CAT 2024 Slot 3 Question Paper

The given sentence focuses on the impact of these rising costs on employees - an idea that hasn’t yet been introduced here. Placing this in Blank 1 would prematurely shift the focus from a general economic observation to the employee-specific consequences, disrupting the logical flow. Similarly, Blank 2 would be a poor choice since it would interrupt the argument about wages not keeping pace with inflation. The broader context of inflation and wages needs to be fully established before narrowing the discussion to employee struggles.

Blank 3 could be a good fit. We observe that the preceding sentence sets up the problem: wages are lagging behind rising costs. The subsequent sentence emphasises the stark contrast between remote work savings and current financial stress; the anecdote from the London University lecturer is further linked to this. Therefore, Blank 4 is also unsuitable. By placing the given sentence in Blank 3, we bridge the two ideas presented above by specifying how these rising costs and stagnant wages directly impact employees. It introduces the tangible pressures employees face, which makes the subsequent sentence about savings during remote work even more impactful.

Hence, Option B is the correct choice. 

Let us evaluate the given choices - 

Option A: The creation of new culture and ideas is a central theme of the passage, highlighted as a potential outcome of AI's linguistic capabilities: [“...AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture…”]

Option B: The author hints that AI could surpass human creativity in areas like storytelling, composing music, and drafting laws or scriptures: [“...What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures?...”]

Option C: The threat to democracy through the mass production of fake news and political content is a major concern raised by the author: [“...Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of AI tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake-news stories…”]

Option D: The passage does discuss AI's ability to create emotional connections with individuals: [“...form intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews…”] However, it does not explicitly connect this capability to ‘exacerbating the polarization’ of political views. The focus is on fostering fake intimacy to influence opinions, not specifically on worsening political polarization.

Hence, Option D is the correct choice. 

The author emphasises that language is foundational to human culture and civilisation because it:

• articulates and spreads human values and culture (as noted in Option C).
• lays the groundwork for creating cultural artefacts through storytelling and laws (as noted in Option D).
• influences political views and fosters emotional ties (as noted in Option A).

Option B, however, does not align with the rationale behind the “operating system” metaphor: the author does not suggest that language is the "operating system" of civilisation because it underpins AI tools. Instead, the passage treats AI tools like ChatGPT as leveraging language's existing role in civilization.

Let us evaluate the choices based on the information in the passage -

Option A: The author does not dismiss fears about students using AI but instead deems such concerns possibly trivial compared to AI’s larger societal threats.

Option B: The author doesn’t argue that fears of AI harming humans physically are unfounded, but shifts focus to the linguistic and cultural dangers AI presents. It’s unclear whether he will explicitly support the view presented here.

Option C: Though the author briefly acknowledges that AI can be used for good, this idea is not a central focus of the passage; he also does not emphasise technological or industrial benefits. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the author will support his view.

Option D: The concern stated here has been clearly underlined in the passage. We are informed of the threat AI poses to democracy through its manipulation of language and ability to generate misinformation, fake intimacy, and propaganda. The author explicitly states that democracy relies on meaningful human conversations, which are undermined when AI becomes indistinguishable from humans. Therefore, this option aligns most closely with the author's argument.

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

The passage clearly highlights the potential risks associated with AI's linguistic capabilities, urging action to regulate its use. While the passage does present hypothetical scenarios and employs rhetorical questions, its tone is primarily grounded in a warning, not sensationalism or mere speculation. This points us towards Option A. The author systematically explains the dangers of unregulated AI tools, particularly their capacity to manipulate language and influence human culture. The warnings are thoughtful and aim to provoke awareness and a sense of urgency without excessive dramatisation. The tone is serious and measured, which aligns with a cautionary style.

The remaining tones do not describe the discussion appropriately. For instance, consider Option B: though the passage discusses AI's future implications, the focus is less on prediction and more on warning about what could happen if action is not taken. "Prescient" implies a focus on foresight and vision, but the passage emphasises immediate concerns and actionable advice. Similarly, the passage is not “alarmist” (Option C), as it avoids overly exaggerated or emotional claims. It uses logical arguments and examples rather than fearmongering. Option D is also a poor fit: although the passage concludes with a rhetorical question, this is a stylistic device rather than a defining characteristic of the tone. The primary goal is to issue a warning, not to leave the reader in a state of curiosity or wonder, making “quizzical” an incorrect characterisation.

Hence, Option A is the best choice. 

A useful strategy for determining where the given sentence best fits is to look for places where the flow of ideas feels awkward or disconnected. When we examine the sentences around Blank 1, we see that they are well-linked, moving smoothly from the broader issue of the drought to its immediate consequence, food insecurity. The same logic applies to Blanks 2 and 3 - there are no noticeable disruptions in the flow of ideas here. The structure remains clear and coherent even without inserting the given sentence into these blanks.

However, when we look at Blank 4, we notice a discrepancy. The sentence before Blank 4 mentions farmers and pastoralists, and the sentence following it continues discussing pastoralists, but there’s a slight gap in the connection. If the sentences were closely linked, the author could have used pronouns or rephrased the second sentence to refer to pastoralists more naturally. Additionally, there’s a shift in focus: the paragraph moves from talking about "leaving them on the brink of famine" to "never being able to go back as their livelihoods have been irreversibly wiped out." This jump in ideas suggests the need for a transitional sentence to bridge the two concepts - enter the given sentence. Moreover, the "Many... Some..." structure works well here. First, the author mentions the larger group of farmers and pastoralists and how they were displaced. Then, the sentence narrows the focus to a smaller portion of this group, highlighting how, even for those who were not displaced, their livelihoods were so affected that they may never recover. This progression makes the insertion of the given sentence at Blank 4 both logical and necessary for maintaining coherence.

Hence, Option A is the correct choice. 

Here, Sentences 1, 4, and 5 discuss the general theme of how non-experts or forecasters without specialized expertise can make accurate predictions, often outperforming experts. Sentence 3 adds context by highlighting that this success occurs even when experts have access to classified information.

Contrarily, Sentence 2 shifts the focus to the “intelligence community's interest in forecasting models” rather than continuing the discussion on the accuracy and success of forecasters versus experts. This makes it unrelated to the main flow of the paragraph.

Let us examine the points presented in each sentence to further understand how the statements link. Sentence 1 introduces the main idea that forecasting is appealing because it works even without requiring specialized expertise. Building on this idea, Sentence 5 highlights that non-experts can often outperform experts in forecasting; this, in a way, relates to the appeal of forecasting introduced in the first sentence. Sentence 4 provides evidence to support the claim made in Sentence 5. It refers to a specific study where non-experts outperformed experts in predicting geopolitical events, solidifying the argument that non-expert forecasting can be more reliable. Sentence 3 strengthens the previous claim by highlighting that the experts, despite having access to classified intelligence, were still outperformed by non-experts. In this manner, the arrangement 1-5-4-3 renders a coherent paragraph.

Hence, Sentence 2 is the odd one out. 

The statement in the question draws a comparison between Moutai’s claimed hangover-proof quality and a groundbreaking historical invention (gunpowder). The use of "would make it" suggests a hypothetical scenario, and the comparison is meant to emphasise significance, not an actual invention. This indicates that the comparison is metaphorical/figurative (Option C), conveying the liquor’s potential impact on culture and society; hence, we can eliminate Option A.

Option B also implies that the comparison is based on actual substance or tangible qualities. Though the claim about being hangover-proof is substantive, the comparison to gunpowder is not grounded in tangible, measurable terms but rather in its significance. Similarly, Option D suggests that the phrase equates Moutai directly with gunpowder, which is incorrect: the phrase does not treat the two as synonyms but draws a symbolic comparison.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice. 

To identify the factor that is both a reason for Moutai’s success and a potential threat, we could consider aspects that currently drive demand while also holding the potential to hinder it in the future. Looking at the given choices, Option A may be a contributing factor to Moutai’s success, as cultural practices around drinking play a role in its popularity. However, the passage does not explicitly frame this as a threat, especially since it is deeply ingrained in Chinese society, making this option less fitting. Option C is also a significant reason for Moutai's success, as it targets the super-wealthy, but the passage does not indicate that this would become a threat in the future. Option B is presented more as a hurdle to Moutai’s success, while the explicit benefits remain to be discussed.

On the other hand, we can deduce that Option D is both a key reason for Moutai’s success - by tapping into the spending power of older consumers - and a potential threat, as the younger generations, with different health-conscious lifestyles, could move away from the heavy drinking culture that has driven Moutai's demand. The passage specifically highlights this generational shift as a risk to Moutai’s long-term success.

Hence, Option D is the best choice. 

The author uses the phrase “the unholy trinity” to describe Moutai’s marketing strategy, which relies on three factors: nationalism, elitism, and ageism. The word “unholy” implies that these factors may be unconventional or controversial, which could be why they are described as such. The author presents this idea in the context of Western marketing, suggesting that Moutai might have succeeded due to these factors, even though they seem to defy conventional Western norms. Thus, the phrase reflects how Moutai’s marketing strategy is in stark contrast to Western business practices (Option C).

Contrarily, Options A, B, and D either do not address the contrast with Western strategies or misinterpret the focus of the passage. For instance, Option A is not the best choice because the phrase “unholy trinity” isn’t a comment on the morality of marketing liquor itself but rather on the controversial nature of Moutai’s specific strategy. Options B and C focus on tangential aspects that are irrelevant to the question.