CAT 2021 Slot 2 Question Paper

The argument in Option A has been discussed in the following excerpt:

...the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions.

The argument in Option B has been discussed in the following excerpt:

For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.

The argument in Option D has been discussed in the following excerpt:

While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge.

The author does says that ignoring the scepticism about the veracity of knowledge is the most common way of dealing with it, not the best way. Hence. Option C has not been discussed.

...and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect.

The author is making a logical argument in the sentence given in the question. According to the author, if we say that the reality of objects is independent of our perceptions, then it is out of our ken. Hence, we cannot for this idea of reality, and logically, we would be unable to comprehend it. Option D comes the closest to capturing this point.

Option A is incorrect. The sceptic argues that if reality were independent of individual perceptions, then the reality would float above the processes with which we conceive it. It is being presented as an argument ot negate the viewpoint, while the Option takes it as an established fact.

Perception is more than eyesight. Option B captures only eyesight, and hence, is a distortion.

The process of conceiving reality and our knowledge is not the argument the author presents in the mentioned lines. Hence, Option C is incorrect.

We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates.

From the above excerpt, it is clear that held beliefs and presumptive knowledges depend upon how we acquired them, and how strongly they are shared or endorsed by relevant people in our circle. Hence, Option A is the answer.

We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them...

As mentioned in the above line, Option A directly contradicts what the author says.

It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything.

The author then goes on to explain that sceptic view is the skeleton in western philosophy's closet when trying to negate this scandal. Thus, it means that the scandal has to do with the sceptic way of thinking.

In the next paragraph, the sceptic view has been explained, which talks about our inability to grasp reality if we think of it as independent of our perceptions. Hence, the scandal can be construed to be the same. The author is likely to agree with this view. Option B is the answer.

In the last paragraph, the author points out that we defend a viewpoint strongly if we feel that it is held widely in our social circle. However, the author does not allude to the fact that it is appropriate or not. Also, such an argument would bolster the inherent bias we have, and hence would point towards a fault in our decision making. Hence, Option C is incorrect.

Option D is not supported in the passage. The passage presents the sceptic view that if reality were construed as independent of our perceptions, then it would be impossible to grasp reality. It has not been mentioned that in this case, we should aim to study that reality in a similar manner.

Through war, famine and natural disasters, whole communities can be destroyed, taking their language with them to the grave...

Such trading up and out of a speech form occurs for complex political, cultural and economic reasons - sometimes voluntary for economic and educational reasons, although often amplified by state coercion or neglect.

More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as “language shift” from which few languages

From the above excerpts, Options A, B, and D can be supported. The passage supports that Internet technology has allowed certain endangered languages to thrive. Option C is not supported anywhere in the passage, hence, is the answer.

It’s easy to forget that most of the world’s languages are still transmitted orally with no widely established written form. While speech communities are increasingly involved in projects to protect their languages - in print, on air and online - orality is fragile and contributes to linguistic vulnerability. But indigenous languages are about much more than unusual words and intriguing grammar: They function as vehicles for the transmission of cultural traditions, environmental understandings and knowledge about medicinal plants, all at risk when elders die and livelihoods are disrupted.

From the underlined portions of the above excerpt, we can infer options A, B, and C.

The first paragraph does mention that indigenous languages have unusual words and intriguing grammar. But it has not been mentioned as a factor that makes their documentation challenging. Hence, Option D is the answer.

Multilingualism can help us live in a more connected and more interdependent world.

Throughout the passage, the author is advocating for greater language diversity and suggesting how to counter the threat to the same. Multilingualism is something that the author has supported as cited above. Hence, Option A is the answer.

More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as “language shift” from which few languages are immune.

Since the author advocated the preservation of languages, he would likely be against this shift, as it endangers languages. Option B can be eliminated.

Again, the author is pushing for more diversity and preservation of cultures instead of homogenization of the same. Option C can be eliminated.

The author does not push for state intervention in the preservation of languages. Hence, Option D would not be the answer.

More commonly, speakers live on but abandon their language in favor of another vernacular, a widespread process that linguists refer to as “language shift” from which few languages are immune. Such trading up and out of a speech form occurs for complex political, cultural and economic reasons - sometimes voluntary for economic and educational reasons, although often amplified by state coercion or neglect. Welsh, long stigmatized and disparaged by the British state, has rebounded with vigor.

In the above excerpt, the trading of language for another (language shift) has been mentioned. The author mentions the reasons why this happens, and then the Welsh language is mentioned as an example which has rebounded against the same with vigour. Thus, it is presented as a ray of hope, that a language can be revived even when cultural shift occurs. Option B is the answer.

The example has not been mentioned to spite the efforts that were put to integrate Welsh speakers into English speaking fold. The purpose of the author is to deal with endangered languages, and the subject in Option A would be out of scope.

The role of state effort in revitalising Welsh has not been mentioned, hence, Option C can be eliminated.

The role of globalisation in revitalising Welsh has not been mentioned either. Hence, Option D can be eliminated too.

I have elaborated . . . a framework for analyzing the contradictory pulls on [Indian] nationalist ideology in its struggle against the dominance of colonialism and the resolution it offered to those contradictions. Briefly, this resolution was built around a separation of the domain of culture into two spheres—the material and the spiritual. It was in the material sphere that the claims of Western civilization were the most powerful. Science, technology, rational forms of economic organization, modern methods of statecraft—these had given the European countries the strength to subjugate the non-European people . . . To overcome this domination, the colonized people had to learn those superior techniques of organizing material life and incorporate them within their own cultures. . . . But this could not mean the imitation of the West in every aspect of life, for then the very distinction between the West and the East would vanish—the self-identity of national culture would itself be threatened. . . .

The first paragraph acknowledges that the nationalist ideology was fighting against colonial dominance, and there were certain inherent contradictions in the way this struggle was being carried out. The author says that a method of resolution of these contradictions was to separate material and spiritual domains. This hints at the contradiction present. We can infer from here that this is being done because the nationalists acknowledge that the colonial countries were superior in certain aspects, which allowed them to subjugate non-Europeans, as is also mentioned later in the paragraph. The author also mentions that the colonized people had to learn those superior techniques, instead of all-out rejection of colonialist ideas and the progress they brought with them. Thus, the contradiction was that to overcome colonial dominance, nationalism had to accept that the material ways of the West were superior and incorporate them. Hence, Option D is the answer.

The discourse of nationalism shows that the material/spiritual distinction was condensed into an analogous, but ideologically far more powerful, dichotomy: that between the outer and the inner....

The above excerpt shows that the material/spiritual distinction was condensed to form a far more superior dichotomy of the outer and the inner. Thus, the former was the premise for the latter, as well as inferior to the latter. Hence, Options B and C are true.

To overcome this domination, the colonized people had to learn those superior techniques of organizing material life and incorporate them within their own cultures. . . . But this could not mean the imitation of the West in every aspect of life, for then the very distinction between the West and the East would vanish—the self-identity of national culture would itself be threatened. . .

From the above excerpt, we can infer that the dichotomy helped save the identity of Indian Nationalism. Option D is also true.

Option A is not true as per the passage, and hence, is the answer.