CAT 2021 Slot 3 Question Paper

The fundamental unity of humanity is the theme of Mr. Chomsky's universal grammar, and of this exciting book.

Throughout the passage, the author seems to support the points made by Mr Pinker. The above line also shows that the opinion of the author towards the book is positive, and the author does not think that the book is racist in any way, but promotes unity and cohesion. Option D captures this point correctly and is the answer.

So according to Mr. Pinker, the roots of language must be in the genes, but there cannot be a “grammar gene” any more than there can be a gene for the heart or any other complex body structure. This proposition will undoubtedly raise the hackles of some behavioral psychologists and anthropologists, for it apparently contradicts the liberal idea that human behavior may be changed for the better by improvements in culture and environment....

The book does not support that a complex anatomical structure like a 'voice box' plays a key role in determining language acquisition skills. Nor does it support the role of culture and environment in shaping human behaviour Options A and B are eliminated.

Option C portrays the book as racist, which is directly in contradiction with the author's opinion. C is eliminated too.

A half-century ago, this would have been pooh-poohed as a “black box” theory, since one could not actually pinpoint this grammatical faculty in a specific part of the brain, or describe its functioning. But now things are different. Neurosurgeons [have now found that this] “black box” is situated in and around Broca’s area, on the left side of the forebrain. . . .

On the other hand, the “language instinct,” when it first appeared among our most distant hominid ancestors, must have given them a selective reproductive advantage over their competitors (including the ancestral chimps). . . .

He effectively disposes of all claims that intelligent nonhuman primates like chimps have any abilities to learn and use language.

The above excerpts provide support for Options B, C, and D respectively. Option A is in direct contradiction with Option D, and hence, is the answer.

Unlike Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Pinker firmly places the wiring of the brain for language within the framework of Darwinian natural selection and evolution.

The passage suggests that Mr. Pinker and Mr. Chomsky agree on almost all topics. However, the above line indicates that they both disagreed on the application of the Darwinian framework to explain language instinct. Where Mr. Pinker was in favour of the same, Mr. Chomsky was against. Hence, Option C is the answer.

Since this message was couched in terms of Chomskyan theoretical linguistics, in discourse so opaque that it was nearly incomprehensible even to some scholars, many people did not hear it. Now, in a brilliant, witty and altogether satisfying book, Mr. Chomsky's colleague Steven Pinker . . . has brought Mr. Chomsky's findings to everyman.

From the above excerpt, it is clear that Mr. Pinker's style of writing is much more comprehensible to the common man. Hence, their writing styles are quite different. Also, the above excerpt mentions that the book brings Mr. Chomsky's findings to everyman, hence, it is clear that it draws heavily from the findings. Options A and D are eliminated.

Unlike Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Pinker firmly places the wiring of the brain for language within the framework of Darwinian natural selection and evolution.

The above excerpt shows that they both disagreed on a certain point. Hence, Option B is eliminated too.

Option C finds no mention in the passage, hence, is the answer.

The passage starts by highlighting that the term 'unconscious', widely held today, came in conception not long ago. With the coining of this term, many unrelated activities/ideas found a common umbrella under which they could be categorized and also allowed them to prosper. The author then writes the following line, which gives us a clear conception of the main theme:

Thus, the massive introduction of the term unconscious by Hartmann in 1869 appeared to focalize many stray thoughts, affording a temporary feeling that a crucial step had been taken forward, a comprehensive knowledge gained a knowledge that required only further elaboration, explication, and unfolding in order to bring in a bounty of higher understanding.

Thus, the passage is about the assembly of many stray thoughts under the banner of the unconscious. Option C perfectly captures this, and hence, is the answer.

The author does not primarily deal with the unconscious as a part of the mind. Nor does he focus upon the expansion of the vocabulary of the mind and the soul. Thus, Options A and B can be rejected.

'Psychical research' is not the main focus of the passage. The author says that the term allowed certain 'psychic' activities to flourish. He does not focus on the term as an object of psychical research. Hence, Option D can be eliminated too.

Let us try to break the sentence down and interpret its meaning:

“The enrichments of literary and intellectual language led to an altered understanding of the meanings that underlie time-honored expressions and traditional catchwords.”

In simple words |Enrichments of language| led to |change in understanding| of | time-honoured expressions|. 

In the context of the passage, the line means that when the terms related to 'the unconscious' were coined, they enriched the vocabulary of the language and this, in turn, changes the meanings of many old expressions related to this term.

Option D comes the closest in capturing the meaning, and hence, is the answer.

B: The meanings of the catchwords were altered. They were not enriched. Can be eliminated.

C: The catchwords did not cause a change. Their own meaning was changed. Can be eliminated.

Unconscious is the primary focus of the passage. Since D does not have that as a main point, it can be eliminated.

Dreams find a single, small mention as an example in the passage. Hence, Option A can be eliminated too.

Insanity finds a small mention in the passage and is not a main point. Hence, Option B is incorrect.

The author initially deals with how the enrichment of vocabulary on the matter of unconscious has a deep effect and how this later became a subject of psychoanalysis. Hence, Option C is the correct answer.

The “unconscious” burst the shell of conventional language, coined as it had been to embody the fleeting ideas and the shifting conceptions of several generations until, finally, it became fixed and defined in specialized terms within the realm of medical psychology and Freudian psychoanalysis.

In the passage, the author has clearly outlined the importance of linguistic developments in helping the knowledge of the field grow. Since the option is not extreme in certainty ('may' not have happened), Option A can be inferred.

Significantly, most if not all of these practices (for example, hypnotism in surgery or psychological magnetism) originated in the waning years of the eighteenth century and during the early decades of the nineteenth century, as did some of the disciplines (such as psychology and psychical research). The majority of topics too were either new or assumed hitherto unknown colors. Thus, before 1790, few if any spoke, in medical terms, of the affinity between creative genius and the hallucinations of the insane . . .

From the above excerpt, we can infer that the affinity between genius and insanity was not looked into before the 18th century.

At the same time, once coined, powerful new ideas attracted to themselves a whole host of seemingly unrelated issues, practices, and experiences, creating a peculiar network of preoccupations that as a group had not existed before.

The above excerpt and the examples the author provides after this excerpt can help us infer that as the knowledge of the mind grew, unrelated activities found a common title. Option D can be inferred.

The passage does not imply anywhere that the new conceptions were able to provide new knowledge only because some fields were established. Option C is out of the scope of the passage and cannot be inferred.

Back in the early 2000s, an awesome thing happened in the New X-Men comics. Our mutant heroes had been battling giant robots called Sentinels for years, but suddenly these mechanical overlords spawned a new threat: Nano-Sentinels! Not content to rule Earth with their metal fists, these tiny robots invaded our bodies at the microscopic level. Infected humans were slowly converted into machines, cell by cell.

The first paragraph talks about the X-men comics, in which the mutant heroes, that X-Men, has been battling giant robots called sentinels. But these Sentinels then developed Nano-Sentinels, which could invade bodies at the microscopic level, and the heroes would now have to fight them too. Option D perfectly captures this, and hence, is the answer.

Option A is incorrect. X-men were battling the Sentinels before the invention of Nano-Sentinels. Hence, the origin of X-men is different.

Option B is incorrect. The mechanical overlords made Nano-Sentinels to convert people into machines. It has not been said that the people were converted into the mechanical lords themselves.

We will check which option when proven false will support the passage:

A: Robots becoming a part of everyday life is neither supported nor opposed in the passage. Thus, Option A is not the answer.

B: Instead of gears and wires, it’s assembled from two kinds of molecules - some that love water and some that avoid it - which interact to allow the bot to skate on top of a pond.

Option B has been clearly mentioned in the passage. Hence, if it is proven false, it will contradict the passage. Option B is not the answer.

C: One team of researchers, for example, has developed a different kind of hydrogel that becomes sticky when exposed to a low-voltage zap of electricity and then stops being sticky when the electricity is switched off.

Option C has been mentioned in the passage. Hence, if it is proven false, it will contradict the passage. Option C is not the answer.

D: No, they won’t be invading our bodies and turning us into Sentinels...

Option D is just the opposite of what has been given in the passage. Hence, if Option D is false, it would support the passage.