Official verbal ability thread for CAT 2014

dazzysen · October 9, 2014, 7:50am

In the given paragraph, the last line has been deleted. Choose the option that logically follows the paragraph.

'What business are we in?' In the case of carburetors, was it to make carburetors? Yes. The makers of carburetors made good carburetors, better and better. They were in the business of making carburetors. It would have been better had they been in business to put a stoichometric mixture of fuel and air into the combustion chamber, and to invent something that would do it better than a carburetor.

A) Innovation on the part of somebody else led to the fuel injector and to hard times for the makers of carburetors.

B) We must keep asking ourselves, 'What product or service will help our customer more?'

C) Absence of defects does not necessarily build business, does not keep the plant open.

D) There was a time when radios depended on vacuum tubes. William Shockley came along with the diodes and transistors and happy customers of vacuum tubes deserted and ran for them.

dazzysen · October 9, 2014, 8:35am

In the given paragraph, the last line has been deleted. Choose the option that logically follows the paragraph.

'What business are we in?' In the case of carburetors, was it to make carburetors? Yes. The makers of carburetors made good carburetors, better and better. They were in the business of making carburetors. It would have been better had they been in business to put a stoichometric mixture of fuel and air into the combustion chamber, and to invent something that would do it better than a carburetor.

manujgulati · October 9, 2014, 10:59am

A paragraph is given below from which the last sentence has been deleted. From the given options, choose the one that completes the paragraph in the most appropriate way.

She soon realized that most pilots knew little if anything about the engines of their planes. That seemed to her to be like a doctor who knew nothing about the heart. Never afraid of hard work or dirty hands, she started hanging out with the mechanics at the flight school and worked herself into their favor as they realized she was serious about learning about airplane engines._________________________.

harshcat91 · October 9, 2014, 12:28pm

RC:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

The house of fiction has many windows, but only two or three doors. I can tell a story in the third person or in the first person, and perhaps in the second person singular, or in the first person plural, though successful examples of these latter two are rare indeed. In reality, we are stuck with third- and first-person narration. The common idea is that there is a contrast between reliable narration (thirdperson omniscience) and unreliable narration (the unreliable first-person narrator, who knows less about himself than the reader eventually does). On one side, Tolstoy, say; and on the other, Nabokov's narrator Humbert Humbert or Italo Svevo's Zeno Cosini, or Wodehouse's Bertie Wooster.

Authorial omniscience, people assume, has had its day. W. G. Sebald once said, 'I think that fiction writing which does not acknowledge the uncertainty of the narrator himself is a form of imposture which I find very, very difficult to take. In Jane Austen's world there were set standards of propriety which were accepted by everyone. I think it is legitimate, within that context, to be a narrator who knows what the rules are and who knows the answers to certain questions. But I think these certainties have been taken from us by the course of history, and that we have to acknowledge our own sense of ignorance and insufficiency in these matters and therefore try and write accordingly.' For Sebald, and for many writers like him, standard third-person omniscient narration is a kind of antique cheat. But both sides of this division have been caricatured.

Actually, first-person narration is generally more reliable than unreliable; and third-person 'omniscient' narration is generally more partial than omniscient. The first-person narrator is often highly reliable; Charlotte BrontÃ«'s Jane Eyre, a highly reliable first-person narrator, for instance, tells us her story from a position of belated enlightenment. Even the apparently unreliable narrator is more often than not reliably unreliable. Think of Kazuo Ishiguro's butler in The Remains of the Day, or of Bertie Wooster, or even of Humbert Humbert. We know that the narrator is being unreliable because the author is alerting us, through reliable manipulation, to that narrator's unreliability. A process of authorial flagging is going on; the novel teaches us how to read its narrator.

Unreliably unreliable narration is very rare, actually - about as rare as a genuinely mysterious, truly bottomless character. The nameless narrator of Knut Hamsun's Hunger is highly unreliable, and finally unknowable (it helps that he is insane); Dostoevsky's narrator in Notes from Underground is the model for Hamsun. Italo Svevo's Zeno Cosini may be the best example of truly unreliable narration. He imagines that by telling us his life story he is psychoanalysing himself (he has promised his analyst to do this). But his self-comprehension, waved confidently before our eyes, is as comically perforated as a bullet-holed flag.

What is the author's opinion of third-person omniscient narration?

1) He thinks that it is not necessarily omniscient, and that the view about it among certain writers is exaggerated.

2) He considers it acceptable only if one is deliberately trying to imitate older writers such as Jane Austen.

3) He thinks it is only acceptable in a world with a greater degree of certainty about the rules than in the present time.

4) He does not offer his own opinion of it; he merely mentions certain writers who dislike it.

Based on the definition in this passage, which of the following hypothetical first-person narrators could be considered an unreliable narrator?

i] At the beginning of the story, the narrator promises to explain a particular mystery in the course of the story; but the mystery remains unexplained till the end.

ii] The narrator tells the readers about certain past events at the beginning of the story; but as the story progresses, it becomes clear that these events never actually occurred.

iii]The narrator presents herself as smart and knowledgeable; but as the story progresses, it becomes clear to the reader that the narrator doesn't know or understand what is going on around her.

iv] Throughout the story, the narrator deliberately fails to mention the fact that he is blind; the revelation of this (through another character) near the end sheds a completely different light on the narrator's personality and actions.

1) Only [iii]

2) [i] and [ii]

3) [iii] and [iv]

4) [i], [ii], [iii] and [iv]

If this passage were to continue, what would it most likely go on to discuss?

1) Examples of 'reliably unreliable' narrators

2) The many 'windows' of the house of fiction

3) So-called omniscient narrators who are not necessarily omniscient

4) Books that are written in the second person singular or in the first person plural

Choose the option in which the author and his/her character respectively are correctly paired.

1)Tolstoy - Humbert Humbert

2) Zeno Cosini - Italo Svevo

3) Dostoevsky - Knut Hamsun

4) Kazuo Ishiguro - butler

-IMS

jaskarn · October 9, 2014, 12:32pm

TODAY is one of those days when i say " Maybe everything is not achievable". Its not a question but my feelings.

harshcat91 · October 9, 2014, 1:55pm

Three out of four sentences in the options, when correctly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Which of the following sentences does not fit into the context?

1) Pop-up shops are the future of retail.

2) These stores are often about experiences of the hands-on kind.

3) The holidays have long been a prime season for retailers.

4) Some retailers are even integrating them with their brick-and-mortar locations.

princessnupur · October 9, 2014, 3:39pm

#CR

Snowmaking machines work by spraying a mist that freezes immediately on contact with cold air. Because the sudden freezing kills bacteria, QuickFreeze is planning to market a wastewater purification system that works on the same principle. The process works only when temperatures are cold, however, so municipalities using it will still need to maintain a conventional system. Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for a prediction that municipalities will buy QuickFreeze's purification system despite the need to maintain a conventional purification system as well?

(A) Bacteria are not the only impurities that must be removed from waste water.

(B) Many municipalities have old wastewater purification systems that need to be replaced.

(C) Conventional wastewater purification systems have not been fully successful in killing bacteria at cold temperatures.

(D) During times of warm weather, when it is not in use, QuickFreeze's purification system requires relatively little maintenance.

(E) Places where the winters are cold rarely have a problem of water shortage.

princessnupur · October 9, 2014, 4:34pm

When Renoir decided at the age of 21, to enroll as an art student at the studio of Charles Gleyre, the Paris art world was still dominated by the official Salon, which preferred to exhibit works on historical and literary themes, painted in a realistic style. Renoir quickly found that he was more interested in life on the street corner than in the usual studio practice of copying plaster casts of antique sculpture. His teacher could not persuade him that the big toe of a Roman consul should be any more majestic than the toe of a local coal man.Which of the following CANNOT be a logical conclusion to the paragraph?

(1) 'Why shouldn't art be pretty? Renior asked once, 'There are enough unpleasant things in the world'.

(2) Natural as it seems now, Renoir's choice of subject matter was radical and daring.

(3) One day, exasperated with his pupil, Renior's teacher said, 'No doubt you took up painting just to amuse yourself', and Renoir replied, 'Certainly. If it didn't amuse me I wouldn't be doing it'.

(4) Renoir was brought up the son of a tailor in the centre of the city, and his models were invariably working girls - seamstresses, milliners, actresses - who, he once said, had the precious gift of living for the moment.

(5) Renoir only worked when he felt happy, and deliberately chose subjects that he considered attractive - fruit and flowers, people enjoying themselves, children playing and, above all, women.

harshcat91 · October 9, 2014, 4:37pm

RC:

One evolutionary biologist has made a prediction about extraterrestrial life - not to help us look for life on other planets, but to help us understand life on this planet. Richard Dawkins has ventured that life, anywhere it is found in the universe, will be a product of Darwinian natural selection. That may seem like the most overreaching prognosis ever made from an armchair, but in fact it is a straightforward consequence of the argument for the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the only explanation we have of how complex life can evolve, putting aside the question of how it did evolve. If Dawkins is right, as I think he is, natural selection is indispensable for understanding the existence of complex life like human beings.

The theory of natural selection has an odd status in modern intellectual life. Within its home discipline, it is indispensable, explaining thousands of discoveries in a coherent framework and constantly inspiring new ones. But outside its home, it is misunderstood and reviled. I want to spell out the case for this foundational idea: how it explains a key mystery that its alternatives cannot explain, how it has been verified in the lab and the field, and why some famous arguments against it are wrong.

Natural selection has a special place in science because it alone explains what makes life special. Life fascinates us because of its adaptive complexity or complex design. Living things are not just pretty bits of bric-a-brac, but do amazing things. They fly, or swim, or see, or digest food, or catch prey, or manufacture honey or silk or wood or poison. These are rare accomplishments, beyond the means of puddles, rocks, clouds, and other nonliving things. We would call a heap of extraterrestrial matter 'life' only if it achieved comparable feats. Rare accomplishments come from special structures. Animals can see and rocks can't because animals have eyes, and eyes have precise arrangements of unusual materials capable of forming an image. The odds are mind-bogglingly stacked against these structures' being assembled at one go, out of raw materials, by natural events.

The eye has so many parts, arranged so precisely, that it appears to have been designed in advance with the goal of putting together something that sees. The same is true for our other organs. The laws of the world work forwards, not backwards: rain causes the ground to be wet; the ground's benefiting from being wet cannot cause the rain. So the argument against natural selection goes: What else but the plans of God could effect the teleology (goal-directedness) of life on earth?

Darwin showed what else. He identified a forward-causation physical process that mimics the paradoxical appearance of backward causation or teleology. The trick is replication. A replicator is something that can make a copy of itself, with most of its traits duplicated in the copy, including the ability to replicate in turn. Darwin's theory's extraordinary contribution is that it explains the appearance of design without a designer, using ordinary forward causation as it applies to replicators. Natural selection is not the only process that changes organisms over time. But it is the only process that seemingly designs organisms over time. Dawkins stuck out his neck about extraterrestrial evolution because he reviewed every alternative to selection that has been proposed in the history of biology and showed that they are impotent to explain the signature of life: complex design.

What is Richard Dawkins's main point in this passage?

1) Extraterrestrial life must be of natural origin, just like life on earth, despite being apparently designed.

2) Extraterrestrial life and life on earth must have a common origin that can be explained by the theory of natural selection.

3) Extraterrestrial life must be a product of Darwinian natural selection, as it is the best explanation for the existence of life.

4) Extraterrestrial life, like life on earth, must be a product of Darwinian natural selection, the only process that apparently designs organisms.

Why does the author call Richard Dawkins's prediction about extraterrestrial life 'the most overreaching prognosis ever made from an armchair'?

1) He is aware that at first glance, Dawkins's prediction seems far-fetched.

2) He is aware that Dawkins's prediction has no basis in knowledge of actual extraterrestrial life.

3) He thinks Dawkins is exaggerating based on no actual knowledge of extraterrestrial life.

4) He thinks Dawkins may have gone too far with his predictions, given that there are no extraterrestrials.

If you were to interview the author, which is the question that you would be least likely to ask him?

1) Why is the theory of natural selection despised outside its home discipline?

2) What are the alternatives to the theory of natural selection?

3) On what basis would you consider extraterrestrial matter life?

4) Is natural selection the only explanation for how the simplest forms of life could evolve?

Natural selection removed the need to evoke God as an explanation for certain features of life.

Would the author of this passage agree with this statement?

1) Yes, he would definitely agree.

2) Yes, he would agree, but with some qualifications.

3) No, he would probably not agree.

4) His opinion cannot be determined from the passage.

-IMS

blackmamba11 · October 9, 2014, 5:55pm

The following text is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.

Teachers of philosophy have far more control on the boundaries and contours of their discipline than they used to: they think of themselves as professional academics, which means that the only intellectual relationships that really matter to them are the ones they have with their so-called peers. If you wanted to devise a system for discouraging imagination and innovation, you could not do better than the current system of peer-reviewed “research”. Everyone knows that the system creates misery for those who do not come up to scratch when their work is evaluated. But it is no less damaging for those who are going to succeed, because they will always be forced to dance to other people’s tunes. When I was a student, I was appalled by the weakness of intellectual ambition amongst my teachers, but when I compare it with the thrusting careerism of the present I look back on them as admirable free spirits.

a The peer system in philosophy creates a claustrophobic environment where approval of others is important. It is more damaging to those who get this approval as they become suddenly ambitious, only to realize later that it is futile.

b The peer-review system in philosophy creates a claustrophobic environment where approval of others is important. It is as damaging to those who do well as it is to those who do not because the former have to work within limits.

c The peer system in philosophy created a claustrophobic environment where approval of others is important. But the new generation’s ambition seems to be taking care of this, albeit in a gradual manner.

d The peer system in philosophy creates a claustrophobic environment where approval of others is important. The older generation was better off as they handled it better and with dignity.

anuhbti · October 9, 2014, 7:28pm

A Wonder is marvellous, but it is also cruel, cruel, cruel.

B. We have paid a terrible price for our education, such as it is.
C. Of course, wonder is costly because it is the antithesis of anxiously worshipped security.
D. The Magian World View forms the core of our contemporary education system.
E. We have educated ourselves into a world view from which wonder has been banished.

ak9478 · October 9, 2014, 8:59pm

Each sentence below has been broken up into four parts sequentially (a, b, c, d). Choose that part which contains a mistake.

nipun008 · October 10, 2014, 12:26pm

can anybody please explain what is 'Military Collapse'??

vikramadityarattan · October 10, 2014, 3:01pm

Can someone please help me with the summary of this paragraph :

State and federal public health officials were hoping that the ban would be lifted this year. But a rider attached to two House appropriations bills would actually continue the ban - in a tawdry, passive-aggressive way - by barring federally financed programs from operating within 1,000 feet of colleges, universities, parks, video arcades, day-care centers, high schools, public swimming pools and other institutions.

vikramadityarattan · October 10, 2014, 3:10pm

Summary of

The Bush administration and Congress rewrote American and international rules to allow India - a longtime nuclear scofflaw - to buy fuel and technology for its civilian nuclear program. It was supposed to be the start of a beautiful new friendship.

harshcat91 · October 10, 2014, 4:52pm

RC:

In 2003, Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson were developing new human resources guidelines at Best Buy, an electronics retailer, when they suggested a profound shift in the way the company managed its employees. They wondered what might happen if they granted workers 100 percent autonomy and expected of them 100 percent accountability. What if employees were judged solely on the work they did and not at all on the manner in which they did it?

Ressler and Thompson dubbed their plan the Results-Only Work Environment, or ROWE. The scheme involved some radical proposals. People could work from home absolutely anytime they felt like it, without needing a reason or excuse. There would be no such thing as a sick day or a vacation allotment - employees could take off as much time as they wanted, whenever they saw fit. Perhaps most provocative: all meetings would be optional. Even if your boss had invited you. Don't think you need to be there? Don't come. In return for this absolute freedom, workers would need to produce. Bosses would set macro expectations (e.g., increase sales by 10 percent) and then assess the results without micromanaging (e.g., keeping tabs on who arrived at the office earliest in the morning or left latest at night). If the goal was met, there were no complaints from your boss about that Tuesday afternoon you spent at your kid's football game. If the goal wasn't met, no amount of face time around the office would substitute for the lack of results. Of course, if your job description involved opening up the store at 9 a.m., fulfilment of that goal was a must. But for knowledge workers, measuring output became entirely divorced from hours logged in the office.

The key difference under ROWE is that superiors are managing the work instead of managing the people. It forces clear thinking on what the expectations should be for delivering results.

Thompson claims the effect on employees is remarkable. 'When you get to take over your own life and feel responsible for yourself and your work,' she says, 'you feel proud and liberated and dignified. It's the control, but it's also the clarity on top of it. I now need to know what my results are supposed to be so I can prove that I'm getting there.' Decades ago, it was useful to be physically present in the office as much as possible. That way, your boss knew how to find you when it was time to get a question answered or to work together on a project. Now, though, we have mobile phones and email and instant messenger and collaboration software. It's quite easy to get things done from different places and at different times. Chair-warming presenteeism isn't necessary.

But what happens when we give ROWE a taste of its own medicine and judge it solely on its results, instead of its intentions? According to Phyllis Moen, a sociology professor at the University of Minnesota, who has conducted a number of studies on the effects of ROWE on Best Buy employees, ROWE has had some surprisingly positive results, including better employee health, reduced turnover and improved morale.

That all sounds great for the employees. But Ressler and Thompson claim the company benefited, as well. According to them, voluntary turnover rates went down as much as 90 percent on ROWE teams, while productivity on those teams increased by 41 percent.

Thompson and Ressler have laid out their blueprint for ROWE in a book titled Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It.

What is ROWE, as per this passage?

1) A scheme in which workers can work any way and any time they want, as long as they meet their goals

2) A scheme in which the workers have the freedom to work as many or as few hours as they choose, as long as they finish their work

3) A plan which involves allowing employees freedom to be their own bosses, including taking vacations whenever they want, and skipping meetings

4) A plan in which bosses no longer supervise their employees, in return for which the latter are expected to produce results

What is the author's attitude towards ROWE?

1) He is in favour of it, and mentions none of its shortcomings.

2) He admires it, though he does question some aspects of it.

3) He is a bit sceptical about it, as it is applicable in only some types of jobs.

4) He is biased towards it, and only quotes positive views by ROWE's developers and others.

ROWE could be applicable in which of the following types of work environments?

1) Library

2) Law firm

3) Restaurant

4) Factory

In today's scenario, which of the following causes would be most likely to weaken the purported usefulness of ROWE?

1) It is difficult for managers in a ROWE-based office to coordinate work among the employees.

2) People whose jobs involve meeting with clients cannot be allowed the kind of freedom conferred by ROWE.

3) Employees who have become used to a ROWE-based work environment are unable to adjust to an ordinary workplace again.

4) ROWE policies involve minimum face-to-face interaction among employees, and therefore weaken their sense of being a team.

Where would you be most likely to find this passage?

1) In Best Buy's annual report for 2003

2) In a book on management written in 2012

3) In an issue of a business magazine from 2001

4) In Thompson and Ressler's second book, released in 2014

-IMS

prats92 · October 10, 2014, 5:07pm

Five alternative summaries are given below the following passage. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Though the World Health Organization (WHO) believes that India has been effectively reducing its infant and maternal mortality figures, thanks largely to the many successful programmes that have been initiated by the Government of India such as the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), the results have not been satisfactory, especially when it comes to infant and maternal deaths. The current scenario tells us that a lot needs to be achieved in the next one and a half years. Luckily, the subject has been able to attract the attention of the new government. On July 3, 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government decided to introduce rotavirus vaccine, rubella vaccine and Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine (IPV) into India's Universal Immunisation Programme (UIP), making the vaccines available to all children.

a) The new government of India is working in line with the targets set by the previous government and India's health programmes are considered effective by the World Health Organization.

bThe various programmes initiated by the government of India to reduce infant and maternal mortality rates, have been effective but have not achieved the desired results and hence, the new government has made additional vaccines available to reduce the target in the next one and a half year.

c)The Bharatiya Janata Party government has made many vaccines available, in addition to the existing programmes which were focused on reducing infant and maternal mortality rates but could not achieve the desired results.

d)The WHO has declared that India's efforts to reduce infant and maternal mortality rates have been successful but has criticized the country for the impracticable targets set by the government for the next one and a half years.