Sign in
Please select an account to continue using cracku.in
↓ →
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Understanding the key properties of complex systems can help us clarify and deal with many new and existing global challenges, from pandemics to poverty . . . A recent study in Nature Physics found transitions to orderly states such as schooling in fish (all fish swimming in the same direction), can be caused, paradoxically, by randomness, or 'noise' feeding back on itself. That is, a misalignment among the fish causes further misalignment, eventually inducing a transition to schooling. Most of us wouldn't guess that noise can produce predictable behaviour. The result invites us to consider how technology such as contact-tracing apps, although informing us locally, might negatively impact our collective movement. If each of us changes our behaviour to avoid the infected, we might generate a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid: higher levels of interaction between the infected and susceptible, or high levels of interaction among the asymptomatic.
Complex systems also suffer from a special vulnerability to events that don't follow a normal distribution or 'bell curve'. When events are distributed normally, most outcomes are familiar and don't seem particularly striking. Height is a good example: it's pretty unusual for a man to be over 7 feet tall; most adults are between 5 and 6 feet, and there is no known person over 9 feet tall. But in collective settings where contagion shapes behaviour - a run on the banks, a scramble to buy toilet paper - the probability distributions for possible events are often heavy-tailed. There is a much higher probability of extreme events, such as a stock market crash or a massive surge in infections. These events are still unlikely, but they occur more frequently and are larger than would be expected under normal distributions.
What's more, once a rare but hugely significant 'tail' event takes place, this raises the probability of further tail events. We might call them second-order tail events; they include stock market gyrations after a big fall and earthquake aftershocks. The initial probability of second-order tail events is so tiny it's almost impossible to calculate - but once a first-order tail event occurs, the rules change, and the probability of a second-order tail event increases.
The dynamics of tail events are complicated by the fact that they result from cascades of other unlikely events. When COVID-19 first struck, the stock market suffered stunning losses followed by an equally stunning recovery. Some of these dynamics are potentially attributable to former sports bettors, with no sports to bet on, entering the market as speculators rather than investors. The arrival of these new players might have increased inefficiencies and allowed savvy long-term investors to gain an edge over bettors with different goals. . . .
One reason a first-order tail event can induce further tail events is that it changes the perceived costs of our actions and changes the rules that we play by. This game-change is an example of another key complex systems concept: nonstationarity. A second, canonical example of nonstationarity is adaptation, as illustrated by the arms race involved in the coevolution of hosts and parasites [in which] each has to 'run' faster, just to keep up with the novel solutions the other one presents as they battle it out in evolutionary time.
Which one of the following observations would most strengthen the passage's claim that a first-order tail event raises the probability of further tail events in complex systems?
The passage says that in complex systems, a rare but extreme event can change how the system works, making more extreme events likely. This usually happens because incentives, behaviour, or limits change after the first shock. To support this idea, we need to see that after one extreme event, more extreme events happen more often than usual. To identify which option strengthens this claim the most, we evaluate each option individually.
Option A weakens the claim rather than strengthening it. It explicitly states that super-spreading events are isolated spikes and that later outbreak sizes revert to baseline distributions with no increase in extreme clusters. This directly contradicts the idea that first-order tail events raise the probability of subsequent tail events.
Option B does not relate to the passage’s argument. If river discharge stays normal and stable during storms, it shows there is no link between extreme events. This does not support the idea of cascading tail events in complex systems.
Option C strongly supports the passage’s claim. It shows that after a major equity crash (a first-order tail event), extreme price movements cluster densely over subsequent weeks, occurring far more frequently than under normal conditions. This directly illustrates second-order tail events: the initial shock changes market dynamics so that further extreme outcomes become more likely, exactly as described in the passage.
Option D also goes against the claim. It describes how seismic activity returns to normal with no aftershocks, which suggests that events are independent and that one extreme event does not make others more likely.
So, the observation that best supports the passage’s claim is option C.
Create a FREE account and get:
Educational materials for CAT preparation