This quiz consists of questions from
various past actual papers. Leave your answers/ responses in the
comments section below and soon we'll let you know the correct answers!
Directions for Question Nos. 1-6 Choose the
correct meaning of the following idioms.
1. If someone said, "You are the bomb!" she
or he probably would be telling you:
(a) You have a bad temper.
(b) You are a war weapon
(c) You are exceptional and/or wonderful.
(d) You are dangerous.
2. When someone is described as being
"flighty", the person described is probably:
(a) Light.
(b) Indecisive and irresponsible.
(c) Someone who loves flying.
(d) Someone who flies kites.
3. What does "to take down the enemy" mean?
(a) To take the enemy's pictures off the
wall.
(b) To kill the enemy.
c) To make friends with the enemy.
(d) To ignore the enemy.
4. What does, "Dime a dozen"mean?
(a) For one dime you get a dozen
(b) All dozens cost a dime
(c) Anything that is common and easy to
get.
(d) It is difficult to get people
5. "Throw the baby out with the bath water"
means,
(a) Clean out everything
(b) Throw out the good things with the
unwanted
(c) Being Thorough
(d) Create the impression of an accident
6. "Bark up the wrong tree" means,
(a) Skin of another animal
(b) Behave like a dog
(c) Purposely make an error
(d) Make the wrong choice
7. I ________my bike yesterday, so my legs
are sore.
(a) road (b) rode (c) rhode (d) ride
8. Insulation was fitted to ___________
further heat loss from the building.
(a) guard (b) protect (c) save (d) prevent
9. A __________rate of inflation makes
exports difficult.
Can any body attempt this and explain the passage ?
Here is the first line of a long mantra: naipaulrushdiezadiekureishimonica. Each bead of this mantra is significant and makes some sense. Some beads might even contain powerful, perhaps even immortal, magic. But this interminable mantra, as a whole, is nothing but mumbo-jumbo mumbled by a West that wants to be radical without feeling seriously inconvenienced.
The West has increasingly turned its gaze onto itself in recent years. There it stands in front of gilded mirrors, gazing at itself in admiration. What it sees is no longer the whiteness it saw in the far past. What it sees now is multi-hued, variously dressed, many voiced. For, the Western self, particularly in literary and cultural circles, has long accepted the fact of being creolized. When the West gazes into its mirrors, it sees its own new post-war multicultural self. It sees Salman Rushdie, V.S. Naipaul, Hari Kunzru, Zadie Smith. And it likes to pretend that it is seeing the Other.
I am not accusing Rushdie and Naipaul of bland mimicry or of consciously catering to Western opinions. These, and many others like them, are excellent writers, and people of much independence of thought and posture. And yet, they belong to a tradition that is less uncomfortable for the cultured Western reader and critic to face up to. If they present difference, they present just a different aspect of the West.
Choice of language, of course, is one hammer used to strike at such authors. I refuse to take up that hammer. What if they write in English or French? Only a dishonest critic would use that forced/free choice to dismiss the work of a writer, for what language has not been the language of the oppressor? And, by the same token, what language cannot be used to resist, at least to a degree, the commands of the oppressor? I repeat my observation: they are a reflection of the new post-war multi-cultural West. They are the mirror images that make the liberal West feel comfortable with itself, because it feels that in gazing on them (and their works) it is reading and championing the Other.
Literary trends, such as magical realism, which are fashionable in the West are used to define, collate and celebrate this 'global' literature, even within the already narrow circumference of legitimating European languages. African or Asian novelists who experiment with structure or connect to the modernist tradition are not likely to be promoted. Instead, preference is given to 'story-telling', to 'magical realism' etc.
There are other 'global' literatures, but they are not visible today. Some of them are even in English or French or Spanish. Some of them are even by authors settled or born in the West. But gilded mirrors are not likely to reflect them. Just as there are other Asian, African, post-colonial writers, but they are hardly visible today. After a short period in which at least some Western critics and writers were genuinely interested in difference, in other cultures - a period that enabled the publication of novels like Achebe's Things Fall Apart - the West is back to gazing at gilded mirrors. And by chanting the mantra of 'global' literature or multiculturalism, the West conveniently forgets that the reflections it sees in those mirrors are, after all, its own.
This quiz consists of questions from
various past papers of MBA entrance exams. Leave your answers/ responses in the
comments section below and soon we'll let you know the correct answers!
Direction for Q. 1 to 5: Choose the
grammatically correct option from the following.
1.
(a) 'Are these gloves belonging to you?'
she asked.
(b) 'Does this gloves belong to you?' she
asked.
(c) 'Do these gloves belongs to you?' she
asked.
(d) 'Do these gloves belong to you?' she
asked
2.
(a) The teachers will be able to visit our
schools and compare our teaching methods to their own.
(b) The teachers will be able to pay a
visit to our schools and compare teaching methods for their own.
(c) The teachers will be able to visit our
schools and compare our teaching methods with their own.
(d) The teachers will be able to visit our
school and compare their teaching method with their own
3.
(a) Could you give me the amount that you
filled out in the check which was sent?
(b) Could you give me the amount what you
filled out in the check you sent?
(c) Could you give me the amount for which
you filled out in the check you sent?
(d) Could you give me the amount wherein
you filled out in the check you sent?
4.
(a) I have completed the work yesterday.
(b) I did completed the work yesterday.
(c) I have had completed the work
yesterday.
(d) I completed the work yesterday.
5.
(a) The train couldn't stop in time and
crashed with the truck.
(b) The train couldn't stop in time and
crashed into the truck.
(c) The train couldn't stop in time and
crashed against the truck.
(d) The train couldn't stop in time and
crashed before the truck.
Direction for Q. 6 to 10: Choose the
correct synonymous word or description for each italicized word.
The Jan Lokpal Bill, also referred to (6) as the citizens' ombudsman bill, is a proposed independent (7) anti-corruption law in India. Anti-corruption social activists
proposed it as a more effective improvement on the original Lokpal bill, which
is currently being proposed by the Government of India. The Jan Lokpal Bill
aims to effectively deter (8) corruption, redress grievances (9) of citizens, and protect whistle-blowers. If made into law, the
bill would create an independent ombudsman
(10) body called the Lokpal. It
would be empowered to register and investigate complaints of corruption against
politicians and bureaucrats without prior government approval.
6. (a) described as (b) included in (c) supported for (d) reformed as
These are my personal notes that i used for FIJ..Though they were not there in Cat 2015 but who knows abt 2016...So here goes..i hope it is useful
FACTS:
1. They can be verified or discovered
2. Applicable to all - Universal truths.
3. Anything that is seen, heard or read is a fact.
4. Anyone else's opinion stated by the author is a fact. (The personal opinion will become a judgement)
5. Figures, Statistics or other data without an opinion attached to it is a fact. (with an opinion attached becomes an inference
INFERENCE:
1. A logical conclusion based on a set of facts. (Logical conclusion meaning, anyone seeing those set of facts should be able to arrive at that.)
2. Change the facts and the conclusion will no longer be valid.
3. Inferences are self-explanatory. It tells you "why". (If you have a statement which looks like an inference and you form a "why" question on it, you should be able to get an answer. If you don't, it will become a Judgement.)
4. An inference is an opinion that doesn't change according to perspective.
5. If the set of sentences given to you are connected, you can only do UPLINKING to decide that a statement as an inference. Meaning - You should have the facts preceeding this statement. If the facts are provided as the next statements it cannot be an inference. It will be a judgement.
Ex:
A. X is a good student when it comes to attendance.
B. X attends college regularly.
In this example, statement A is a judgement, statement B is a fact.
If you change the order like below -
A. X attends college regularly.
B. X is a good student when it comes to attendance.
In this case A is a fact and B is an inference.
6. One fact can lead to multiple inferences.
7. Inference will have verbal bridges with facts ( words like leads to, points to, indicates, shows, explains, expresses)
8. A cause and effect relation ship can be termed as an inference.
9. A statement backed up by an example in the same sentence will be an inference.
JUDGEMENTS:
1. Any statement that could lead to an approval or disapproval.
2. It is the author's personal opinion.
3. It is open to challenge.
4. It doesn't tell you why. ( see point 3 of inference for clarity)
5. It changes according to perspective.
The traditional conception of cause and effect is one which modern science shows to be fundamentally erroneous, and requiring to be replaced by a quite different notion, that of Laws of Change. In the traditional conception, a particular event A caused a particular event B, and by this it was implied that, given any event B, some earlier event A could be discovered which had a relation to it, such that -
(1) Whenever A occurred, it was followed by B;
(2) In this sequence, there was something 'necessary', not a mere de facto occurrence of A first and then B.
The traditional form of causation has not so far been found in nature. Everything in nature is apparently in a state of continuous change, so that what we call one 'event' turns out to be really a process. If this event is to cause another event, the two will have to be contiguous in time; for if there is any interval between them, something may happen during that interval to prevent the expected effect. Cause and effect, therefore, will have to be temporally contiguous processes. It is difficult to believe, at any rate where physical laws are concerned, that the earlier part of the process which is the cause can make any difference to the effect, so long as the later part of the process which is the cause remains unchanged. If we are to take the cause as one event and the effect as another, both must be shortened indefinitely. The result is that we merely have, as the embodiment of our causal law, a certain direction of change at each moment. Hence, we are brought to differential equations as embodying causal laws. A physical law does not say 'A will be followed by B', but tells us what acceleration a particle will have under given circumstances.
Science starts, from generalizations of the form, 'A is usually followed by B'. This is the nearest approach that can be made to a causal law of the traditional sort. It may happen in any particular instance that A is always followed by B, but we cannot know this, since we cannot foresee all the perfectly possible circumstances that might make the sequence fail, or know that none of them will actually occur. If, however, we know of a very large number of cases in which A is followed by B, and few or none in which the sequence fails, we shall in practice be justified in saying 'A causes B', provided we do not attach to the notion of cause any of the metaphysical superstitions that have gathered about the word.
There is another point. It is generally assumed that, given any event, there is some one phenomenon, which is the cause of the event, in question. This seems to be a mere mistake. Cause, in the only sense in which it can be practically applied, means 'nearly invariable antecedent'. We cannot in practice obtain an antecedent which is quite invariable, for this would require us to take account of the whole universe, since something not taken account of may prevent the expected effect. We cannot distinguish, among nearly invariable antecedents, one as the cause, and the others as merely its concomitants: the attempt to do this depends upon a notion of cause which is derived from will, and will is not at all the sort of thing that it is generally supposed to be, nor is there any reason to think that in the physical world there is anything even remotely analogous to what will is supposed to be.
Reading Comprehension - 2
Section
Section I
Question No. 22
The passages given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
The traditional conception of cause and effect is one which modern science shows to be fundamentally erroneous, and requiring to be replaced by a quite different notion, that of Laws of Change. In the traditional conception, a particular event A caused a particular event B, and by this it was implied that, given any event B, some earlier event A could be discovered which had a relation to it, such that -
(1) Whenever A occurred, it was followed by B;
(2) In this sequence, there was something 'necessary', not a mere de facto occurrence of A first and then B.
The traditional form of causation has not so far been found in nature. Everything in nature is apparently in a state of continuous change, so that what we call one 'event' turns out to be really a process. If this event is to cause another event, the two will have to be contiguous in time; for if there is any interval between them, something may happen during that interval to prevent the expected effect. Cause and effect, therefore, will have to be temporally contiguous processes. It is difficult to believe, at any rate where physical laws are concerned, that the earlier part of the process which is the cause can make any difference to the effect, so long as the later part of the process which is the cause remains unchanged. If we are to take the cause as one event and the effect as another, both must be shortened indefinitely. The result is that we merely have, as the embodiment of our causal law, a certain direction of change at each moment. Hence, we are brought to differential equations as embodying causal laws. A physical law does not say 'A will be followed by B', but tells us what acceleration a particle will have under given circumstances.
Science starts, from generalizations of the form, 'A is usually followed by B'. This is the nearest approach that can be made to a causal law of the traditional sort. It may happen in any particular instance that A is always followed by B, but we cannot know this, since we cannot foresee all the perfectly possible circumstances that might make the sequence fail, or know that none of them will actually occur. If, however, we know of a very large number of cases in which A is followed by B, and few or none in which the sequence fails, we shall in practice be justified in saying 'A causes B', provided we do not attach to the notion of cause any of the metaphysical superstitions that have gathered about the word.
There is another point. It is generally assumed that, given any event, there is some one phenomenon, which is the cause of the event, in question. This seems to be a mere mistake. Cause, in the only sense in which it can be practically applied, means 'nearly invariable antecedent'. We cannot in practice obtain an antecedent which is quite invariable, for this would require us to take account of the whole universe, since something not taken account of may prevent the expected effect. We cannot distinguish, among nearly invariable antecedents, one as the cause, and the others as merely its concomitants: the attempt to do this depends upon a notion of cause which is derived from will, and will is not at all the sort of thing that it is generally supposed to be, nor is there any reason to think that in the physical world there is anything even remotely analogous to what will is supposed to be.
Which of the following statements is true as regards 'antecedent and cause' as explained in the passage?
It is possible to find an invariable antecedent or cause.
Many antecedents may be called the cause of something.
The cause of something refers to its exact antecedent, since one gives rise to the other.
Both antecedent and cause are best understood by the effect they have.
Reading Comprehension - 2
Section
Section I
Question No. 22
The passages given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
The traditional conception of cause and effect is one which modern science shows to be fundamentally erroneous, and requiring to be replaced by a quite different notion, that of Laws of Change. In the traditional conception, a particular event A caused a particular event B, and by this it was implied that, given any event B, some earlier event A could be discovered which had a relation to it, such that -
(1) Whenever A occurred, it was followed by B;
(2) In this sequence, there was something 'necessary', not a mere de facto occurrence of A first and then B.
The traditional form of causation has not so far been found in nature. Everything in nature is apparently in a state of continuous change, so that what we call one 'event' turns out to be really a process. If this event is to cause another event, the two will have to be contiguous in time; for if there is any interval between them, something may happen during that interval to prevent the expected effect. Cause and effect, therefore, will have to be temporally contiguous processes. It is difficult to believe, at any rate where physical laws are concerned, that the earlier part of the process which is the cause can make any difference to the effect, so long as the later part of the process which is the cause remains unchanged. If we are to take the cause as one event and the effect as another, both must be shortened indefinitely. The result is that we merely have, as the embodiment of our causal law, a certain direction of change at each moment. Hence, we are brought to differential equations as embodying causal laws. A physical law does not say 'A will be followed by B', but tells us what acceleration a particle will have under given circumstances.
Science starts, from generalizations of the form, 'A is usually followed by B'. This is the nearest approach that can be made to a causal law of the traditional sort. It may happen in any particular instance that A is always followed by B, but we cannot know this, since we cannot foresee all the perfectly possible circumstances that might make the sequence fail, or know that none of them will actually occur. If, however, we know of a very large number of cases in which A is followed by B, and few or none in which the sequence fails, we shall in practice be justified in saying 'A causes B', provided we do not attach to the notion of cause any of the metaphysical superstitions that have gathered about the word.
There is another point. It is generally assumed that, given any event, there is some one phenomenon, which is the cause of the event, in question. This seems to be a mere mistake. Cause, in the only sense in which it can be practically applied, means 'nearly invariable antecedent'. We cannot in practice obtain an antecedent which is quite invariable, for this would require us to take account of the whole universe, since something not taken account of may prevent the expected effect. We cannot distinguish, among nearly invariable antecedents, one as the cause, and the others as merely its concomitants: the attempt to do this depends upon a notion of cause which is derived from will, and will is not at all the sort of thing that it is generally supposed to be, nor is there any reason to think that in the physical world there is anything even remotely analogous to what will is supposed to be.
Which of the following statements is true as regards 'antecedent and cause' as explained in the passage?
It is possible to find an invariable antecedent or cause.
Many antecedents may be called the cause of something.
The cause of something refers to its exact antecedent, since one gives rise to the other.
Both antecedent and cause are best understood by the effect they have.
Which of the following least explains why the traditional conception of cause and effect is being replaced by the laws of change?
The pure form of causation has not yet been found in nature.
One may in practice be justified in saying that effect follows the cause, if we ignore the metaphysical superstitions that have gathered about the word.
It is a mistake to assume there is some one phenomenon which is the cause of an event in question.
Both [1] and [3].
Which of the following least explains why the traditional conception of cause and effect is being replaced by the laws of change?
The pure form of causation has not yet been found in nature.
One may in practice be justified in saying that effect follows the cause, if we ignore the metaphysical superstitions that have gathered about the word.
It is a mistake to assume there is some one phenomenon which is the cause of an event in question.
Both [1] and [3].
What does the phrase: 'Cause and effect, therefore, will have to be temporally contiguous processes' mean in the passage?
What does the phrase: 'Cause and effect, therefore, will have to be temporally contiguous processes' mean in the passage?
For cause and effect to be realized, they must follow each other.
Cause and effect must be indirectly related to each other.
The proximal nature of cause and effect involves invariable adjunctive processes.
Cause and effect will be free for a limited time, before they are bound by possibilities.
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?
Nothing in this world is a stand-alone, independent concept.
All events lead back to one cause.
Physical laws are of the form 'A will be followed by B'.
It is not humanly impracticable to know the cause of something.
Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer
you a position in our local government office for the summer. As you know,
funding for summer jobs is limited, and it is impossible for us to offer jobs to all those who want them. Consequently, we are
forced to reject many highly qualified applicants.
Which of the following can be inferred from the
letter?
The number of applicants for summer jobs in the government office exceeded the number of summer jobs available.
(B) The applicant who received the letter was considered highly qualified.
Very little funding was available for summer jobs in the government office.
) The application of the person who received the letter was considered carefully before being rejected.
Most of those who applied for summer jobs were considered qualified for the available positions.
Hi! I'd ordered Career Launcher's CAT preparation material worth 6k
from their website for CAT '16 a few months ago. Fortunately, I'm
joining an IIM and don't need this anymore.
Anybody who can buy this off from me in Bhubaneswar? I can give you TIME's (CAT '13) entire material in bonus!
Hello Aspirants, Since it is the initial stage of the preparation for the Entrance exams of 2016.
We hereby are going to commence with our innovative program, to provide a platform where the aspirants can be guided by the current students of top notch MBA colleges.
Services that we are offering:
-24*7 guidance from the Mentors (Current MBA students from top notch collgs like IIMs, XLRI, IIFT, MDI, FMS, Narsee Monjee, Symbiosis, etc.)
- Doubt Clearing Sessions
- Online Seminars (Conducted by 98%ile+ scorers)
- Online Mock Exams
- Soft Copy of the Materials
- GK and Current Affair Materials
- GDPIWAT assistance
- Mock PI Calls
We provide guidance for each entrance exams(CAT, XAT, SNAP, NMAT, CMAT, MH-CET) and map them with their mentors who are current students of the respective colleges, so that the aspirants can get direct assistance.
Interested to join??
Fill the form:
http://goo.gl/forms/5rZfikYvjw
Hello everyone
Can anyone suggest how can I improve the grammar portion of the VA ?
I feel my RC has improved with practice. But I'm lagging in the grammar part.
Suggest me how to deal with in efficient manner. Who has faced the same problem would be more helpful.
Thanks.
In the
effort to fire a Civil Service employee, his or her manager may have to spend
up to $100,000 of tax money. Since Civil Service employees know how hard it is
to fire them, they tend to loaf. This explains in large part why the government
is so inefficient.
It
can be properly inferred on the basis of the statements above that the author
believes which of the following?
I. Too much job security can have a negative influence on workers.
II. More government workers should be fired.
III. Most government workers are Civil Service employees.