy, have they lost their meaning?

If children always receive a trophy – regardless of effort or achievement – we’re teaching kids that losing is so terrible that we can never let it happen. This is a destructive message, because how we react to kids’ failure is just as crucial as celebrating their success. A recent study found if parents thought failure was debilitating, their kids adopted that perspective. If parents believed overcoming failure and mistakes made you stronger, then their children believed it, too.

Thus letting kids lose, or not take home the trophy, isn’t about embarrassing children. It’s about teaching them it can take a long time to get good at something, and that’s all right. Kids need to know they don’t have to win every time. It’s O.K. to lose, to make a mistake. (In a study of Gold Medal Olympians, they said a previous loss was key to their championships.) It’s through failure and mistakes that we learn the most. We must focus on process and progress, not results and rewards.

Some claim that constant awards improve children’s self-esteem, and, once kids have high self-esteem, they’ll achieve more. But scientists have tested these claims and found them to be false. Kids with already high self-esteem see the trophies as vindication they really are as wonderful as they see themselves. In a longitudinal study, when parents regularly overpraised their children’s performances, their children were more likely to be narcissistic two years later.

And for kids with low self-esteem, undeserved praise doesn’t help them, either. Research has found that kids with low self-esteem believe they can’t live up to their own hype, so they withdraw even further.

Research has found that the best way to improve kids’ self-image is to help them develop their abilities. Once they master a skill, they won’t need manufactured praise to tell them they’ve done well. They’ll know it. And they’ll be thrilled. Like the child who just learned to tie her shoes. That sense of accomplishment is worth more than any trophy.

Therefore, instead of blowing a team’s budget on participation trophies, spend that money on kids’ and coaches’ skill development. Or donate the money to kids who can’t afford the basic equipment they need to develop their own skills.

Question 22

The central point in the second paragraph is that:

23. Have we become too obsessed with giving awards, especially participation awards, for youth sports? With trophies given out like candy, have they lost their meaning?

If children always receive a trophy – regardless of effort or achievement – we’re teaching kids that losing is so terrible that we can never let it happen. This is a destructive message, because how we react to kids’ failure is just as crucial as celebrating their success. A recent study found if parents thought failure was debilitating, their kids adopted that perspective. If parents believed overcoming failure and mistakes made you stronger, then their children believed it, too.

Thus letting kids lose, or not take home the trophy, isn’t about embarrassing children. It’s about teaching them it can take a long time to get good at something, and that’s all right. Kids need to know they don’t have to win every time. It’s O.K. to lose, to make a mistake. (In a study of Gold Medal Olympians, they said a previous loss was key to their championships.) It’s through failure and mistakes that we learn the most. We must focus on process and progress, not results and rewards.

Some claim that constant awards improve children’s self-esteem, and, once kids have high self-esteem, they’ll achieve more. But scientists have tested these claims and found them to be false. Kids with already high self-esteem see the trophies as vindication they really are as wonderful as they see themselves. In a longitudinal study, when parents regularly overpraised their children’s performances, their children were more likely to be narcissistic two years later.

And for kids with low self-esteem, undeserved praise doesn’t help them, either. Research has found that kids with low self-esteem believe they can’t live up to their own hype, so they withdraw even further.

Research has found that the best way to improve kids’ self-image is to help them develop their abilities. Once they master a skill, they won’t need manufactured praise to tell them they’ve done well. They’ll know it. And they’ll be thrilled. Like the child who just learned to tie her shoes. That sense of accomplishment is worth more than any trophy.

Therefore, instead of blowing a team’s budget on participation trophies, spend that money on kids’ and coaches’ skill development. Or donate the money to kids who can’t afford the basic equipment they need to develop their own skills.

Question 23

What is the relation between giving kids undeserved trophies and their self-esteem, as per this passage?

24. Have we become too obsessed with giving awards, especially participation awards, for youth sports? With trophies given out like candy, have they lost their meaning?

If children always receive a trophy – regardless of effort or achievement – we’re teaching kids that losing is so terrible that we can never let it happen. This is a destructive message, because how we react to kids’ failure is just as crucial as celebrating their success. A recent study found if parents thought failure was debilitating, their kids adopted that perspective. If parents believed overcoming failure and mistakes made you stronger, then their children believed it, too.

Thus letting kids lose, or not take home the trophy, isn’t about embarrassing children. It’s about teaching them it can take a long time to get good at something, and that’s all right. Kids need to know they don’t have to win every time. It’s O.K. to lose, to make a mistake. (In a study of Gold Medal Olympians, they said a previous loss was key to their championships.) It’s through failure and mistakes that we learn the most. We must focus on process and progress, not results and rewards.

Some claim that constant awards improve children’s self-esteem, and, once kids have high self-esteem, they’ll achieve more. But scientists have tested these claims and found them to be false. Kids with already high self-esteem see the trophies as vindication they really are as wonderful as they see themselves. In a longitudinal study, when parents regularly overpraised their children’s performances, their children were more likely to be narcissistic two years later.

And for kids with low self-esteem, undeserved praise doesn’t help them, either. Research has found that kids with low self-esteem believe they can’t live up to their own hype, so they withdraw even further.

Research has found that the best way to improve kids’ self-image is to help them develop their abilities. Once they master a skill, they won’t need manufactured praise to tell them they’ve done well. They’ll know it. And they’ll be thrilled. Like the child who just learned to tie her shoes. That sense of accomplishment is worth more than any trophy.

Therefore, instead of blowing a team’s budget on participation trophies, spend that money on kids’ and coaches’ skill development. Or donate the money to kids who can’t afford the basic equipment they need to develop their own skills.

Question 24

The author of this passage would agree with all of the following statements, EXCEPT:

25.

25. The passage given below is followed by four Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.

According to its own traditions, the teachings of Jainism are eternal, and hence have no founder; however, the Jainism of this age can be traced back to Mahavira, a teacher of the sixth century BCE, a contemporary of the Buddha. Like those of the Buddha, Mahavira’s doctrines were formulated as a reaction to and rejection of the Brahmanism then taking shape. The brahmans taught the division of society into rigidly delineated castes, and a doctrine of reincarnation guided by karma, or merit brought about by the moral qualities of actions. Their schools of thought, since they respected the authority of the Vedas and Upanisads, were known as orthodox darsanas. Jainism and Buddhism, along with a school of materialists called Carvaka, were regarded as the unorthodox darsanas, because they taught that the Vedas and Upanisads, and hence the brahman caste, had no authority.

26.

 Question 26.The passage given below is followed by four Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.

There are many people who quite innocently and sincerely believe that if they are earnest in attending to their own personal ‘spiritual’ needs, this amounts to living a morally good life. I know many activists, both religious and secular, who agree with me that these people are deluding themselves. Just taking care of one’s own ‘soul’ is selfcentred. Consider, for instance, those contemplative monks who, unlike hardworking nuns in schools and hospitals, devote most of their waking hours to the purification of their souls, and the rest to the maintenance of the contemplative lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. In what way, exactly, are they morally superior to people who devote their lives to improving their stamp collections or their golf swing? It seems to me that the best that can be said of them is that they manage to stay out of trouble.

27.

Question 27. The passage given below is followed by four Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.

As it is difficult to remember today how small houses were in pre-industrial times, so too it is hard to comprehend the sheer labour, and time, involved in keeping that small space functioning. It has been estimated that three to four hours were spent daily on food preparation, an hour to fetch water, an hour to feed the children and keep the fire alight, an hour in the kitchen garden, two to three hours to milk cows and goats, feed chickens or perform other animal husbandry, an hour to clean, an hour spinning and an hour spent looking after the children, teaching them to read and write, or knit and sew: a total of sixteen hours a day. Add in the laundry, which occupied approximately eight hours weekly, and by the time meals were eaten, there was little time to do more than fall into bed in order to get up and do it all over again the following day.

28. Question 28

The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1.  In the United States, the share of income going to the richest one percent grew from 8 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 2015, while the share going to the richest tenth of one percent grew from 2 percent to 8 percent.
2.  Gini values generally range from .25 for the most egalitarian income distributions, such as in Scandinavia after taxes and benefits, to .7 for a highly unequal distribution such as the one in South Africa.
3. In the United States, the Gini index for market income (before taxes and benefits) rose from .44 in 1984 to .51 in 2012.
4.  Inequality can also be measured by the proportion of total income that is earned by a given fraction (quantile) of the population.
5.  Economic inequality is usually measured by the Gini coefficient, a number that can vary between 0, when everyone has the same as everyone else, and 1, when one person has everything and everyone else has nothing.

29. Question 29

The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1.  Camelids are unusual in that their modern distribution is almost the reverse of their origin.
2.  The original camelids of North America remained common until the quite recent geological past, but then disappeared, possibly as a result of hunting or habitat alterations by the earliest human settlers, and possibly as a result of changing environmental conditions after the last ice age, or a combination of these factors.
3.  Camelids first appeared around 45 million years ago during the middle Eocene, in present-day North America.
4.  Three species groups survived: the dromedary of northern Africa and southwest Asia; the Bactrian camel of central Asia; and the South American group, which has now diverged into a range of forms that are closely related, but usually classified as four species: llamas, alpacas, guanacos and vicuñas.
5.  The family remained confined to the North American continent until only about two or three million years ago, when representatives arrived in Asia, and (as part of the Great American Interchange that followed the formation of the Isthmus of Panam1] South America.

30. Question 30

The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1.  Gradually, they expanded the tentacles of Norse contacts and trade over huge areas of the north. ✓
2.  They crossed the stormy North Sea with impressive confidence, raided towns and villages in eastern Britain, ransacked isolated Christian settlements, and returned home each winter laden with booty
3.  The explorations of these Norse, otherwise known as Vikings or ‘Northmen’, were a product of overpopulation, short growing seasons and meagre soils in remote Scandinavian fjords.
4.  The Norse also travelled far east, down the Vistula, Dnieper, and Volga rivers to the Black and Caspian seas, besieged Constantinople more than once and founded cities from Kiev to Dublin.
5.  During the seventh century, young Norse ‘rowmen’ left in their long ships each summer in search of plunder, trading opportunities and adventure.

31. Question 31

The five sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper order for the sentences and key in this sequence of five numbers as your answer.

1.  When an organism changes in some fundamental way, it typically starts with a genetic mutation – a change to the DNA.
2.  This is weird because that’s really not how adaptations usually happen in multicellular animals.
3.  But RNA doesn’t just blindly execute instructions – occasionally it improvises changing which proteins are produced in the cell in a rare process called RNA editing.
4.  Those genetic changes are then translated into action by DNA’s molecular sidekick, RNA.
5.  In a surprising twist, scientists discovered that octopuses, along with some squid and cuttlefish species, routinely edit their RNA (ribonucleic aci4] sequences to adapt to their environment.

32. Question 32

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.

1. Passive sentences are useful in English because they allow people to say that something happened without having to say who did it.
2.  Science writers use them a lot, because a passive lets them say ‘The mixture was poured into the beaker’ instead of the uncomfortably personal ‘I/we poured the mixture into the beaker.’
3.  Children as young as six do not grasp that the change in the form of the verb between active and passive actually reverses the action. ✓
4.  But everyone uses passives sometimes, saying such things as ‘My house was just painted’ or ‘Two people have been killed in an accident’ or ‘Entry is prohibited.’
5.  People who recommend that the passive should be avoided – George Orwell was a famous instance – forget cases like this, where we want to report an action without naming the actor.

33. Question 33

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.

1. Our body dries out with every passing year; newborns are about 75 percent water, not much different from an average potato.
2.  The first 2.7 billion years of the history of life on earth were spent entirely in water, and the imprint is in every living organism.
3.  We may live on the ‘blue planet’ – unique in the known universe for its abundance of liquid water – but our bodies’ ocean lies on the inside.
4. Most of the body’s water is not in the fluid of our blood, but remains locked inside the cells of our muscles, brains and hearts.
5.  Adult humans are about 57 per cent water by weight.

34. Question 34

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

1. Mars’s Olympus Mons, the largest known volcano in the solar system, is about 2.5 times taller than Mt. Everest and so wide that, if placed on North America,it would extend from New York City to Montreal, Canada.
2.  The largest Martian canyon, Mariner Valley, which is probably the largest canyon in the solar system, is so vast that, if placed on North America, it would extend from New York City to Los Angeles.
3.  But unlike the Grand Canyon, Mariner Valley does not have a river at the bottom.
4.  The latest theory is that the more-than-three-thousand-mile canyon is the juncture of two ancient tectonic plates, like the San Andreas Fault on Earth.
5. Hikers who have marvelled at the Grand Canyon would be astounded by this extraterrestrial canyon network.

35. SECTION – II

DATA INTERPRETATION & LOGICAL REASONING

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that follow.

Horizon International School is a leading school in Panchgani. Students from 1st standard to 12th standard study in the school. The academic year of the school is between January 1st and December 31st every year and the result of the annual exam is declared on December 31st every year. It is also known that all the students passed their annual exams and were promoted to the next academic standard every year. Further, all the students joined the school in their 1st standard and left only after finishing their 12th standard.

The following table gives the information about the students in 5th to 8th standard (both included) in the school from five states, namely Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018.

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that follow.

Horizon International School is a leading school in Panchgani. Students from 1st standard to 12th standard study in the school. The academic year of the school is between January 1st and December 31st every year and the result of the annual exam is declared on December 31st every year. It is also known that all the students passed their annual exams and were promoted to the next academic standard every year. Further, all the students joined the school in their 1st standard and left only after finishing their 12th standard.

The following table gives the information about the students in 5th to 8th standard (both included) in the school from five states, namely Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018.

Q.1) Find the minimum possible number of the students from the given five states who passed the 8th standard exam on either 31st December 2016 or 31st December 2017.

36. Horizon International School is a leading school in Students from 1st standard to 12th standard study in the school. The academic year of the school is between January 1st and December 31st every year and the result of the annual exam is declared on December 31st every year. It is also known that all the students passed their annual exams and were promoted to the next academic standard every year. Further, all the students joined the school in their 1st standard and left only after finishing their 12th standard.

The following table gives the information about the students in 5th to 8th standard (both included) in the school from five states, namely Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018.

Question 2

What is the maximum possible number of students from the given five states who passed the 8th standard exam on either 31st December 2018 or 31st December 2019?

37. Horizon International School is a leading school in Students from 1st standard to 12th standard study in the school. The academic year of the school is between January 1st and December 31st every year and the result of the annual exam is declared on December 31st every year. It is also known that all the students passed their annual exams and were promoted to the next academic standard every year. Further, all the students joined the school in their 1st standard and left only after finishing their 12th standard.

The following table gives the information about the students in 5th to 8th standard (both included) in the school from five states, namely Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018.

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that follow.

Horizon International School is a leading school in Panchgani. Students from 1st standard to 12th standard study in the school. The academic year of the school is between January 1st and December 31st every year and the result of the annual exam is declared on December 31st every year. It is also known that all the students passed their annual exams and were promoted to the next academic standard every year. Further, all the students joined the school in their 1st standard and left only after finishing their 12th standard.

The following table gives the information about the students in 5th to 8th standard (both included) in the school from five states, namely Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018.

Additional information for Q.3 and Q.4

The number of students from two more states, namely Kerala and Rajasthan is now available. It is known that the number of students (in 5th to 8th standard – both included) from Kerala on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018 was 48 and 28 respectively. Similarly, the number of students (in 5th to 8th standard – both included) from Rajasthan on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018 was 36 and 22 respectively. Now answer the following questions for originally given 5 states as well as these two states (total 7 states).

Q 3) It is known that the number of students who passed 8th standard exam either on 31st December 2016 or on 31st December 2017 was maximum possible for the state of Karnataka, which was also higher than the corresponding number for any other What was the maximum possible number of students from Kerala who passed 4th standard exam on 31st December 2016 or 31st December 2017?

1. 8
2. 9
3. 12
4.  Information given in the question is inconsistent and is conflicting with other information

38.

1. Horizon International School is a leading school in Students from 1st standard to 12th standard study in the school. The academic year of the school is between January 1st and December 31st every year and the result of the annual exam is declared on December 31st every year. It is also known that all the students passed their annual exams and were promoted to the next academic standard every year. Further, all the students joined the school in their 1st standard and left only after finishing their 12th standard.

The following table gives the information about the students in 5th to 8th standard (both included) in the school from five states, namely Maharashtra, Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, as on 15th August 2016 and 15th August 2018.

Q 4)Which of the following statements can be correct?

1.  Total 56 students from these 7 states passed 8th standard exam on 31st December 2016 or 31st December 2017.
2. Total 30 students from Kerala were in the 5th standard on 15th August 2016.
3.  Total 20 students from Tamil Nadu were in the 5th standard on 15th August 2018.
4.  Total number of students from 7th and 8th standard on 15th August 2016 from Rajasthan was 12.

39.

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that

Ten people – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J – are assigned a number from 1 to 6 (both included). Each number is assigned to at least one of the ten people. The numbers 1 and 6 are assigned to equal number of people, which is different from the number of people who are assigned number 3. The number of people who are assigned number 2 is same as those assigned number 5. Also, the number of people who are assigned number ‘n’ is not equal to those assigned number ‘n + 1’, for n = 1 to 5.

Further it is known that:

1. Both A and B are assigned a number one more than that assigned to
2. The number assigned to C is greater than the number assigned to F, G and J but is smaller than the number assigned to
3. D and H are assigned the same
4. The number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to G is equal to the number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to E.

Question 5

What is the sum of the number of people assigned numbers 3 and 4?

1.  4
2.  5
3.  6
4.  Cannot be determined

40. Ten people – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J – are assigned a number from 1 to 6 (both included). Each number is assigned to at least one of the ten The numbers 1 and 6 are assigned to equal number of people, which is different from the number of people who are assigned number 3. The number of people who are assigned number 2 is same as those assigned number 5. Also, the number of people who are assigned number ‘n’ is not equal to those assigned number ‘n + 1’, for n = 1 to 5.

Further it is known that:

1. Both A and B are assigned a number one more than that assigned to
2. The number assigned to C is greater than the number assigned to F, G and J but is smaller than the number assigned to
3. D and H are assigned the same.
4. The number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to G is equal to the number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to E.

Question 6

Who has been assigned the number 4?

1.  A
2.  I
3.  C
4.  Cannot be determined

41. Ten people – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J – are assigned a number from 1 to 6 (both included). Each number is assigned to at least one of the ten The numbers 1 and 6 are assigned to equal number of people, which is different from the number of people who are assigned number 3. The number of people who are assigned number 2 is same as those assigned number 5. Also, the number of people who are assigned number ‘n’ is not equal to those assigned number ‘n + 1’, for n = 1 to 5.

Further it is known that:

1. Both A and B are assigned a number one more than that assigned to
2. The number assigned to C is greater than the number assigned to F, G and J but is smaller than the number assigned to
3. D and H are assigned the same
4. The number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to G is equal to the number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to E.

Question 7

How many people were assigned a number higher than that assigned to C?

1. 3
2.  5
3.  4
4.  Cannot be determined

42. Ten people – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J – are assigned a number from 1 to 6 (both included). Each number is assigned to at least one of the ten The numbers 1 and 6 are assigned to equal number of people, which is different from the number of people who are assigned number 3. The number of people who are assigned number 2 is same as those assigned number 5. Also, the number of people who are assigned number ‘n’ is not equal to those assigned number ‘n + 1’, for n = 1 to 5.

Further it is known that:

1. Both A and B are assigned a number one more than that assigned to
2. The number assigned to C is greater than the number assigned to F, G and J but is smaller than the number assigned to A
3. D and H are assigned the same
4. The number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to G is equal to the number of people who are assigned the same number as assigned to E.

Question 8

Which of the following statements is correct?

1.  C is assigned a smaller number than D.
2.  B is assigned a smaller number than C.
3. E is assigned a smaller number than A.
4. J is assigned a smaller number than I.

43.

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that

Paresh, Qasim, Ranjana and Sameer are four individuals (with different weights) out of which two are from Mumbai (M) and the remaining two are from Delhi (D). It is known that Qasim is lighter than Paresh, Sameer is lighter than Ranjana and Sameer is not from Mumbai.

Question 17

If the heaviest as well as the lightest persons are from Delhi, then which of the following must be true?

1.  Paresh is the heaviest and only one person is lighter than Qasim.
2.  Sameer is the lightest and he is the only person lighter than Ranjana.
3.  Ranjana is the heaviest and Sameer is the lightest.
4. Sameer is the lightest and Qasim is from Mumbai.

44. Paresh, Qasim, Ranjana and Sameer are four individuals (with different weights) out of which two are from Mumbai (M) and the remaining two are from Delhi (D). It is known that Qasim is lighter than Paresh, Sameer is lighter than Ranjana and Sameer is not from Mumbai

It is known that Qasim is the lightest and Ranjana is from Mumbai. Consider the following statements:

Statement I : Only Qasim is lighter than Ranjana.

Statement II: Paresh is the heaviest of all.

Question 10

Which of these statements can be true?

1. Only I
2.  Only II
3.  Both I and II
4. Neither I nor II

45. Paresh, Qasim, Ranjana and Sameer are four individuals (with different weights) out of which two are from Mumbai (M) and the remaining two are from Delhi (D). It is known that Qasim is lighter than Paresh, Sameer is lighter than Ranjana and Sameer is not from

Question 11

If the persons from Mumbai are the heaviest as well as the lightest, then for how many persons it can be uniquely determined the city they are from?

1. 0
2.  1
3.  2
4.  Cannot be determined

46. Paresh, Qasim, Ranjana and Sameer are four individuals (with different weights) out of which two are from Mumbai (M) and the remaining two are from Delhi (D). It is known that Qasim is lighter than Paresh, Sameer is lighter than Ranjana and Sameer is not from Mumbai

Question 12

If no person from Mumbai is lighter than a person from Delhi, then how many distinct arrangements (with respect to persons arranged in descending order of their weights) can be made?

1.  7
2.  6
3.  5
4.  4

47. Refer to the data below and answer the questions that

• Rajesh has a cube having length of each side equal to 5 cm. Out of the three pairs of opposite faces, one is painted Red, other is painted Blue while the third is painted Green.
• Rajesh placed the cube such that one green face of the cube was touching the ground and one red face of the cube was directly in front of him. He further cut the cube into 125 small identical cubes having each side equal to 1 cm. He then assigned numbers to the 125 small cubes as follows:
• The cubes in the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 1 to 5 from left to right. The cubes in the row just behind the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 6 to 10 from left to right. The cubes in the middle row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 11 to 15 from left to right. The numbering was continued this way and the rightmost cube in the last row of the bottommost layer was assigned number 25.
• Assignment of the numbers was continued for the second layer from the bottom on similar lines. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 26, the rightmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 30 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 50.
• The numbering was continued on similar lines for the remaining layers of the cubes. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the topmost layer of the cubes was assigned 101 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the topmost layer was assigned 125.

Question 13

What is the sum of the numbers assigned to the cubes that have been painted using three different colours?

48.

• Rajesh has a cube having length of each side equal to 5 cm. Out of the three pairs of opposite faces, one is painted Red, other is painted Blue while the third is painted Green.
• Rajesh placed the cube such that one green face of the cube was touching the ground and one red face of the cube was directly in front of him. He further cut the cube into 125 small identical cubes having each side equal to 1 cm. He then assigned numbers to the 125 small cubes as follows:
• The cubes in the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 1 to 5 from left to right. The cubes in the row just behind the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 6 to 10 from left to right. The cubes in the middle row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 11 to 15 from left to right. The numbering was continued this way and the rightmost cube in the last row of the bottommost layer was assigned number 25.
• Assignment of the numbers was continued for the second layer from the bottom on similar lines. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 26, the rightmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 30 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 50.
• The numbering was continued on similar lines for the remaining layers of the cubes. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the topmost layer of the cubes was assigned 101 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the topmost layer was assigned 125.

Question 14

What is the sum of the numbers assigned to the cubes that have been painted using two different colours?

49.

• Rajesh has a cube having length of each side equal to 5 cm. Out of the three pairs of opposite faces, one is painted Red, other is painted Blue while the third is painted Green.
• Rajesh placed the cube such that one green face of the cube was touching the ground and one red face of the cube was directly in front of him. He further cut the cube into 125 small identical cubes having each side equal to 1 cm. He then assigned numbers to the 125 small cubes as follows:
• The cubes in the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 1 to 5 from left to right. The cubes in the row just behind the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 6 to 10 from left to right. The cubes in the middle row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 11 to 15 from left to right. The numbering was continued this way and the rightmost cube in the last row of the bottommost layer was assigned number 25.
• Assignment of the numbers was continued for the second layer from the bottom on similar lines. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 26, the rightmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 30 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 50.
• The numbering was continued on similar lines for the remaining layers of the cubes. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the topmost layer of the cubes was assigned 101 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the topmost layer was assigned 125.

Question 14

What is the sum of the numbers assigned to the cubes that have green colour on at least one of their faces?

50.

• Rajesh has a cube having length of each side equal to 5 cm. Out of the three pairs of opposite faces, one is painted Red, other is painted Blue while the third is painted Green.
• Rajesh placed the cube such that one green face of the cube was touching the ground and one red face of the cube was directly in front of him. He further cut the cube into 125 small identical cubes having each side equal to 1 cm. He then assigned numbers to the 125 small cubes as follows:
• The cubes in the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 1 to 5 from left to right. The cubes in the row just behind the front-most row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 6 to 10 from left to right. The cubes in the middle row of the bottommost layer were assigned numbers 11 to 15 from left to right. The numbering was continued this way and the rightmost cube in the last row of the bottommost layer was assigned number 25.
• Assignment of the numbers was continued for the second layer from the bottom on similar lines. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 26, the rightmost cube in the front-most row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 30 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the second layer from the bottom was assigned 50.
• The numbering was continued on similar lines for the remaining layers of the cubes. The leftmost cube in the front-most row of the topmost layer of the cubes was assigned 101 while the rightmost cube in the last row of the topmost layer was assigned 125.

Question 15

What is the sum of the numbers assigned to the cubes that have none of their faces painted?

51.

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that

Total ten gemstones Pearl, Sapphire, Amber, Turquoise, Emerald, Topaz, Ruby, Coral, Jasper and Onyx are to be placed in four jewellery boxes – P, Q, R and S. Boxes P and Q should have at least three gemstones each. Box R should have at least two gemstones. Box S should have at least one gemstone.

Further, it is known that:

1. Pearl and Sapphire are in the same box.
2. Amber and Topaz are in the same box which is neither box Q nor box R.
3. Among Amber, Turquoise, Coral and Onyx no two gemstones are in the same box. Jasper is in box R.
4. None of Emerald, Coral and Onyx is in box R. Ruby is not in box S.

Question 25

If Pearl and Emerald are not in the same box and the number of gemstones in box Q and box R are equal, then for how many gemstones, the exact box in which they are placed can be uniquely determined?

52. Refer to the data below and answer the questions that

Total ten gemstones Pearl, Sapphire, Amber, Turquoise, Emerald, Topaz, Ruby, Coral, Jasper and Onyx are to be placed in four jewellery boxes – P, Q, R and S. Boxes P and Q should have at least three gemstones each. Box R should have at least two gemstones. Box S should have at least one gemstone.

Further, it is known that:

1. Pearl and Sapphire are in the same box.
2. Amber and Topaz are in the same box which is neither box Q nor box R.
3. Among Amber, Turquoise, Coral and Onyx no two gemstones are in the same box. Jasper is in box R.
4. None of Emerald, Coral and Onyx is in box R. Ruby is not in box S.

Question 26

All the gemstones from two of the boxes are taken out and placed in box T. Box T, initially empty, now has 3 gemstones, and does not have Coral. Given that Coral and Ruby were in the same box. Which of the following statements is/are definitely correct?

53. Total ten gemstones Pearl, Sapphire, Amber, Turquoise, Emerald, Topaz, Ruby, Coral, Jasper and Onyx are to be placed in four jewellery boxes – P, Q, R and S. Boxes P and Q should have at least three gemstones each. Box R should have at least two gemstones. Box S should have at least one gemstone.

Further, it is known that:

1. Pearl and Sapphire are in the same box.
2. Amber and Topaz are in the same box which is neither box Q nor box R.
3. Among Amber, Turquoise, Coral and Onyx no two gemstones are in the same box. Jasper is in box R.
4. None of Emerald, Coral and Onyx is in box R. Ruby is not in box S.

Question 27

If the number of gemstones in box R and box S are found to be equal and Emerald is in box P, then for how many of the given boxes, the exact gemstones placed in them can be uniquely determined?

54. Total ten gemstones Pearl, Sapphire, Amber, Turquoise, Emerald, Topaz, Ruby, Coral, Jasper and Onyx are to be placed in four jewellery boxes – P, Q, R and S. Boxes P and Q should have at least three gemstones each. Box R should have at least two gemstones. Box S should have at least one gemstone.

Further, it is known that:

1. Pearl and Sapphire are in the same box.
2. Amber and Topaz are in the same box which is neither box Q nor box R.
3. Among Amber, Turquoise, Coral and Onyx no two gemstones are in the same box. Jasper is in box R.
4. None of Emerald, Coral and Onyx is in box R. Ruby is not in box S.

Question 28

If the number of gemstones in box R and box S are found to be equal and Emerald is in box Q, then Coral is placed in

55.

Refer to the data below and answer the questions that

Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) has four strikers – Lukaku, Rashford, Martial and Zlatan. Only one striker could be in the playing eleven for the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

In order to select the striker, the manager of the MUFC decided to evaluate the performance of the four strikers in four penalty shootouts – PS 1, PS 2, PS 3 and PS 4, conducted in that order. Only the strikers who have cleared a penalty shootout (scored at least one goal) are eligible to take the next penalty shootout. Initially, each of the four penalty shootouts is scheduled to have exactly three attempts per striker at goal. However, for each striker, based on his performance, i.e. the number of goals scored in each of the penalty shootouts, the number of attempts at goal in each of his subsequent penalty shootouts are revised as per the following criteria:

1. In any penalty shootout, if the number of goals scored by a striker is at least 50%, but not 100%, of the total number of available attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), he gets a bonus attempt at goal in each of his subsequent penalty
2. In any penalty shootout, if a striker scores in all the possible attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), then he gets three bonus attempts at goal in each of his subsequent possible

In any penalty shootout, for each goal scored, a striker is awarded 10 points by the manager and for each failed attempt at goal, he is penalised 3 points by the manager. The same point scheme is followed for all the attempts at goal, including the bonus attempts. The striker with maximum points, in all the four penalty shootouts put together, will be selected for the position of striker in the playing eleven at the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

Question 20

If Zlatan scored 34 points in PS 2, and less than 24 attempts at goal in all four penalty shootouts put together, then at most how many points he could have scored in PS 3?

56. Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) has four strikers – Lukaku, Rashford, Martial and Zlatan. Only one striker could be in the playing eleven for the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

In order to select the striker, the manager of the MUFC decided to evaluate the performance of the four strikers in four penalty shootouts – PS 1, PS 2, PS 3 and PS 4, conducted in that order. Only the strikers who have cleared a penalty shootout (scored at least one goal) are eligible to take the next penalty shootout. Initially, each of the four penalty shootouts is scheduled to have exactly three attempts per striker at goal. However, for each striker, based on his performance, i.e. the number of goals scored in each of the penalty shootouts, the number of attempts at goal in each of his subsequent penalty shootouts are revised as per the following criteria:

1. In any penalty shootout, if the number of goals scored by a striker is at least 50%, but not 100%, of the total number of available attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), he gets a bonus attempt at goal in each of his subsequent penalty
2. In any penalty shootout, if a striker scores in all the possible attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), then he gets three bonus attempts at goal in each of his subsequent possible

In any penalty shootout, for each goal scored, a striker is awarded 10 points by the manager and for each failed attempt at goal, he is penalised 3 points by the manager. The same point scheme is followed for all the attempts at goal, including the bonus attempts. The striker with maximum points, in all the four penalty shootouts put together, will be selected for the position of striker in the playing eleven at the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona

Question 21

If Lukaku scored 31 points in PS 3, then points scored by him in PS 2 cannot be

57. Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) has four strikers – Lukaku, Rashford, Martial and Zlatan. Only one striker could be in the playing eleven for the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

In order to select the striker, the manager of the MUFC decided to evaluate the performance of the four strikers in four penalty shootouts – PS 1, PS 2, PS 3 and PS 4, conducted in that order. Only the strikers who have cleared a penalty shootout (scored at least one goal) are eligible to take the next penalty shootout. Initially, each of the four penalty shootouts is scheduled to have exactly three attempts per striker at goal. However, for each striker, based on his performance, i.e. the number of goals scored in each of the penalty shootouts, the number of attempts at goal in each of his subsequent penalty shootouts are revised as per the following criteria:

1. In any penalty shootout, if the number of goals scored by a striker is at least 50%, but not 100%, of the total number of available attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), he gets a bonus attempt at goal in each of his subsequent penalty
2. In any penalty shootout, if a striker scores in all the possible attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), then he gets three bonus attempts at goal in each of his subsequent possible

In any penalty shootout, for each goal scored, a striker is awarded 10 points by the manager and for each failed attempt at goal, he is penalised 3 points by the manager. The same point scheme is followed for all the attempts at goal, including the bonus attempts. The striker with maximum points, in all the four penalty shootouts put together, will be selected for the position of striker in the playing eleven at the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

Question 22

If Rashford had a total of 24 attempts at goal in all the four penalty shootouts put together, then he could have scored a maximum of .

58. Manchester United Football Club (MUFC) has four strikers – Lukaku, Rashford, Martial and Zlatan. Only one striker could be in the playing eleven for the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

In order to select the striker, the manager of the MUFC decided to evaluate the performance of the four strikers in four penalty shootouts – PS 1, PS 2, PS 3 and PS 4, conducted in that order. Only the strikers who have cleared a penalty shootout (scored at least one goal) are eligible to take the next penalty shootout. Initially, each of the four penalty shootouts is scheduled to have exactly three attempts per striker at goal. However, for each striker, based on his performance, i.e. the number of goals scored in each of the penalty shootouts, the number of attempts at goal in each of his subsequent penalty shootouts are revised as per the following criteria:

1. In any penalty shootout, if the number of goals scored by a striker is at least 50%, but not 100%, of the total number of available attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), he gets a bonus attempt at goal in each of his subsequent penalty
2. In any penalty shootout, if a striker scores in all the possible attempts at goal (after all applicable revisions), then he gets three bonus attempts at goal in each of his subsequent possible

In any penalty shootout, for each goal scored, a striker is awarded 10 points by the manager and for each failed attempt at goal, he is penalised 3 points by the manager. The same point scheme is followed for all the attempts at goal, including the bonus attempts. The striker with maximum points, in all the four penalty shootouts put together, will be selected for the position of striker in the playing eleven at the Champions League Final against Football Club Barcelona.

Question 23

It is given that Martial scored the same number of goals in PS 1 as Rashford did in PS 3. If Martial scored 17 points in PS 2, then Rashford could have scored a maximum of how many points in PS 4?

59. Section – III

QUANTITATIVE  ABILITY

Game of Pairs is a game played using two number machines in which a player earns points only when he selects positive integer numbers in each machine such that their product is 480. In how many ways can a player select positive integers so that he earns points?

60. Question 2

Sameer normally takes 8 hours to drive from Agra to Chandigarh. Today, his car developed some fault at Noida, a city between Agra and Chandigarh. After fixing the fault in 24 minutes, he drove at a speed 25% more than the normal speed. He reached the destination 12 minutes earlier than the normal time. The ratio of distance between Agra and Noida to that between Noida and Chandigarh is

61. Question 3

Find the number of roots that are common between x³ + 3x² – 3x + 13 = 0 and x³ + 2x² – 8x + 7 = 0.

62. Question 5

63. Question 6

A fly is stuck inside an inverted conical flask made of glass. The flask has an etched rim (represented by DE) at exactly half its height. The angle at the tip of the cone is 60°. The fly is initially sitting on a point along the circumference of the base of the flask. What is the ratio of the shortest and the longest possible distances that the fly would have to travel in order to reach the etched rim from its initial position? Given that it always flies in a straight line to travel between any two points.

64. Question 7

What is the difference between the square of the sum of the roots and the square of the difference of the roots of the equation 4×2 + 11x – 17 = 0?

65. Question 8

If 10 machines take 10 days to make 10 widgets, then how many days will 50 machines take to make 50 widgets?

66. Question 9

In ΔABC, side AB is divided into 10 equal parts using points A1, A2, … A9 (along the direction from A to B). Similarly, side BC is divided into 12 equal parts using points B1, B2, … B11 (along the direction from B to C) and side CA is divided into 8 equal parts using points C1, C2, … C7 (along the direction from C to A). What is the ratio of the areas of ΔA3BB2 and ΔC5B9C?

67. Question 10

Haider and Zubin simultaneously start running from their original positions towards each other, meet at a point in between, and then keep running till they reach the other person’s original position. The time taken by Haider from his original position till their meeting point and the time taken by Zubin from the meeting point till Haider’s original position are 12 minutes and 16 minutes respectively. What is the total time taken by Haider to run from his original position to Zubin’s original position?

68.

69. Question 12

The Cost Incurred by Company (CIC) per employee for an organization varies with the number of employees in the organization. Priyakant, the HR Associate computed the maximum total CIC that could be possible in the main branch. He found out that the average CIC per employee in the main branch is (32 – x) thousand rupees when the number of employees is (3x + 24). What is the average CIC per employee when the maximum possible total CIC for the organization is observed at the main branch?

70. Question 14

When x is increased by x%, it gives the same value as 2x does, when it is decreased by 2x%. What will be the value of 3x after it is increased by x%? (Given x is not equal to 0.)

71. Question 14

72. Question 15

In ❑ABCD, diagonal AC bisects diagonal BD at point O. AO = 10, BO = 24, CO = 32 and AD = 26. Find the perimeter of the quadrilateral.

73. Question 16

In ❑ABCD, diagonal AC bisects diagonal BD at point O. AO = 10, BO = 24, CO = 32 and AD = 26. Find the perimeter of the quadrilateral

74. Question 17

Banat lent Rs. 80,000 to Rukhsana with the assurance that Rukhsana would return Rs. 50,000 every year for two years. What is the approximate rate of compound interest per annum that Banat is charging Rukhsana?

75. Question 18

1000 chocolates are to be distributed among the students of a class. It was observed that when some students were given 3 chocolates each and the remaining students were given 4 chocolates each, then 3 chocolates remained. What can be the maximum number of students in the class?

76. Question 19

A and B have speeds 20 m/s and 16 m/s. They are moving around a circular track beginning from point P on the track. In how many distinct points will they meet if they are moving in opposite directions?

77. Question 20
How many points with integral coordinates are there inside the boundary of rhombus ABCD where the coordinates of A and C are (–12, 0) and (12, 0) respectively, and the area of the rhombus is 120 sq. units?

78. Question 21

The LCM of two numbers is 120 and their product is 480. Which of the following cannot be their sum?

79. Question 22

80. Question 23

Beaker A contains 60 litres of 60% acid solution. Another perfectly sealed beaker B filled with 20 litres of 90% acid solution is suspended above beaker A. Beaker B bursts such that 120 ml of the acid solution from beaker B starts leaking every minute and falling into beaker A. In how many seconds after the burst will the acid concentration in beaker A become 65%?

81. Question 24

What is the ratio of the lengths of the shortest and the longest diagonals of a regular octagon?

82. Question 25

Aninda has to make a payment of Rs. 26,000 to Aurobindo. While making the payment, he used a total of 250 notes of Rs. 20, Rs. 50 and Rs. 200 denominations. In how many distinct ways could he do that, if it is known that he used at least one note of each denomination?

83. Question 26

A, B, C, D and E are equally efficient people who worked together on an assignment. After the completion of the assignment, each of them was paid Rs. 1000, assuming that each of them worked with 100% efficiency for equal amounts of time. However, later it was found that A alone worked for the entire duration till the assignment was completed while B did not work for 1 hour, C for 2 hours, D for 3 hours and E for 4 hours during the assignment. Had they been working equally, the assignment would have been completed in 12 hours. If the remunerations were recomputed, how much extra would A receive?

84. Question 27

A container has a certain number of balls each of a different colour. Let X = Number of ways of linearly arranging any 3 balls out of the container. Let Y = Number of ways of selecting 4 balls out of the container. It is given that X : Y = 6 : 7. What is the number of balls originally in the container?

85. Question 28

From a vessel containing 1 litre of pure acid, 100 ml pure acid was drawn out in each of the beakers A and B. The acid in both the beakers was diluted by adding water in different proportions. After that, the contents of A and B were added back to the vessel. The concentration of acid in the vessel now is 80%. Had the contents of beakers A and B be mixed with each other instead of adding into the vessel, what would be the concentration of acid in that mixture?

86. Question 29

How many 4-digit numbers have all four distinct digits?

87. Question 30

The average age of a family of five members reduces by 7 when the age of the oldest member is not considered. The average age increases by 4 when the age of the youngest member is not considered. The average of the middle three members is 16. Find the average age of the oldest and youngest members.

88. Question 31

The sum of seven consecutive even numbers is 2982. What will be the sum of all the odd numbers between these even numbers?

89. Question 32

The largest number that definitely divides the sum of the cubes of three consecutive natural numbers (out of which only one is even) is      .

90. Question 33

In a class of 120 students, the percentage of students who play neither Tabla nor Sitar is 20%. The percentage of students who play neither Veena nor Sitar is 30%. The percentage of students who play neither Veena nor Tabla is 40%. What can be the maximum percentage of students who play exactly two instruments out of Tabla, Sitar and Veena? It is known that each student plays at least one instrument