CMAT Critical Reasoning Questions

As cube is cut into 125 identical smaller cubes, we can say that size of larger cube is $$5\times5\times5$$. 

The cubes which will be having exactly 2 faces painted will be the cubes which lie on edges but not corners of the cube because corner cubes will have 3 faces painted. 

That is for every edge of the cube , out of "$$n$$" cubes there will be "$$n-2$$" cubes (excluding corners) which are painted on 2 faces exactly . So for the entire cube there are 12 edges , so total no of cubes with exactly 2 faces painted $$=12(n-2)$$. 

Therefore, in this case as$$n=5$$, the total no of cubes with exactly 2 faces painted white$$=12\left(5-2\right)=36$$.

The order would be : 
1. First a Crime (C) takes place.
2. Then the police (A) investigates and catch the offender.
3. The case is then presented in court (D) for trial. 
4. The Judgement (E) is passed based on trial. 
5. Finally, Punishment (B) is given as per judgement. 

Therefore, the correct order is : C $$\rightarrow$$ A $$\rightarrow$$ D $$\rightarrow$$ E $$\rightarrow$$ B 

Human development progresses through a series of stages in the following order:

infancy → childhood → puberty → adolescence → adulthood. 

Therefore, the order is {D, C, A, E, B} . 

Anaemia : Blood $$\rightarrow$$ Anaemia is a disorder/condition of the blood.

Anarchy is situation of lack of order or government . It is a condition of the state or government. 

Hence, correct analogy would be : Anaemia : Blood : : Anarchy : State/Government.

Therefore, among the given options Government is the appropriate answer.  

The underlined phrase "in the soup" is an idiomatic expression meaning to be in a difficult or troublesome situation. In the sentence,the context of a raid suggests the officer faced problems or consequences.

Among the options:

Sleeping and collecting money do not convey a problematic situation.

Angry suggests an emotion, not necessarily trouble.

In trouble directly aligns with the meaning of being in a difficult or problematic situation implied by "in the soup." Therefore, Option B is the correct answer.

A simple sentence, by definition, is a sentence that contains one independent clause, meaning it has a single subject and a single predicate and expresses a complete thought. Hence, the reason (R) given that defines what a simple sentence is is incorrect. 

The assertion(A) given is, however, true; The sentence: "Without saying a word, Ashraf ran away from home, in great haste," is an example of a simple sentence. The phrase “Without saying a word” is a prepositional phrase functioning as an adverbial phrase, not a clause, as it has no finite verb.

[ A clause must have a subject and a finite verb. Here , "without saying a word" is a phrase because (i) there is no subject , and (ii) "saying" is a present participle, which does not show tense, making it non-finite. It functions as a prepositional phrase, where the preposition “without” governs a non-finite (gerund) phrase “saying a word.” ]

Hence,(A) is true, but (R) is false. The correct choice is Option C. 

The speaker in the given excerpt is a first-person speaker.

The given excerpt uses pronouns like "I" and "me" which are characteristic of the first-person point of view. This indicates that the speaker is referring to themselves, narrating their own thoughts, actions, and beliefs.

Option B: Second person would use "you," addressing the reader or another person directly, which is not present here.

Option C: Third person would use "he," "she," "they," or names to describe someone else, which is also not present.

Option D: The consistent use of "I" makes the first-person perspective of the speaker clear. Therefore, this option is not correct.

Option D is the correct answer.

Option A: This could be inferred from the excerpt. The speaker mentions "the enemy's movements" and "tactics," which are terms commonly associated with warfare. The reference to being saved from "the clutches of defeat" suggests involvement in battles or conflicts, typical of a warrior.

Option B: This is correct. The speaker expresses trust in "Jagdamba," a deity , stating that she "has always helped me" and affirming, "I will not lose my faith in her." These statements indicate a strong religious belief.

Option C: This is correct.  The speaker says, "I am trying to observe the enemy's movements but have not been able to understand their tactics." This indicates a failure to comprehend the enemy's plans or strategies.

Option D: This statement is incorrect, as the speaker affirms their unwavering faith in Jagdamba, contradicting the claim that their faith has wavered.

The narrative viewpoint in the given excerpt is third-person.

The passage uses a third person narrative viewpoint because it describes the scene and Shivaji's actions from an external perspective, using third person pronouns like "he" and "his."

It does not use "I" (first person) or "you" (second person), and there is no shift between different narrative perspectives, ruling out a mixed narrative.

I. The northern grid had collapsed earlier.

• The phrase "yet again" implies that the northern grid has collapsed in the past, which makes this assumption implicit in the statement. The use of "yet again" suggests that it is not the first occurrence of this event.

II. The grid system of providing electricity to a group of states is an ineffective type of power supply system.

• The statement does not directly mention anything about the effectiveness or inefficiency of the grid system. It only states that the grid collapsed, but it does not provide an evaluation of whether the grid system is inherently ineffective. This assumption is not implicit in the statement because the statement does not make any claims about the overall effectiveness of the grid system.

Hence, the answer is Only assumption I is implicit.

Argument I: Yes, an independent judiciary can make sure that the executive does not misuse its power, thereby curbing unlawful activities and upholding the rule of law. This is a strong argument because an independent judiciary acts as a check on executive power, ensuring fairness and justice in society.

Argument II: No, this argument suggests that an independent judiciary might prevent the executive from taking bold or swift actions, which might be necessary in certain circumstances. However, it is flawed because an independent judiciary does not interfere with necessary government actions but ensures they are lawful and constitutional. Therefore, Argument II is weak.

I: People do not ask about your tailor if your shirt is not good.
The statement implies that when a shirt is excellent, it prompts people to inquire about the tailor. This suggests that such inquiries are tied to the shirt's quality. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if the shirt is not good, people are less likely to ask about the tailor. Assumption I is implicit in the statement.

II: People want to know the criteria of an excellent shirt.

The statement does not explicitly mention or imply that people are interested in the criteria for an excellent shirt. It focuses on their curiosity about the tailor, which could stem from admiration of the craftsmanship, rather than a desire to understand what makes a shirt excellent. Assumption II is not necessarily implied by the statement.

So, only Assumption I is implicit

• Argument I raises a valid concern about individual privacy, but the intrusion into privacy is not necessarily absolute. In public health matters, certain individual rights can be balanced against the potential benefits to society. For example, medical checks before marriage could prevent serious health risks for future children, which could be seen as a societal benefit that outweighs individual privacy concerns in this specific context.
• Argument II is stronger because it addresses a clear, tangible benefit: reducing the risk of giving birth to children with serious health conditions. This has direct positive implications for public health and the well-being of families and future generations. The argument is grounded in a practical, preventive approach that could have significant health benefits, making it a more compelling reason for the compulsory medical examination.

Therefore, Argument II is stronger because it presents a clear, socially beneficial reason for why compulsory medical examinations might be necessary, with long-term health benefits, whereas Argument I is more abstract and focused on individual rights without addressing the potential public health advantages.

The sentence "I wish it were possible" is syntactically correct because it uses the subjunctive mood. In English grammar, the subjunctive mood allows for singular subjects to be followed by a plural verb ("were" instead of "was") to express wishes, hypothetical scenarios, or unreal conditions. Therefore, both the assertion and the reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion in this case.