CAT Model Paper 4 Questions and Answers with Explanation Part 7

Glide to success with Doorsteptutor material for CAT : get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of CAT.

4. In retaliation to the attack on Sarabjit Singh, a Pakistani prisoner was reportedly hit on the head with a hammer by another inmate.

(A) FFJJ

(B) IFIJ

(C) FFJI

(D) JFFF

Ans: C

Solution:

A and B are clearly facts since both statements are verifiable ‘There is much anger among Indians’ is a judgment. It is at best the writer’s opinion and cannot be verified. D is an inference. It can be inferred that a Pakistani prisoner was hit „in retaliation to Sarabjit’s attack’. Hence D is an inference. Answer – FFJI

Hence option C

Q: 35. Read the following paragraph and answer the question that follows.

Consumers claim to care about privacy, but the reality is a little different. Every credit-card purchase we do is logged and resold, our every click on the web is captured, video cameras stare at us from every corner and our mobile phones are geo-tracked more closely than a tagged bear. But i don’t see people staying off the street, throwing away their phones or switching back to paper currency.

What can be inferred from the above argument?

(A) Consumers do not really care about privacy

(B) Consumers are willing to exchange privacy for convenience

(C) We need stronger privacy laws

(D) It is difficult to use modern technology and retain our privacy

Ans: B

Solution:

‘Consumers are willing to exchange privacy for convenience. An inference is an implied conclusion.’– Option (B) The passage gives examples of how consumer privacy is compromised using various technologies. However, people continue to use these devices (and services) despite being aware of the privacy risks. Thus it can be inferred that consumers are willing to sacrifice their privacy for the convenience provided by these.

Hence option B

Q: 36. In each of the questions given below, four sentences are given labelled and . Of these, three statements need to be arranged in a logical order to form a coherent paragraph/passage. From the given options, choose the option that does not fit the sequence

(A) American sports fans have long displayed impatience, if not outright hostility, towards sports stars who take a strong interest in politics or human rights

(B) Back in the nineties, Rodman appeared to be the clever leader of his own propaganda machine

(C) His memoir was a national best-seller, fuelled by the public s fascination with his on-court antics and off court burlesque

(D) He was an antidote to old, boring sports stories, and a corrective to the idea that men had to be cartoonishly masculine to win on the field

Ans: A

Solution:

‘American sports fans have long displayed impatience, if not outright hostility, towards sports stars who take a strong interest in politics or human rights.’

‘Back in the ….’, ‘His memoir was …’ and ‘He was an …’speak about Rodman and his colorful personality.’ American sports fans …’ is about sportsmen dabbling into politics or human rights, and is therefore unrelated. –

Hence option A

Start Passage

Direction for the Questions 37 to 39: Answer the questions based on the passage given below.

We have been talking about various things that concern our daily life. We are not indulging in any form of theories, beliefs, or ideological, speculative entertainment. We are actually deeply concerned - I hope - with our daily life and to find out if it is at all possible to bring about a radical change in the ways of our life. Because our life is not what it should be. We are confused, miserable, sorrow-ridden, struggling, struggling from day after day till we die. And that seems to be our lot. This endless conflict, not only in our personal relationships but also with the world, which is deteriorating from day to day, becoming more and more dangerous, more and more unpredictable, uncertain, where the politicians and the nations are seeking power.

And we should also talk over together this morning, I think, about freedom: whether man or woman - when I use the word ‘man’ I include the woman, I hope you don’t mind, Women’s Lib (laughter). It seems to one, as one observes in the world, in our daily life, freedom is becoming less and less. More and more restrictive we are becoming, our actions are limited, our outlooks are very narrow, or bitter, cynical, or very, very hopeful, and we never seem to be free from our own daily conflict and misery, completely free from all the travail of life. And I think we should talk over together this question of freedom. Of course in the totalitarian states there is no freedom. Here in the western world and the eastern world, partly, there is somewhat more

freedom - freedom to change your job, freedom to travel, to say what you like, to think what you like, express what you like, write what you like. But even this freedom that one has is becoming more and more mechanical, it is no longer freedom.

So I think we should, if you are at all serious, go into this question rather deeply. That is, if you are willing. The Churches, the religions have tried to dominate our thinking: the Catholic church in the past tortured people for their belief, burnt them, excommunicated them, and even now excommunication is a form of threat for those who are Catholics. Which is exactly the same thing that is happening in the totalitarian states - control of your mind, your thoughts, your behaviour, your actions. They are more concerned with the control of the mind, control of thought, and anyone who dissents from that, disagrees, is banished away, or tortured, or sent to mental hospitals and so on. Exactly the same thing as the past Catholic world has done. Now they are doing it in the so-called political, economic states. So freedom is something that we

have to find out what it means and whether it is possible for us to be free, not only inwardly, deeply, whether it is at all possible inwardly, psychologically, inside the skin as it were, but also to express ourselves correctly, truly, accurately. Then perhaps we will understand what freedom is.

Is freedom the opposite of slavery? Is freedom the opposite of prison, of bondage, of repression? Is freedom to do what you like? Please, as we said the other day, and we have been talking over together, the speaker is only expressing - I hope - verbally what we are all questioning, therefore you are not listening to the speaker but listening to the questions which you are putting for yourself, therefore the speaker is not here. Is freedom the opposite of non-freedom? And so is there an opposite at all? You understand? That is, if we move away from the bad to the good and think that is freedom, the good being the freedom - if we accept the good, which we can go into presently, what is the good, and the bad. Is the good, the goodness the opposite of that which is not good, which is evil, which is bad? If there are opposites then there is a conflict. If I am not good, I will try to be good. I will make every effort to be good that is if I am somewhat conscious, somewhat sane, not too neurotic. So we are asking: is freedom the opposite of anything? Or if freedom has an opposite then is it freedom? Please enquire together in this matter. That is, any opposite, the good and the bad, the opposite of the bad which is the good, the good has in it the roots of the bad. Go into it please. Consider it together.

If I am jealous, envious, the opposite of jealousy is a state of mind, which is not jealous - a state of feeling. But if it is the opposite of jealousy that opposite has in it its own opposite. Do we see this? Because we want to go this morning into the question of what is love, whether such a thing exists at all. Or is it merely sensation which we call love. So to understand the full significance and the nature and the beauty of that word which we use as love, we must understand, I think, what is the conflict between the opposites, whether this conflict is illusory, in that illusion we are caught, which has become a habit, or there is only ‘what is’ and therefore there is no opposite to it. I hope this is not becoming too intellectual, is it? Or too verbal or too nonsensical

Q: 37. What is the tone of the author?

(A) Rhetorical

(B) Inciting

(C) Meditative

(D) Seditious

Ans: A

Solution:

Rhetorical means trying to elicit answers to various questions or problems and that is what the speaker is trying to do. Inciting and seditious means trying to provoke into rebellion, but that does not seem to be the speaker’s intention Answer - Rhetorical.

Hence option A.

Q: 38. The primary purpose of the author is to

(A) Ask people for an answer to the question what is freedom?

(B) To get the people to think whether there exists a conflict between the two opposites - good and bad

(C) Get the public to question themselves whether they can better their lot

(D) Encourage the people to think for themselves and seek solutions to their problems

Ans: C

Solution:

‘Get the people to question themselves whether they can better their lot.’– Option (C). The introductory paragraph sets the idea when the speaker says “We are actually deeply concerned - I hope - with our daily life and to find out if it is at all possible to bring about a radical change in the ways of our life.’ The other options are being discussed in the context of today’s troubled scenario

Hence Option C

Q: 39. Which of the following best paraphrases the sentence But even this freedom that one has is becoming more and more mechanical, it is no longer freedom?

(A) A freedom that limits the extent or areas in which freedom can be expressed cannot be termed as freedom as it is paradoxical

(B) We are free only in certain ways and under certain conditions and thus we are not free at all

(C) In Western and Eastern countries, the government lays down rules regarding freedom and its extent and hence it cannot be called total freedom

(D) Some freedom we exercise automatically such as where to travel, where to work, etc if we are not citizens of a totalitarian state but this is not real freedom

Ans: A

Solution:

‘A freedom that limits the extent or areas in which freedom can be expressed cannot be termed as freedom as it is paradoxical.’ – Option (A). When the author says ‘freedom is

becoming mechanical’, he means that we are free only in some set areas which means there is no freedom at all as there cannot be partial freedom. The words “freedom” and “mechanical” present a paradox or a contradiction. What is mechanical and hence a part of a set pattern cannot be freedom, which is more a freedom of mind than just of actions

Hence Option A

End Passage