CAT 2019 VARC Question Paper with Solutions (Slot 2)

RC PASSAGE

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner’s eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density—1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai—and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.

Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where electricity is stolen and therefore free, people leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, “Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi’s streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo’s main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes.” . . .

In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.” “Green Manhattan” was the inflammatory title of a 2004 New Yorker article by David Owen. “By the most significant measures,” he wrote, “New York is the greenest

community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. . . . Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful.” He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world’s most energy-efficient apartment buildings. . . .

Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. . . . Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” . . .

[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions. . . .

Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. . . . But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan . . .


Question 1:
From the passage it can be inferred that cities are good places to live in for all of the following reasons EXCEPT that they:
  1. help prevent destruction of the environment.
  2. have suburban areas as well as office areas.
  3. offer employment opportunities.
  4. contribute to the cultural transformation of residents.
Option: 2

This might prove to be a little challenging to most students as it asks to choose the one that cannot be inferred. In other words, we have to eliminate the ones that can be inferred and choose the as right answer the one that cannot be inferred.

The last paragraph helps us eliminate two choices. The first that cities indeed help create jobs, and the second that they help prevent destruction of environment. Both the choices can be inferred when the author gives example of Manaus. Option 1 and 3 can be ruled out.

So we are left with two choices, option 4 tells us that cities contribute to cultural transformation. This can be inferred from the last sentence of the para. The author has used the word transformative in the last sentence of the passage “the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan”, we can infer that this is cultural transformation, after all you are moving from metropolitan to cosmopolitan.

Many of you might say that option 2 can also be inferred from the last sentence of the passage. But this is not the reason why the author feels that cities are good places to live in.

The last para has clues to all the choices except 2.


RC PASSAGE

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner’s eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density—1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai—and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.

Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where electricity is stolen and therefore free, people leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, “Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi’s streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo’s main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes.” . . .

In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.” “Green Manhattan” was the inflammatory title of a 2004 New Yorker article by David Owen. “By the most significant measures,” he wrote, “New York is the greenest

community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. . . . Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful.” He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world’s most energy-efficient apartment buildings. . . .

Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. . . . Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” . . .

[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions. . . .

Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. . . . But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan . . .


Question 2:
Which one of the following statements would undermine the author’s stand regarding the greenness of cities?
  1. The compactness of big cities in the West increases the incidence of violent crime.
  2. The high density of cities leads to an increase in carbon dioxide and global warming.
  3. Over the last decade the cost of utilities has been increasing for city dwellers.
  4. Sorting through rubbish contributes to the rapid spread of diseases in the slums.
Option: 2

This is an easy question, provided that you have understood the question well. The question wants us to undermine the author’s argument regarding the ‘greenness of cities’. We must restrict our answer to greenness only.

Option 1 talks about ‘violent crimes’, which has nothing to do with greenness of cities. It can be ruled out

Option 2 is the right choice. If population density is likely to increase CO2 and global warming, then the idea of greenness is futile as the carbon dioxide will neutralize it.

Option 3, like option 1, is out of scope. The high cost of utilities has nothing to do with greenness

Option 4 too is out of scope. It is not countering the idea of greenness.

We must understand that in spite of the ideas presented in choices 1, 3 and 4, author’s idea of greenness of cities can still be a valid point.


RC PASSAGE

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner’s eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density—1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai—and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.

Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where electricity is stolen and therefore free, people leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, “Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi’s streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo’s main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes.” . . .

In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.” “Green Manhattan” was the inflammatory title of a 2004 New Yorker article by David Owen. “By the most significant measures,” he wrote, “New York is the greenest

community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. . . . Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful.” He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world’s most energy-efficient apartment buildings. . . .

Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. . . . Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” . . .

[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions. . . .

Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. . . . But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan . . .


Question 3:
We can infer that Calthorpe’s statement “still jars” with most people because most people:
  1. do not regard cities as good places to live in.
  2. consider cities to be very crowded and polluted.
  3. regard cities as places of disease and crime.
  4. do not consider cities to be eco-friendly places.
Option: 4

This is a difficult question. The options are so close that it is difficult to pick any with confidence. However, we can try the elimination method here.

The passage says:

In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.”

The right answer has to be opposite of what Calthorpe has to say, because what people believe in and what Calthorpe has to say are contradictory in nature (the verb jars means to disturb). Calthorpe says that cities are the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. So people’s belief would be the opposite of this. Thus option 4 is the right choice.

Option 1 is not specific. It is too broad and does not capture the people’s belief as precisely as option 4 does. Option 2 is indeed very close, the pollution idea is stated by Calthorpe, but the idea of crowdedness is not present in his statement.

Similarly option 3 talks about crimes and diseases, something which has not been mentioned in Calthorpe’s quote.

Both choice 2 and 4 are very close, but 2 goes out only because of idea of ‘crowdedness’.

A very close call indeed.


RC PASSAGE

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner’s eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density—1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai—and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.

Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where electricity is stolen and therefore free, people leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, “Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi’s streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo’s main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes.” . . .

In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.” “Green Manhattan” was the inflammatory title of a 2004 New Yorker article by David Owen. “By the most significant measures,” he wrote, “New York is the greenest

community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. . . . Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful.” He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world’s most energy-efficient apartment buildings. . . .

Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. . . . Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” . . .

[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions. . . .

Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. . . . But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan . . .


Question 4:
In the context of the passage, the author refers to Manaus in order to:
  1. explain where cities source their labour for factories.
  2. promote cities as employment hubs for people.
  3. explain how urban areas help the environment.
  4. describe the infrastructure efficiencies of living in a city.
Option: 3

 This is an easy question and can be answered by understanding the context in which the author discusses Manaus. We have to go to the first sentence of the last para.

[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs.

Reading the above lines, we can shortlist two choices, one is 2 and the other is 3. But the purpose of giving jobs is to stop deforestation, which is the bigger issue. Option 3 is thus the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner’s eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density—1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai—and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.

Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where electricity is stolen and therefore free, people leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, “Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi’s streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo’s main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes.” . . .

In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.” “Green Manhattan” was the inflammatory title of a 2004 New Yorker article by David Owen. “By the most significant measures,” he wrote, “New York is the greenest

community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. . . . Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful.” He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world’s most energy-efficient apartment buildings. . . .

Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. . . . Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” . . .

[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions. . . .

Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. . . . But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan . . .


Question 5:
According to the passage, squatter cities are environment-friendly for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
  1. they recycle material.
  2. their transportation is energy efficient.
  3. they sort out garbage.
  4. their streets are kept clean.
Option: 4

This question can be marked correctly by using a bit of common sense and by picking the one that has least impact on environment. Here the common sense comes into play.

Recycling material and energy efficient transportation can indeed have a huge impact on environment. Since this is an except question, both 1 and 2 can be ruled out.

We are left with two choices sorting out garbage and keeping streets clean. Sorting out garbage will have a greater impact on environment. Moreover, this idea has been discussed in the passage. Thus we can rule out option 3 as well.

Option 4 is the best choice.


RC PASSAGE

British colonial policy . . . went through two policy phases, or at least there were two strategies between which its policies actually oscillated, sometimes to its great advantage. At first, the new colonial apparatus exercised caution, and occupied India by a mix of military power and subtle diplomacy, the high ground in the middle of the circle of circles. This, however, pushed them into contradictions. For, whatever their sense of the strangeness of the country and the thinness of colonial presence, the British colonial state represented the great conquering discourse of Enlightenment rationalism, entering India precisely at the moment of its greatest unchecked arrogance. As inheritors and representatives of this discourse, which carried everything before it, this colonial state could hardly adopt for long such a self-denying attitude. It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India, particularly as some empirically inclined theorists of that generation considered the colonies a massive laboratory of utilitarian or other theoretical experiments. Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society. But this modernity did not enter a passive society. Sometimes, its initiatives were resisted by pre-existing structural forms. At times, there was a more direct form of collective resistance. Therefore the map of continuity and discontinuity that this state left behind at the time of independence was rather complex and has to be traced with care.

Most significantly, of course, initiatives for . . . modernity came to assume an external character. The acceptance of modernity came to be connected, ineradicably, with subjection. This again points to two different problems, one theoretical, the other political. Theoretically, because modernity was externally introduced, it is explanatorily unhelpful to apply the logical format of the ‘transition process’ to this pattern of change. Such a logical format would be wrong on two counts. First, however subtly, it would imply that what was proposed to be built was something like European capitalism. (And, in any case, historians have forcefully argued that what it was to replace was not like feudalism, with or without modificatory adjectives.) But, more fundamentally, the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force. This externality is not something that can be casually mentioned and forgotten. It is inscribed on every move, every object, every proposal, every legislative act, each line of causality. It comes to be marked on the epoch itself. This repetitive emphasis on externality should not be seen as a nationalist initiative that is so well rehearsed in Indian social science. . . .

Quite apart from the externality of the entire historical proposal of modernity, some of its contents were remarkable. . . . Economic reforms, or rather alterations . . . did not foreshadow the construction of a classical capitalist economy, with its necessary emphasis on extractive and transport sectors. What happened was the creation of a degenerate version of capitalism —what early dependency theorists called the ‘development of underdevelopment’.


Question 6:
All of the following statements, if true, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:
  1. the change in British colonial policy was induced by resistance to modernity in Indian society.
  2. modernity was imposed upon India by the British and, therefore, led to underdevelopment.
  3. throughout the history of colonial conquest, natives have often been experimented on by the colonisers.
  4. the introduction of capitalism in India was not through the transformation of feudalism, as happened in Europe.
Option: 1

The points that are mentioned directly by the author in the passage will definitely support his argument. The point that is not mentioned or is opposite to what the author has to say will not support his argument. You must understand that not supporting doesn’t mean weakening. Any

Option 4 supports the author’s argument because he himself mentions historians who have argued that capitalism in India was not introduced with any modifications (2nd para paragraph)

Option 3, too, has been mentioned in the passage in the very first para where the author says that colonies were experimental labs.

Option 2 has come towards the end of the passage, in the last para wherein the author says that since modernity was externally imposed, it led to development of underdevelopment.

Option 1 is difficult because people have difficulty understanding the meaning of the term ‘induced by’. Induced by means triggered by or caused by. The change in British colonial policy was not induced by resistance to modernity. In fact, first came the change in policy, then came the resistance to modernity in Indian society. So the correct way of framing this idea would be: the resistance to modernity in Indian society was induced by the change in the British colonial policy.

Option 1 is the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

British colonial policy . . . went through two policy phases, or at least there were two strategies between which its policies actually oscillated, sometimes to its great advantage. At first, the new colonial apparatus exercised caution, and occupied India by a mix of military power and subtle diplomacy, the high ground in the middle of the circle of circles. This, however, pushed them into contradictions. For, whatever their sense of the strangeness of the country and the thinness of colonial presence, the British colonial state represented the great conquering discourse of Enlightenment rationalism, entering India precisely at the moment of its greatest unchecked arrogance. As inheritors and representatives of this discourse, which carried everything before it, this colonial state could hardly adopt for long such a self-denying attitude. It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India, particularly as some empirically inclined theorists of that generation considered the colonies a massive laboratory of utilitarian or other theoretical experiments. Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society. But this modernity did not enter a passive society. Sometimes, its initiatives were resisted by pre-existing structural forms. At times, there was a more direct form of collective resistance. Therefore the map of continuity and discontinuity that this state left behind at the time of independence was rather complex and has to be traced with care.

Most significantly, of course, initiatives for . . . modernity came to assume an external character. The acceptance of modernity came to be connected, ineradicably, with subjection. This again points to two different problems, one theoretical, the other political. Theoretically, because modernity was externally introduced, it is explanatorily unhelpful to apply the logical format of the ‘transition process’ to this pattern of change. Such a logical format would be wrong on two counts. First, however subtly, it would imply that what was proposed to be built was something like European capitalism. (And, in any case, historians have forcefully argued that what it was to replace was not like feudalism, with or without modificatory adjectives.) But, more fundamentally, the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force. This externality is not something that can be casually mentioned and forgotten. It is inscribed on every move, every object, every proposal, every legislative act, each line of causality. It comes to be marked on the epoch itself. This repetitive emphasis on externality should not be seen as a nationalist initiative that is so well rehearsed in Indian social science. . . .

Quite apart from the externality of the entire historical proposal of modernity, some of its contents were remarkable. . . . Economic reforms, or rather alterations . . . did not foreshadow the construction of a classical capitalist economy, with its necessary emphasis on extractive and transport sectors. What happened was the creation of a degenerate version of capitalism —what early dependency theorists called the ‘development of underdevelopment’.


Question 7:
All of the following statements about British colonialism can be inferred from the first paragraph, EXCEPT that it:
  1. allowed the treatment of colonies as experimental sites.
  2. faced resistance from existing structural forms of Indian modernity.
  3. was at least partly shaped by the project of European modernity.
  4. was at least partly an outcome of Enlightenment rationalism.
Option: 2

From the first paragraph, we can infer all of the following except 2. The experimental sites idea is visible in the first para. Similarly, we can see Enlightenment rationalism as the motivation behind the change in colonial policy.

The statement “It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the

moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India” in the first para supports option 3 as well.

Thus we have evidence for 1,3 and 4. Many of you might wonder as to why 2 cannot be inferred because we have evidence for 2 as well.

But option 2 is distorted, it did face resistance from existing structural forms, but these structural forms were not of modernity. In fact there was no modernity in India, it was introduced externally by the British, as the passage argues. The existing structural forms were of society and not of modernity. Thus we can’t infer 2.


RC PASSAGE

British colonial policy . . . went through two policy phases, or at least there were two strategies between which its policies actually oscillated, sometimes to its great advantage. At first, the new colonial apparatus exercised caution, and occupied India by a mix of military power and subtle diplomacy, the high ground in the middle of the circle of circles. This, however, pushed them into contradictions. For, whatever their sense of the strangeness of the country and the thinness of colonial presence, the British colonial state represented the great conquering discourse of Enlightenment rationalism, entering India precisely at the moment of its greatest unchecked arrogance. As inheritors and representatives of this discourse, which carried everything before it, this colonial state could hardly adopt for long such a self-denying attitude. It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India, particularly as some empirically inclined theorists of that generation considered the colonies a massive laboratory of utilitarian or other theoretical experiments. Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society. But this modernity did not enter a passive society. Sometimes, its initiatives were resisted by pre-existing structural forms. At times, there was a more direct form of collective resistance. Therefore the map of continuity and discontinuity that this state left behind at the time of independence was rather complex and has to be traced with care.

Most significantly, of course, initiatives for . . . modernity came to assume an external character. The acceptance of modernity came to be connected, ineradicably, with subjection. This again points to two different problems, one theoretical, the other political. Theoretically, because modernity was externally introduced, it is explanatorily unhelpful to apply the logical format of the ‘transition process’ to this pattern of change. Such a logical format would be wrong on two counts. First, however subtly, it would imply that what was proposed to be built was something like European capitalism. (And, in any case, historians have forcefully argued that what it was to replace was not like feudalism, with or without modificatory adjectives.) But, more fundamentally, the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force. This externality is not something that can be casually mentioned and forgotten. It is inscribed on every move, every object, every proposal, every legislative act, each line of causality. It comes to be marked on the epoch itself. This repetitive emphasis on externality should not be seen as a nationalist initiative that is so well rehearsed in Indian social science. . . .

Quite apart from the externality of the entire historical proposal of modernity, some of its contents were remarkable. . . . Economic reforms, or rather alterations . . . did not foreshadow the construction of a classical capitalist economy, with its necessary emphasis on extractive and transport sectors. What happened was the creation of a degenerate version of capitalism —what early dependency theorists called the ‘development of underdevelopment’.


Question 8:
“Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society.” Which of the following best captures the sense of this statement?
  1. The cost of the colonial state’s eminence was not settled; therefore, it took the initiative of introducing modernity into Indian society.
  2. The colonial enterprise was a costly one; so to justify the cost it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society.
  3. The colonial state’s eminence was unsettled by its marginal position; therefore, it developed Indian society by modernising it.
  4. The colonial state felt marginalised from Indian society because of its own modernity; therefore, it sought to address that marginalisation by bringing its modernity to change Indian society.
Option: 4

To marginalise means to treat something or someone as insignificant.  The colonial state was marginalized because it was at the periphery of Indian society. Here colonial state is the small ruling elite. Since it was a small group, it was marginalized, and to come out of that marginalization, it tried to introduce modernity in Indian society, because if everyone is modernized, then the colonized state would be a part of mainstream Indian society. To get the right answer we have to understand the meaning of the word marginalized. No other option correctly captures the contextual meaning of the word ‘marginalized’, except 4. Thus 4 is the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

British colonial policy . . . went through two policy phases, or at least there were two strategies between which its policies actually oscillated, sometimes to its great advantage. At first, the new colonial apparatus exercised caution, and occupied India by a mix of military power and subtle diplomacy, the high ground in the middle of the circle of circles. This, however, pushed them into contradictions. For, whatever their sense of the strangeness of the country and the thinness of colonial presence, the British colonial state represented the great conquering discourse of Enlightenment rationalism, entering India precisely at the moment of its greatest unchecked arrogance. As inheritors and representatives of this discourse, which carried everything before it, this colonial state could hardly adopt for long such a self-denying attitude. It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India, particularly as some empirically inclined theorists of that generation considered the colonies a massive laboratory of utilitarian or other theoretical experiments. Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society. But this modernity did not enter a passive society. Sometimes, its initiatives were resisted by pre-existing structural forms. At times, there was a more direct form of collective resistance. Therefore the map of continuity and discontinuity that this state left behind at the time of independence was rather complex and has to be traced with care.

Most significantly, of course, initiatives for . . . modernity came to assume an external character. The acceptance of modernity came to be connected, ineradicably, with subjection. This again points to two different problems, one theoretical, the other political. Theoretically, because modernity was externally introduced, it is explanatorily unhelpful to apply the logical format of the ‘transition process’ to this pattern of change. Such a logical format would be wrong on two counts. First, however subtly, it would imply that what was proposed to be built was something like European capitalism. (And, in any case, historians have forcefully argued that what it was to replace was not like feudalism, with or without modificatory adjectives.) But, more fundamentally, the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force. This externality is not something that can be casually mentioned and forgotten. It is inscribed on every move, every object, every proposal, every legislative act, each line of causality. It comes to be marked on the epoch itself. This repetitive emphasis on externality should not be seen as a nationalist initiative that is so well rehearsed in Indian social science. . . .

Quite apart from the externality of the entire historical proposal of modernity, some of its contents were remarkable. . . . Economic reforms, or rather alterations . . . did not foreshadow the construction of a classical capitalist economy, with its necessary emphasis on extractive and transport sectors. What happened was the creation of a degenerate version of capitalism —what early dependency theorists called the ‘development of underdevelopment’.


Question 9:
Which of the following observations is a valid conclusion to draw from the author’s statement that “the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force”?
  1. Colonised societies cannot be changed through logic; they need to be transformed with external force.
  2. The transformation of Indian society did not happen organically, but was forced by colonial agendas.
  3. Indian society is not endogamous; it is more accurately characterised as aggressively exogamous.
  4. The endogenous logic of colonialism can only bring change if it attacks and transforms external forces.
Option: 2

 Here we must correctly understand the meaning of the word endogenous. Endogenous is not the same as endogamous, though there are some parallels. Endogenous means having internal cause or origin, while endogamous means marriage within a specific tribe. Option 3 has to go out.

The meaning of the word endogenous makes it clear that the right answer has to be 2.


RC PASSAGE

British colonial policy . . . went through two policy phases, or at least there were two strategies between which its policies actually oscillated, sometimes to its great advantage. At first, the new colonial apparatus exercised caution, and occupied India by a mix of military power and subtle diplomacy, the high ground in the middle of the circle of circles. This, however, pushed them into contradictions. For, whatever their sense of the strangeness of the country and the thinness of colonial presence, the British colonial state represented the great conquering discourse of Enlightenment rationalism, entering India precisely at the moment of its greatest unchecked arrogance. As inheritors and representatives of this discourse, which carried everything before it, this colonial state could hardly adopt for long such a self-denying attitude. It had restructured everything in Europe—the productive system, the political regimes, the moral and cognitive orders—and would do the same in India, particularly as some empirically inclined theorists of that generation considered the colonies a massive laboratory of utilitarian or other theoretical experiments. Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society. But this modernity did not enter a passive society. Sometimes, its initiatives were resisted by pre-existing structural forms. At times, there was a more direct form of collective resistance. Therefore the map of continuity and discontinuity that this state left behind at the time of independence was rather complex and has to be traced with care.

Most significantly, of course, initiatives for . . . modernity came to assume an external character. The acceptance of modernity came to be connected, ineradicably, with subjection. This again points to two different problems, one theoretical, the other political. Theoretically, because modernity was externally introduced, it is explanatorily unhelpful to apply the logical format of the ‘transition process’ to this pattern of change. Such a logical format would be wrong on two counts. First, however subtly, it would imply that what was proposed to be built was something like European capitalism. (And, in any case, historians have forcefully argued that what it was to replace was not like feudalism, with or without modificatory adjectives.) But, more fundamentally, the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force. This externality is not something that can be casually mentioned and forgotten. It is inscribed on every move, every object, every proposal, every legislative act, each line of causality. It comes to be marked on the epoch itself. This repetitive emphasis on externality should not be seen as a nationalist initiative that is so well rehearsed in Indian social science. . . .

Quite apart from the externality of the entire historical proposal of modernity, some of its contents were remarkable. . . . Economic reforms, or rather alterations . . . did not foreshadow the construction of a classical capitalist economy, with its necessary emphasis on extractive and transport sectors. What happened was the creation of a degenerate version of capitalism —what early dependency theorists called the ‘development of underdevelopment’.


Question 10:
Which one of the following 5-word sequences best captures the flow of the arguments in the passage?
  1. Colonial policy—arrogant rationality—resistance—independence—development.
  2. Military power—colonialism—restructuring—feudalism—capitalism.
  3. Military power—arrogance—laboratory—modernity—capitalism.
  4. Colonial policy—Enlightenment—external modernity—subjection—underdevelopment.            
Option: 4

This is the easiest question of the passage. Towards the end the author talks about the development of underdevelopment, and he opens the passage by introducing British colonial policy. Option 4 is the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones . . . . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved. . . .

Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.

Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.

The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%. . . . The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals. . . . Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.

The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality. . . . Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow. . . . Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.

The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . . Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable. . . . A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.


Question 11:
According to the author, relocating government agencies has not always been a success for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
  1. high staff losses, as people may not be prepared to move to smaller towns.
  2. the difficulty of attracting talented, well-skilled people in more remote areas.
  3. increased avenues of corruption away from the capital city.
  4. a rise in pollution levels and congestion in the new locations.
Option: 4

This is a question that has double negative, you must carefully read the question, simplify it and then try to eliminate the options. According to the author, relocating government agencies has not always been a success. You have to mark the option that is not one of the reasons. The option that is the reason will go out, and the one that is not will be the right choice.

Once you understand the question, it becomes quite a simple one. The corruption point has been mentioned towards the end of the passage. So option 3 is the reason. Staff losses and difficulty of attracting talent are both mentioned in the passage.

Option 4 is nowhere mentioned and has to be the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones . . . . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved. . . .

Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.

Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.

The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%. . . . The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals. . . . Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.

The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality. . . . Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow. . . . Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.

The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . . Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable. . . . A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.


Question 12:
According to the passage, colonial powers located their capitals:
  1. based on political expediency.
  2. to promote their trading interests.
  3. where they had the densest populations.
  4. to showcase their power and prestige.
Option: 2

You will not get a question easier than this.

In the first paragraph, we have the following lines: In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones…

Thus we get to know that colonial powers were focussed on trade. Option 2 is the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones . . . . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved. . . .

Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.

Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.

The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%. . . . The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals. . . . Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.

The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality. . . . Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow. . . . Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.

The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . . Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable. . . . A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.


Question 13:
The “long pedigree” of the aim to shift civil servants to improve their living standards implies that this move:
  1. takes a long time to achieve its intended outcomes.
  2. has become common practice in several countries worldwide.
  3. is supported by politicians and the ruling elites.
  4. is not a new idea and has been tried in the past.
Option: 4

 This is primarily a vocabulary question. Pedigree means history. So a long pedigree means something that has a history. Thus option 4 becomes the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones . . . . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved. . . .

Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.

Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.

The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%. . . . The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals. . . . Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.

The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality. . . . Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow. . . . Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.

The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . . Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable. . . . A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.


Question 14:
The “dilemma” mentioned in the passage refers to:
  1. relocating government agencies to boost growth in remote areas with poor amenities or to relatively larger cities with good amenities.
  2. keeping government agencies in the largest city with good infrastructure or moving them to a remote area with few amenities.
  3. concentrating on decongesting large cities or focusing on boosting employment in relatively larger cities.
  4. encouraging private enterprises to relocate to smaller towns or not incentivising them in order to keep government costs in those towns low.
Option: 1

This question has come from the second last paragraph of the passage.

“The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new

jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure

and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . .”

In short, the dilemma is pick small towns or opt for larger cities.

Option 2 says keep government agencies in large cities, but the issue is opt x or opt y, not opt x or keep y

Option 3 does not even mention the two choices, while option 4 talks about private enterprise, which is definitely out of scope.

Option 1 is the best answer, relocate to remote areas or to relatively larger cities, opt x or opt y.


RC PASSAGE

Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones . . . . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved. . . .

Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.

Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.

The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%. . . . The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals. . . . Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.

The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality. . . . Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow. . . . Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.

The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . . Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable. . . . A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.


Question 15:
People who support decentralising central government functions are LEAST likely to cite which of the following reasons for their view?
  1. It reduces expenses as infrastructure costs and salaries are lower in smaller cities.
  2. Policy makers may benefit from fresh thinking in a new environment.
  3. More independence could be enjoyed by regulatory bodies located away from political centres.
  4. It could weaken the nexus between bureaucrats and media in the capital.
Option: 4

We have to choose an option that would not be used by people who support decentralizing of central government functions.

If the option supports decentralization, then it is out or else it is in.

Option 1 supports decentralization and has been discussed in the passage, the cost factor has been extensively discussed by the author.

New ideas and autonomy in regulation is given in the second paragraph. Thus options 2 and 3 are out,

Option 4 is not a reason given in support of decentralization.


RC PASSAGE

For two years, I tracked down dozens of . . . Chinese in Upper Egypt [who were] selling lingerie. In a deeply conservative region, where Egyptian families rarely allow women to work or own businesses, the Chinese flourished because of their status as outsiders. They didn’t gossip, and they kept their opinions to themselves. In a New Yorker article entitled “Learning to Speak Lingerie,” I described the Chinese use of Arabic as another non-threatening characteristic. I wrote, “Unlike Mandarin, Arabic is inflected for gender, and Chinese dealers, who learn the language strictly by ear, often pick up speech patterns from female customers. I’ve come to think of it as the lingerie dialect, and there’s something disarming about these Chinese men speaking in the feminine voice.” . . .

When I wrote about the Chinese in the New Yorker, most readers seemed to appreciate the unusual perspective. But as I often find with topics that involve the Middle East, some people had trouble getting past the black-and-white quality of a byline. “This piece is so orientalist I don’t know what to do,” Aisha Gani, a reporter who worked at The Guardian, tweeted. Another colleague at the British paper, Iman Amrani, agreed: “I wouldn’t have minded an article on the subject written by an Egyptian woman—probably would have had better insight.” . . .

As an MOL (man of language), I also take issue with this kind of essentialism. Empathy and understanding are not inherited traits, and they are not strictly tied to gender and race. An individual who wrestles with a difficult language can learn to be more sympathetic to outsiders and open to different experiences of the world. This learning process—the embarrassments, the frustrations, the gradual sense of understanding and connection—is invariably transformative. In Upper Egypt, the Chinese experience of struggling to learn Arabic and local culture had made them much more thoughtful. In the same way, I was interested in their lives not because of some kind of voyeurism, but because I had also experienced Egypt and Arabic as an outsider. And both the Chinese and the Egyptians welcomed me because I spoke their languages. My identity as a white male was far less important than my ability to communicate.

And that easily lobbed word—“Orientalist”—hardly captures the complexity of our interactions. What exactly is the dynamic when a man from Missouri observes a Zhejiang native selling lingerie to an Upper Egyptian woman? . . . If all of us now stand beside the same river, speaking in ways we all understand, who’s looking east and who’s looking west? Which way is Oriental?

For all of our current interest in identity politics, there’s no corresponding sense of identity linguistics. You are what you speak—the words that run throughout your mind are at least as fundamental to your selfhood as is your ethnicity or your gender. And sometimes it’s healthy to consider human characteristics that are not inborn, rigid, and outwardly defined. After all, you can always learn another language and change who you are.


Question 16:
Which of the following can be inferred from the author’s claim, “Which way is Oriental?”
  1. Goodwill alone mitigates cultural hierarchies and barriers.
  2. Learning another language can mitigate cultural hierarchies and barriers.
  3. Globalisation has mitigated cultural hierarchies and barriers.
  4. Orientalism is a discourse of the past, from colonial times, rarely visible today.
Option: 2

To answer this question we must understand the context in which Orientalism has been used. The word Orientalism has been used here in the sense of identity. The author says when we speak the same language and understand each other, there is nothing like Orientalism in that case. In effect, he wants to say that language breaks all the barriers of culture and identity.

Option 2 is correct because it mentions learning another language and thus captures the essence. Option 1 goes out because goodwill is not the intention, nor is globalization. Option 4 takes the word Orientalism literally, the author has used the word in a context, that context is identity defined by language.


RC PASSAGE

For two years, I tracked down dozens of . . . Chinese in Upper Egypt [who were] selling lingerie. In a deeply conservative region, where Egyptian families rarely allow women to work or own businesses, the Chinese flourished because of their status as outsiders. They didn’t gossip, and they kept their opinions to themselves. In a New Yorker article entitled “Learning to Speak Lingerie,” I described the Chinese use of Arabic as another non-threatening characteristic. I wrote, “Unlike Mandarin, Arabic is inflected for gender, and Chinese dealers, who learn the language strictly by ear, often pick up speech patterns from female customers. I’ve come to think of it as the lingerie dialect, and there’s something disarming about these Chinese men speaking in the feminine voice.” . . .

When I wrote about the Chinese in the New Yorker, most readers seemed to appreciate the unusual perspective. But as I often find with topics that involve the Middle East, some people had trouble getting past the black-and-white quality of a byline. “This piece is so orientalist I don’t know what to do,” Aisha Gani, a reporter who worked at The Guardian, tweeted. Another colleague at the British paper, Iman Amrani, agreed: “I wouldn’t have minded an article on the subject written by an Egyptian woman—probably would have had better insight.” . . .

As an MOL (man of language), I also take issue with this kind of essentialism. Empathy and understanding are not inherited traits, and they are not strictly tied to gender and race. An individual who wrestles with a difficult language can learn to be more sympathetic to outsiders and open to different experiences of the world. This learning process—the embarrassments, the frustrations, the gradual sense of understanding and connection—is invariably transformative. In Upper Egypt, the Chinese experience of struggling to learn Arabic and local culture had made them much more thoughtful. In the same way, I was interested in their lives not because of some kind of voyeurism, but because I had also experienced Egypt and Arabic as an outsider. And both the Chinese and the Egyptians welcomed me because I spoke their languages. My identity as a white male was far less important than my ability to communicate.

And that easily lobbed word—“Orientalist”—hardly captures the complexity of our interactions. What exactly is the dynamic when a man from Missouri observes a Zhejiang native selling lingerie to an Upper Egyptian woman? . . . If all of us now stand beside the same river, speaking in ways we all understand, who’s looking east and who’s looking west? Which way is Oriental?

For all of our current interest in identity politics, there’s no corresponding sense of identity linguistics. You are what you speak—the words that run throughout your mind are at least as fundamental to your selfhood as is your ethnicity or your gender. And sometimes it’s healthy to consider human characteristics that are not inborn, rigid, and outwardly defined. After all, you can always learn another language and change who you are.


Question 17:
According to the passage, which of the following is not responsible for language’s ability to change us?
  1. Language’s intrinsic connection to our notions of self and identity.
  2. Language’s ability to mediate the impact of identity markers one is born with.
  3. The twists and turns in the evolution of language over time.
  4. The ups and downs involved in the course of learning a language.
Option: 3

This is an easy question. By reading third last para of the passage, you should be able to answer all the questions.

Passage says “My identity as a white male was far less important than my ability to communicate”… this justifies option 2. Option 2 can be ruled out.

If you are welcomed because you speak a particular language, then it has intrinsic connection with your identity. You speak a language, as a result people identify you as someone similar to them, so they welcome you.

The third last para of the passage clearly mentions option 4.

Option 3 is the right choice because it has nothing to do with language’s ability to change us.


RC PASSAGE

For two years, I tracked down dozens of . . . Chinese in Upper Egypt [who were] selling lingerie. In a deeply conservative region, where Egyptian families rarely allow women to work or own businesses, the Chinese flourished because of their status as outsiders. They didn’t gossip, and they kept their opinions to themselves. In a New Yorker article entitled “Learning to Speak Lingerie,” I described the Chinese use of Arabic as another non-threatening characteristic. I wrote, “Unlike Mandarin, Arabic is inflected for gender, and Chinese dealers, who learn the language strictly by ear, often pick up speech patterns from female customers. I’ve come to think of it as the lingerie dialect, and there’s something disarming about these Chinese men speaking in the feminine voice.” . . .

When I wrote about the Chinese in the New Yorker, most readers seemed to appreciate the unusual perspective. But as I often find with topics that involve the Middle East, some people had trouble getting past the black-and-white quality of a byline. “This piece is so orientalist I don’t know what to do,” Aisha Gani, a reporter who worked at The Guardian, tweeted. Another colleague at the British paper, Iman Amrani, agreed: “I wouldn’t have minded an article on the subject written by an Egyptian woman—probably would have had better insight.” . . .

As an MOL (man of language), I also take issue with this kind of essentialism. Empathy and understanding are not inherited traits, and they are not strictly tied to gender and race. An individual who wrestles with a difficult language can learn to be more sympathetic to outsiders and open to different experiences of the world. This learning process—the embarrassments, the frustrations, the gradual sense of understanding and connection—is invariably transformative. In Upper Egypt, the Chinese experience of struggling to learn Arabic and local culture had made them much more thoughtful. In the same way, I was interested in their lives not because of some kind of voyeurism, but because I had also experienced Egypt and Arabic as an outsider. And both the Chinese and the Egyptians welcomed me because I spoke their languages. My identity as a white male was far less important than my ability to communicate.

And that easily lobbed word—“Orientalist”—hardly captures the complexity of our interactions. What exactly is the dynamic when a man from Missouri observes a Zhejiang native selling lingerie to an Upper Egyptian woman? . . . If all of us now stand beside the same river, speaking in ways we all understand, who’s looking east and who’s looking west? Which way is Oriental?

For all of our current interest in identity politics, there’s no corresponding sense of identity linguistics. You are what you speak—the words that run throughout your mind are at least as fundamental to your selfhood as is your ethnicity or your gender. And sometimes it’s healthy to consider human characteristics that are not inborn, rigid, and outwardly defined. After all, you can always learn another language and change who you are.


Question 18:
A French ethnographer decides to study the culture of a Nigerian tribe. Which of the following is most likely to be the view of the author of the passage?
  1. The author would discourage the ethnographer from conducting the study as Nigerian ethnographers can better understand the tribe.
  2. The author would encourage the ethnographer and recommend him/her to hire a good translator for the purpose of holding interviews.
  3. The author would encourage the ethnographer, but ask him/her to first learn the language of the Nigerian tribe s/he wishes to study.
  4. The author would encourage the ethnographer, but ask him/her to be mindful of his/her racial and gender identity in the process.
Option: 3

This is an application based question. The answer to such questions cannot be found directly in the passage, but has to be gathered from the key ideas supported by the author. The author of this passage is in favour of learning a new language because he thinks it breaks cultural barriers. So, if a French ethnographer decides to study the culture of a Nigerian tribe, the author would unarguably want him to learn their language, as this will help the ethnographer better study the tribe.

This is a very easy question and option 3 is the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

For two years, I tracked down dozens of . . . Chinese in Upper Egypt [who were] selling lingerie. In a deeply conservative region, where Egyptian families rarely allow women to work or own businesses, the Chinese flourished because of their status as outsiders. They didn’t gossip, and they kept their opinions to themselves. In a New Yorker article entitled “Learning to Speak Lingerie,” I described the Chinese use of Arabic as another non-threatening characteristic. I wrote, “Unlike Mandarin, Arabic is inflected for gender, and Chinese dealers, who learn the language strictly by ear, often pick up speech patterns from female customers. I’ve come to think of it as the lingerie dialect, and there’s something disarming about these Chinese men speaking in the feminine voice.” . . .

When I wrote about the Chinese in the New Yorker, most readers seemed to appreciate the unusual perspective. But as I often find with topics that involve the Middle East, some people had trouble getting past the black-and-white quality of a byline. “This piece is so orientalist I don’t know what to do,” Aisha Gani, a reporter who worked at The Guardian, tweeted. Another colleague at the British paper, Iman Amrani, agreed: “I wouldn’t have minded an article on the subject written by an Egyptian woman—probably would have had better insight.” . . .

As an MOL (man of language), I also take issue with this kind of essentialism. Empathy and understanding are not inherited traits, and they are not strictly tied to gender and race. An individual who wrestles with a difficult language can learn to be more sympathetic to outsiders and open to different experiences of the world. This learning process—the embarrassments, the frustrations, the gradual sense of understanding and connection—is invariably transformative. In Upper Egypt, the Chinese experience of struggling to learn Arabic and local culture had made them much more thoughtful. In the same way, I was interested in their lives not because of some kind of voyeurism, but because I had also experienced Egypt and Arabic as an outsider. And both the Chinese and the Egyptians welcomed me because I spoke their languages. My identity as a white male was far less important than my ability to communicate.

And that easily lobbed word—“Orientalist”—hardly captures the complexity of our interactions. What exactly is the dynamic when a man from Missouri observes a Zhejiang native selling lingerie to an Upper Egyptian woman? . . . If all of us now stand beside the same river, speaking in ways we all understand, who’s looking east and who’s looking west? Which way is Oriental?

For all of our current interest in identity politics, there’s no corresponding sense of identity linguistics. You are what you speak—the words that run throughout your mind are at least as fundamental to your selfhood as is your ethnicity or your gender. And sometimes it’s healthy to consider human characteristics that are not inborn, rigid, and outwardly defined. After all, you can always learn another language and change who you are.


Question 19:
The author’s critics would argue that:
  1. Linguistic politics can be erased.
  2. Empathy can overcome identity politics.
  3. Language is insufficient to bridge cultural barriers.
  4. Orientalism cannot be practiced by Egyptians.
Option: 3

This question too can be answered by keeping in mind the author’s key argument. The author says that language can help us overcome cultural barriers and barriers of identity you are born with. To weaken this point, the author’s critics would say something contrary to that point. Option 3 is the best choice.

Option 1 would support the author. Option 2 has nothing to do with language. Option 4 is simply out of scope.


RC PASSAGE

War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.

But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."

When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.

But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.

The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.

Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .

[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.

Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.


Question 20:
In Dr. Thompson’s view, CyArk owning the copyright of its digital scans of archaeological sites is akin to:
  1. the illegal downloading of content from the internet.
  2. the seizing of ancient Egyptian artefacts by a Western museum.
  3. tourists uploading photos of monuments onto social media.
  4. digital platforms capturing users’ data for market research.
Option: 2

Owning the copyright technically means possessing something. The site belongs to some other country, but the copyrights are owned by some other entity. This would be akin to Egyptian artefacts owned by Western museum. This is the right analogy. You must understand that ‘seizing’ means snatching something forcefully from someone.

Option 1 goes out because the illegal downloading will not make you the owner of it.

Option 3 too goes out because giving free access to others is not akin to giving the right to own

Option 4 too does not have the right analogy.


RC PASSAGE

War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.

But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."

When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.

But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.

The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.

Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .

[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.

Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.


Question 21:
Based on his views mentioned in the passage, one could best characterise Dr. Watrall as being:
  1. dismissive of laypeople’s access to specialist images of archaeological and cultural sites.
  2. opposed to the use of digital technology in archaeological and cultural sites in developing countries.
  3. uneasy about the marketing of archaeological images for commercial use by firms such as Google and CyArk.
  4. critical about the links between a non-profit and a commercial tech platform for distributing archaeological images.
Option: 4

By reading Watrall’s views, we get to know that he is against google’s intention, not against the technology. We can eliminate option 2. Also, he is not dismissive of laypeople’s access to those images. In fact being dismissive would put him in the wrong.

We have option 3 and 4 to choose from. Is he uneasy or is he outrightly critical? Maybe both, but google has nowhere claimed that it will use the images for commercial purposes. Google has said that it is going to give people free access to those images. It might get traffic and good advertisement as a result, but that is not commercial use of the images. Moreover, the advertisement part is just a conjecture or a guess. This is something that the critics think google might do, but has not yet done, and may never do.  

Option 4 is the best choice.


RC PASSAGE

War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.

But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."

When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.

But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.

The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.

Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .

[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.

Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.


Question 22:
Of the following arguments, which one is LEAST likely to be used by the companies that digitally scan cultural sites?
  1. It provides images free of cost to all users.
  2. It helps preserve precious images in case the sites are damaged or destroyed.
  3. It allows a large corporation to project itself as a protector of culture.
  4. It enables people who cannot physically visit these sites to experience them.
Option: 3

This question can be answered by using a bit of common sense and by reading the lines of the passage in which Google and CyArk have put forth their defence.  We should mark the choice that these companies would not use to support their actions.

Option 1, 2 and 4 provide valid reasons. Option 3 is not the valid reason because it implies authoritarian attitude on behalf of the companies. Someone who tries to be a protector of culture would be considered snobbish. You can be a promoter of culture but not a protector of culture. Option 3 is the right choice.


RC PASSAGE

War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.

But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."

When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.

But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.

The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.

Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .

[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.

Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.


Question 23:
Which of the following, if true, would most strongly invalidate Dr. Watrall’s objections?
  1. CyArk uploads its scanned images of archaeological sites onto museum websites only.
  2. There is a ban on CyArk scanning archeological sites located in other countries.
  3. CyArk does not own the copyright on scanned images of archaeological sites.
  4. Google takes down advertisements on its website hosting CyArk’s scanned images.
Option: 1

To answer this question correctly, we have to look for Dr. Watrall’s argument. In the passage we can see “Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission”.

If option 1 is true, it will unequivocally invalidate Dr Watrall’s objection.


RC PASSAGE

War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.

But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."

When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.

But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.

The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.

Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .

[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.

Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.


Question 24:
By “digital colonialism”, critics of the CyArk–Google project are referring to the fact that:
  1. countries where the scanned sites are located do not own the scan copyrights.
  2. CyArk and Google have not shared the details of digitisation with the host countries.
  3. the scanning process can damage delicate frescos and statues at the sites.
  4. CyArk and Google have been scanning images without copyright permission from host countries.
Option: 1

We should always try to answer questions by looking for contextual references from the passage. The term ‘digital colonization’ has come in the very first paragraph. It says critics have raised question about “who should own the copyrights”. Some have referred to it as ‘digital colonization”. Thus digital colonization refers to the fact that countries where the scanned sites are located do not own the scan copyrights.

Option 4 is the other close choice, but this option can be true only if the host countries own the copyrights. Only if they own the copyrights can they give copyright permission.



Question 25:
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) given below, when properly sequenced would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequence of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. To the uninitiated listener, atonal music can sound like chaotic, random noise.

2. Atonality is a condition of music in which the constructs of the music do not ‘live’ within the confines of a particular key signature, scale, or mode.

3. After you realize the amount of knowledge, skill, and technical expertise required to compose or perform it, your tune may change, so to speak.

4. However, atonality is one of the most important movements in 20th century music.


Answer: 2143

The presence of ‘however’ in statement 4 suggests that 4 must be preceded by a contrary idea. Statement 1 has that. Thus 1 and 4 form a mandatory pair. 3 says ‘your tune may change’. In other words, ‘your attitude may change’. That attitude is there in statement 1. Thus 143 form pair because 3 cannot come before 1. You must state the negative attitude, and then say that your attitude may change after you realize the amount of skill required to come or perform such music.  Statement 2 can come only at the start and not at the end. Thus 2143 is the right sequence. An easy question.



Question 26:
Five sentences related to a topic are given below in a jumbled order. Four of them form a coherent and unified paragraph. Identify the odd sentence that does not go with the four. Key in the number of the option that you choose.

1. Socrates told us that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ and that to ‘know thyself’ is the path to true wisdom

2. It suggests that you should adopt an ancient rhetorical method favored by the likes of Julius Caesar and known as ‘illeism’ – or speaking about yourself in the third person.

3. Research has shown that people who are prone to rumination also often suffer from impaired decision making under pressure and are at a substantially increased risk of depression.

4. Simple rumination – the process of churning your concerns around in your head – is not the way to achieve self-realization.

5. The idea is that this small change in perspective can clear your emotional fog, allowing you to see past your biases.


Answer: 1

Sentence 5 says ‘this small change in perspective’. You must find out the sentence in which there is a change in perspective. 2 is that statement: speaking about yourself in the third person. The third person is a change in perspective.  2 and 5 form a pair. 4 introduces the idea of rumination, and 3 says that people prone to rumination are at a risk of depression. So there must be some alternative to rumination. 2 presents that alternative; it is ‘illesim’, which has some benefit as stated in 5. Thus 4325 form a paragraph. There is no place for 1



Question 27:
The passage given below is followed by four alternate summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Language is an autapomorphy found only in our lineage, and not shared with other branches of our group such as primates. We also have no definitive evidence that any species other than Homo sapiens ever had language. However, it must be noted straightaway that ‘language’ is not a monolithic entity, but rather a complex bundle of traits that must have evolved over a significant time frame…. Moreover, language crucially draws on aspects of cognition that are long established in the primate lineage, such as memory: the language faculty as a whole comprises more than just the uniquely linguistic features.


  1. Language, a derived trait found only in humans, has evolved over time and involves memory.
  2. Language evolved with linguistic features building on features of cognition such as memory.
  3. Language is not a single, uniform entity but the end result of a long and complex process of linguistic evolution.
  4. Language is a distinctively human feature as there is no evidence of the existence of language in any other species.
Option: 2

Option 1 goes out because nowhere does the para says that language is a derived trait. It says that it is a human trait, but not a derived trait (a derived trait would be something that was missing in the common ancestor). Option 2 is correct, nothing is distorted or missing in this choice.

Option 3 is very close to 2 except that it misses the crucial point of ‘language drawing on aspects of cognition such as memory’

Option 4 misses two crucial points, one about language evolving over a period of time, and the other about point of ‘language drawing on aspects of cognition such as memory’

This is a very difficult question as there was little difference between 2 and 3. 

We could eliminate 4 because it does not cover two critical points, focussing on the information that is less significant and is not the part of the author’s main focus, which is ‘evolution of language’.



Question 28:
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) given below, when properly sequenced would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequence of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. Living things—animals and plants—typically exhibit correlational structure.

2. Adaptive behaviour depends on cognitive economy, treating objects as equivalent.

3. The information we receive from our senses, from the world, typically has structure and order, and is not arbitrary.

4. To categorize an object means to consider it equivalent to other things in that category, and different—along some salient dimension—from things that are not.




Question 29:
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) given below, when properly sequenced would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequence of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. Such a belief in the harmony of nature requires a purpose presumably imposed by the goodness and wisdom of a deity.

2. These parts, all fit together into an integrated, well-ordered system that was created by design.

3. Historically, the notion of a balance of nature is part observational, part metaphysical, and not scientific in any way.

4. It is an example of an ancient belief system called teleology, the notion that what we call nature has a predetermined destiny associated with its component parts.


Answer: 3421

This is an average-difficulty question. Statement 4 says ‘it is an example of an ancient belief system...’. You must ask what noun the pronoun ‘it’ is referring to. It can only refer to the noun phrase ‘the notion of balance’. Thus 3 and 4 form a pair. Now we can have 3412 or 3421

2 has the phrase ‘these parts’, what noun is ‘these parts’ referring to. It is referring to the noun ‘component parts’ in statement 4. Thus, 342 form a pair. In fact, 4 and 2 form one unit. ‘Such a belief’ in 4 refers to the belief in 4. Thus we must have 3421 in sequence.



Question 30:
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. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.

1. A particularly interesting example of inference occurs in many single panel comics.

2. It’s the creator’s participation and imagination that makes the single-panel comic so engaging and so rewarding.

3. Often, the humor requires you to imagine what happened in the instant immediately before or immediately after the panel you’re being shown.

4. To get the joke, you actually have to figure out what some of these missing panels must be.

5. It is as though the cartoonist devised a series of panels to tell the story and has chosen to show you only one – and typically not even the funniest.


Answer: 2

This question is of a higher difficulty. In the first look, all the statements seem to be connected to one another. Option 2 says ‘it is the creator’s participation and imagination that makes the single-panel comic so engaging and so rewarding’. The opening sentence of the para can have two possible opening sentences, 1 or 2.

Sentence 1 wants to give us an interesting example of inference, which can be found in single panel comics.

To infer means to arrive at something on the basis of evidence. Single panel comic precisely has that. You are shown a panel and you have to imagine, through humor, what must have happened in the instant immediately before or immediately after… to get the joke you have to figure out (again inference).  Thus 1 is a better opening sentence. 1345 forms a coherent paragraph.

You might wonder why can’t 2 be the opening sentence. 2 says it is the creator’s participation…but here the creator is not participating, he is hiding something and the viewer has to use his imagination and arrive at hidden things through inference.



Question 31:
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. Choose its number as your answer and key it in.

1. Ocean plastic is problematic for a number of reasons, but primarily because marine animals eat it.

2. The largest numerical proportion of ocean plastic falls in small size fractions.

3. Aside from clogging up the digestive tracts of marine life, plastic also tends to adsorb pollutants from the water column.

4. Plastic in the oceans is arguably one of the most important and pervasive environmental problems today.

5. Eating plastic has a number of negative consequences such as the retention of plastic particles in the gut for longer periods than normal food particles.


Answer: 2

We believe that this was an easy question. statement 5 “the retention of

plastic particles in the gut” and “Aside from clogging up the digestive tracts” in statement 3 can be connected together. Thus 53 form a pair. 1 must come before 53 because it talks about marine animals eating the plastic. So we have 153 in sequence. 4 introduces the idea by talking about plastic and the environmental problem it brings with itself. So we have 4153 in sequence, with option 2 becoming the odd one out.



Question 32:
The passage given below is followed by four alternate summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Privacy-challenged office workers may find it hard to believe, but open-plan offices and cubicles were invented by architects and designers who thought that to break down the social walls that divide people, you had to break down the real walls, too. Modernist architects saw walls and rooms as downright fascist. The spaciousness and flexibility of an open plan would liberate homeowners and office dwellers from the confines of boxes. But companies took up their idea less out of a democratic ideology than a desire to pack in as many workers as they could. The typical open-plan office of the first half of the 20th century was a white-collar assembly line. Cubicles were interior designers’ attempt to put some soul back in.


  1. Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out the way their utopian inventors intended, as they became tools for exploitation of labor.
  2. Wall-free office spaces could have worked out the way their utopian inventors intended had companies cared for workers' satisfaction.
  3. Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out as desired and therefore cubicles came into being.
  4. Wall-free office spaces did not quite work out as companies don’t believe in democratic ideology.
Option: 1

This is moderate difficulty question. The passage has two parts, the first speaks of the dismantling of the walls to overcome all divisions, the second speaks of how something else resulted from it because of selfish business interest.

Option 1 is the best choice; it says that the intention was to make things democratic, but by putting in as many people as possible in cubicles, it became a tool of exploitation of labour.

Option 2 goes out because workers’ satisfaction is a little far-fetched. People might work in confined spaces but they could still be satisfied with their work

Option 3 is quite close, but the passage talks of intention of the companies. The inventor’s idea was to dismantle barriers but the organizations took it as a tool to exploit labour. It did not work out because they did not want it to work out that way.

Option 4 too misses on highlighting the exploitation of labour point, something that is critical in the passage.



Question 33:
The passage given below is followed by four alternate summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.

Social movement organizations often struggle to mobilize supporters from allied movements in their efforts to achieve critical mass. Organizations with hybrid identities—those whose organizational identities span the boundaries of two or more social movements, issues, or identities—are vital to mobilizing these constituencies. Studies of the post-9/11 U.S. antiwar movement show that individuals with past involvement in non-anti-war movements are more likely to join hybrid organizations than are individuals without involvement in non-anti-war movements. In addition, they show that organizations with hybrid identities occupy relatively more central positions in inter-organizational contact networks within the antiwar movement and thus recruit significantly more participants in demonstrations than do nonhybrid organizations.


  1. Post 9/11 studies show that people who are involved in non anti-war movements are likely to join hybrid organizations.
  2. Movements that work towards social change often find it difficult to mobilize a critical mass of supporters.
  3. Hybrid organizations attract individuals that are deeply involved in anti-war movements.
  4. Organizations with hybrid identities are able to mobilize individuals with different points of view.
Option: 4

The question is easy if you read the passage twice. The passage mentions hybrid organizations and says that it is easy for hybrid organizations to attract people, than it is for non-hybrid organizations.

Option 1 goes out because it broadly focuses on 9/11, which is just a minor detail as an example of hybrid organizations attracting more people. Option 2 does not even talk of hybrid organizations, it has to go out.

Option 3 is a misrepresentation. While hybrid organizations do attract people from anti-war movements, these movements are just an example. These hybrid organizations might attract people from any social movement, not necessarily anti-war movements. Option 4 is the best choice.



Question 34:
The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) given below, when properly sequenced would yield a coherent paragraph. Decide on the proper sequence of the order of the sentences and key in the sequence of the four numbers as your answer.

1. Conceptualisations of ‘women’s time’ as contrary to clock-time and clock-time as synonymous with economic rationalism are two of the deleterious results of this representation.

2. While dichotomies of ‘men’s time’, ‘women’s time’, clock-time, and caring time can be analytically useful, this article argues that everyday caring practices incorporate a multiplicity of times; and both men and women can engage in these multiple-times

3. When the everyday practices of working sole fathers and working sole mothers are carefully examined to explore conceptualisations of gendered time, it is found that caring time is often more focused on the clock than generally theorised.

4. Clock-time has been consistently represented in feminist literature as a masculine artefact representative of a ‘time is money’ perspective.


Answer: 4132

This question if of a higher difficulty.

Statement 1 has the demonstrative pronoun ‘this representation’. It must refer to something. Statement 4 says clock-time has been consistently represented…Statement 1 talks about this representation. 41 is a pair. The point is whether 4132 is correct or 4123. To sort out this confusion, we must read the 2nd sentence given in the question. Statement 1 speaks of a negative outcome by mentioning the deleterious results. This negative outcome is further extended in statement 3 in which the author says ‘it is found that caring time is often more focused on the clock than generally theorised’. In parajumbles we must keep similar ideas together, thus the deleterious results in 1 and the biased focus in 3 must be kept together. 413 forms  pair, with 2 coming in the end because it is a sort of conclusion in which the author mentions all the different ‘times’.


CAT 2021 Crash Course + Mock Test Series (INR 4999 Only)


  • 50 Live Sessions
  • 1000+ Practice problems
  • 30 Sectional Tests
  • 15 CAT Mock Tests (Video Solutions)
  • Dedicated Whatsapp group for doubt clearing
  • Valid till 31st March 2022
Enroll Now
Bodhee Prep's YouTube channel
CAT Prep Whatsapp Group
CAT Prep Telegram Group
X
CAT prep Telegram Group