CAT 2024 Slot 2 Question Paper

Option A is the correct answer. It captures the core idea that, despite differences in research methods between physicists and other scientists, their collaborations have led to valuable scientific discoveries. The passage emphasizes how these contrasting approaches still lead to productive outcomes, demonstrating the benefits of cross-disciplinary work.

Option B: While large data sets and mathematical models are mentioned, this option incorrectly focuses on "large data sets and mathematical models" as the main contributor, which is not the main point of the passage.

Option C: This is partially true, but the passage does not specifically emphasize the "desire to diversify" research or focus on social scientists. It is about different scientific fields collaborating, not specifically social science.

Option D: This is inaccurate because the passage does not state that physicists have "buried" their differences; rather, it says that their differences exist but the collaboration is still valuable. This is an extreme interpretation to make.

Sentence 4 is the odd one out.

Sentences 1, 2, 3, and 5 all focus on the current status and future prospects of cultivated meat in the UK, such as the leadership in developing cultivated meat, regulatory assessments, and the importance of government investment in research.

Sentence 4, however, refers to the previous UK government's efforts to fast-track approval of cultivated meat which is disconnected from the other sentences, as the focus shifts to a past action rather than the current developments or future needs in the industry.

Option D is the correct answer. The passage provides several arguments in favour of making peer review data public, but it does not mention that making this data public would specifically help in selecting appropriately qualified reviewers for academic writing.

Option A: The passage mentions that openly publishing peer review data could help journals address fraudulent peer reviews, such as authors using fake email addresses to review their own manuscripts. Therefore, this is a reason given in favor of making the data public.

Option B: The passage discusses a study showing that women and non-Westerners are underrepresented among peer reviewers. Publishing peer review data could help highlight these gender and race biases, which is one of the reasons for making the data public.

Option C: The passage suggests that sharing peer review data could help journals tackle issues like fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in the publishing process, which is another reason given in favor of making the data public.

Option D is the correct answer. This is not mentioned as a reason in the passage. The focus is on staying informed, contributing to the field, and publicizing their own work, not on expanding influence. Therefore, option D is the correct answer as it is the only reason not mentioned in the passage.

Option A: The passage clearly states that some academics review work to "keep abreast with developments in their field," which aligns with the idea that reviewing helps them stay updated with cutting-edge ideas. This makes option A a valid reason.

Option B: The passage also mentions that some scientists post their reviews online "mainly to claim credit for their work," which indicates that some view reviewing as an opportunity to publicize their contributions. This supports option B as a reason.

Option C: The passage states that some view reviewing as "a duty to the discipline," which is a form of service to the academic community. Therefore, option C is also supported by the passage as a reason.

Option D is the correct answer. The passage discusses the value of making peer review data public to help address various issues in academic publishing, such as bias, inefficiency, and fraud. It emphasizes the benefits of transparency and sharing peer review data to improve the overall process. The author advocates for a shift"from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary," implying support for greater transparency in peer review.

Option A: While the passage mentions some concerns about reviewer selection, such as gender and geographic imbalances, it does not directly suggest that careful screening of content-familiar reviewers is a priority.

Option B: While the passage acknowledges concerns about confidentiality, it does not strongly argue in favour of preserving anonymity. 

Option C: This is not fully supported by the author because, while the author advocates for sharing peer review data, they also acknowledge that in some cases, the content of reviews and reviewers' identities may need to remain confidential. This suggests that the author does not fully endorse the publication of actual reviews or reviewer identities in all situations.

Let's evaluate the options:

Option A: This is one of the reasons given in the passage for opposition to making peer reviews public. Opponents fear that if reviewers know their reports will be published, they may become hesitant to review manuscripts, especially critically, for fear of backlash or negative consequences. The passage explicitly mentions this concern: "referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them."

Option B: The passage does not mention that one of the reasons to oppose open peer review is to protect reviewers from "unwarranted and unjustified criticism." Instead, the passage discusses the concern that reviewers may avoid giving critical feedback if their identities and reports are made public, not because they want to avoid unjust criticism. The key concern is the fear of justified criticism rather than avoiding unjust or unwarranted criticism.

Option C: The passage mentions that reviewers may be less critical in their reports if they fear their reviews will be published. This concern aligns with the idea that open peer review might prevent reviewers from being honest and offering critical assessments, which are crucial for the integrity of the publishing process.

Option D: Another concern raised in the passage is that reviewers might take longer to submit their reviews if they know they will be publicly scrutinized. This delay in the review process is seen as a disadvantage of open peer review.

Therefore, option B is the correct answer because the passage does not mention concerns about leaving reviewers unexposed to unwarranted criticism. 

Option B is the correct answer. The demand for spices was not necessarily tied to their availability. The passage suggests that medieval Europeans had limited geographical knowledge of where spices came from, and they were highly prized despite their relative scarcity. Spices were valued for culinary and medicinal uses, and the demand was driven by cultural and medical factors rather than the ease of access.

Option A: The passage mentions that spices were used partly because refrigeration was unavailable, and some spices acted as antibacterial agents. With the advent of refrigeration, the need for spices to preserve or balance food properties diminished, contributing to a decline in their allure.

Option C: The passage highlights how spices were used for medicinal properties in medieval times as part of humeral balancing. Over time, as medical science evolved, such practices likely fell out of favour, reducing the significance of spices in this context.

Option D: The passage notes that spices played a significant role in medieval cooking, balancing humeral properties in food. Changes in European tastes or culinary practices would have contributed to a decline in the demand for spices as their use as condiments and medicines decreased.

Option A is the correct answer. This conclusion directly ties the heat (spiciness) of pepper to the process of harvesting it (the burning of trees). This would be the incorrect conclusion to draw because the myth itself does not explain the chemical reason behind the spiciness of pepper. Therefore, this is the least likely conclusion people would arrive at based on the story, because it confuses the physical heat from the process of harvesting with the actual spiciness of the pepper.

Option B: The story of snakes and burning trees implies that pepper was difficult and dangerous to harvest, which could explain why it was costly. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the lore.

Option C: Given the danger described in the myth (snakes and burning trees), it's logical that people would conclude it's not advisable to go to India to harvest pepper themselves. This is a likely conclusion from the story.

Option D: The story suggests that harvesting pepper is difficult and dangerous, which would lead people to think that the supply might be limited. This is a reasonable conclusion based on the information provided in the myth.

Option B is the correct answer. The passage does not suggest that India was colonized specifically for spices and gold. While spices were a major part of European trade with the East, the passage does not directly claim that gold was a motivation for colonizing India. The main focus of the passage is on spices, not gold. Hence, the conclusion that India was colonized for both spices and gold cannot be definitively drawn from the passage.

Option A: The passage explains that the desire for spices played a significant role in driving European colonial expansion. It mentions that the search for spices largely inspired the voyages of Columbus and Vasco Da Gama. Therefore, this conclusion can be reached from the passage.

Option C: The passage briefly mentions that spices never had the same enduring allure or commercial potential as gold, silver, tobacco, indigo, or sugar. This suggests that tobacco was more marketable than spices at certain points in history. This conclusion is supported by the passage.

Option D: The passage clearly indicates that spices were a significant motivation behind the colonial ventures of European powers. The desire for spices is described as one of the major factors that led to European colonialism. Therefore, this conclusion is also supported by the passage.

Option B is the correct answer. If white peppercorns were brought to Europe, Europeans would likely doubt the myth of harvesting pepper by burning trees, as white peppercorns do not appear burnt like the black peppercorns described in the story. This inconsistency would make them question the accuracy of the myth.

Option A: Bringing peppercorns from India to medieval Europe does not necessarily imply that the trader would have used medieval maps for navigation. Medieval maps, as described in the passage, were not practical for navigation; they were often symbolic and inaccurate. Traders did not rely on these maps for precise geographical navigation.

Option C: The passage explains that spices were scarce and expensive, a result of their complex supply chains. Bringing white pepper would not significantly affect its price, as it was still a rare and highly valued commodity. The price of spices would not decrease simply because a different type of pepper arrived in Europe, so this outcome is also unlikely.

Option D: Despite the arrival of white peppercorns, pepper would still be viewed as exotic by Europeans due to its rarity and the long journey it took to reach Europe. The mystique around pepper would not disappear with the introduction of white pepper, so this outcome is also unlikely.