CAT 2021 Slot 2 Question Paper

The arguments in the passage are based on the premise that the material and spiritual aspects of culture were different. Hence, even if Indian nationalism accepted the superior material ways of the west, they still would not be giving in to colonial dominance and their identity would be preserved by the spiritual aspect, as it remained unaffected. Hence, to weaken the author's argument, we can give a statement that proves that the spiritual aspect was affected too. Option C does that and is the answer.

Rejecting education for women could have more than one reason. It does not imply that the spiritual part of Indian culture was affected by colonialism. Moreover, the separation of roles according to gender is something that nationalist ideology supported, hence, rejecting education based on gender would not contradict it. Option A can be eliminated.

Option B does not weaken the author's argument since the author already agrees that the forces of colonialist modernity helped shape Indian nationalism, but only in the material aspect.

Option D is unrelated to the argument at hand and can be eliminated too.

Once we match this new meaning of the home/world dichotomy with the identification of social roles by gender, we get the ideological framework within which nationalism answered the women’s question. It would be a grave error to see in this, as liberals are apt to in their despair at the many marks of social conservatism in nationalist practice, a total rejection of the West. Quite the contrary: the nationalist paradigm in fact supplied an ideological principle of selection.

From the above excerpt, we can see that the liberals were concerned over the social conservatism that nationalist practice promoted as an ideological principal of selection, where social roles would be selected according to the gender of the person. Hence, Option B is the answer, as it comes the closest in capturing the liberal perception of the same.

The material/spiritual dichotomy has not been discussed in terms of liberal perspective, hence, Option A is out of the score here.

Option C is incorrect. Indian nationalism did not accept the changes brought about the colonialism, rather, promoted the segregation of gender roles according to their spiritual ideology of home/ world dichotomy.

Option D is contrary to what is mentioned in the passage. The author says that the 'ideological principle of selection' was the actual truth, and the liberal perspective was just contrary to what was actually happening.

The author begins that passage by saying that truth does not necessarily carry power. He then goes on to explain that to attain social cohesion, sticking to the truth is not always an optimal strategy. In the last paragraph, the author sums up this trade-off:
Even if we need to pay some price for deactivating our rational faculties, the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history. Scholars have known this for thousands of years, which is why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony.

Thus, Option B is the answer.

The author is not fixated upon the types of stories, not upon what kind of stories do the leaders propagate. Hence, Options A and C can be eliminated.

Power has been mentioned to indicate that sometimes, absolute truth is not the way forward to achieve maximum utility. The main contention of the author is not the trade-off between truth and power but between truth and social cohesion. Option D can be eliminated too.

The author does not support that there is a limit to the influence that myths have on people, nor does he support imposing one. Hence, Option A can be eliminated.

Third, and most important, the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you. An American presidential candidate who tells the American public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about American history has a 100 percent guarantee of losing the elections. . . . An uncompromising adherence to the truth is an admirable spiritual practice, but it is not a winning political strategy. . . .

Option B is contrary to what is being said in the passage. The author says that untarnished truth is not a good recipe for a political win, hence, the candidate should steer clear of that.

Option C is also contrary to what is being said in the passage. According to the author, not conveying the complete truth will allow a person to stay in power.

Option D is in line with the above excerpt and hence, is the answer.

Even if we need to pay some price for deactivating our rational faculties, the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history. Scholars have known this for thousands of years, which is why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony. Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same fiction, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity?

In the penultimate paragraph, the author mentions how successful leaders balance truth and social unity to achieve an optimal outcome. The above excerpt shows that scholars have known this for a long time too, and have implemented it. Thus, Option C is the answer. 

That leaders and scholars have improved with time when it comes to achieving social cohesion is not implied in the passage. Option A can be eliminated.

We cannot say that scholars use myths to obtain power as leaders do. Hence, Option B can be eliminated.

We cannot say that scholars use myths to stay in office as leaders do. Option D can be eliminated too.

Option A: The author here emphasizes that the choice between truth and social cohesion is a difficult one for scholars, as it means choosing between truth or uniting everyone using a common narrative. Here, the reach and influence of fiction created by that scholar has been overemphasized, and hence, is the answer.

Option B: There is no overemphasis in this option. Since humans have achieved these feats, and these feats do manipulate the objective reality around us, Option B can be eliminated.

Option C: Here too, the importance of fiction has not been overemphasized, but the importance of truth has been downplayed.

Option D: Option D presents a statement, which is unrelated to the emphasis being placed on the importance of myths.

The main points of the paragraph are:
1. As compared to physicists, biologists are more conservative when it comes to the subject of preprints.
2. Preprints allow faster dissemination of knowledge.

A: Misses out the comparison between biologists and physicists.

B: Captures both the points appropriately and is the answer.

C: Also misses out the comparison between biologists and physicists.

D: Factually incorrect, physicists and not biologists are open to the idea of preprints.

A brief reading of the sentences suggests that the paragraph is about the change needed in the way we go about development. 2 introduces the topic at hand, that this is a watershed moment when it comes to the subject of development. 41 make a mandatory pair, which talks about what the purpose of development was at the beginning and how it needs to be altered to suit the needs of today. 3 then aptly ends the paragraph, suggesting the measures that could be taken to counter the same. Hence, he proper sequence would be 2413.

The sentences have been taken from Harvard's Justice, and have been modified considerably. Since a paragraph has not been directly taken here, the better way of elimination here would be to evaluate the major points of each sentence and see which one runs tangent to the discussion at hand. (During the examination, one must try both ways to solve: arranging and eliminating.)

1. Using the debate on biotechnology to evaluate moral arguments.

2. Why is bioengineering disputed?

3. The promise of bioengineering.

4. Ethics of bioengineering based on theology.

5. The theological argument.

We can see here that the last four sentences try to examine why bioengineering is disputed in spite of its huge potential. Then reasons are given about the question on its ethicality, and how it is closely associated with theology on the matter.

1 however runs tangential to the discussion. The main focus is bioengineering while 1 aims to shift the focus and use the debate on the matter as a stepping stone to reach another goal: evaluating/formulating moral arguments. Hence, 1 is the odd one out here.

A brief reading of the sentences tells us that the paragraph must be about the industry of neuromarketing, which is still in its embryonic phase. 3 can be the opening sentence to the paragraph, as it introduces the topic at hand. All the other sentences need a sentence before them that introduces what is being talked about. 

1,4, and 2 then go on to talk about the opinion of differernt associated parties on the matter. It has taken the advertising industry by storm. Others feel that this 'art' is being masked as a science, and many lack enthusiasm on the matter.

5 however, does not fit in here. The reason is that it talks about 'psychology', which is different from the use of neural science. Even if one is not familiar with the difference, we can see that it goes a step forward to talk about the application of a science, whereas the paragraph is mostly concerned with a growing science and how it is shaping public opinion. Hence, 5 is the odd one out.