XAT 2016

Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:

The base of Objectivism according to Ayan Rand is explicit: “Existence exists – and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists processing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.”

Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance. The third axiom at the base of knowledge – an axioms true, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua
being” – is the Law of Identity. This law defines the essence of existence: to be is to be something, a thing is what it is; and leads to the fundamental principle of all action, the law of causality. The law of causality states that a thing’s actions are determined not by chance, but by its nature, i.e. by what it is. It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”

Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow:

Each piece, or part, of the whole of nature is always merely an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected. The principal of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.” But what is the source of
knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations – to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange
patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess. This imagining process is so difficult that there is a division of labour in physics: there are theoretical physicists who imagine, deduce, and guess at new laws, but do not experiment; and then there are experimental physicists who experiment, imagine, deduce, and guess.


We said that the laws of nature are approximate: that we first find the “wrong” ones, and then we find the “right” ones. Now, how can an experiment be “wrong”? First, in a trivial way: the apparatus can be faulty and you did not notice. But these things are easily fixed and checked back and forth. So without snatching at such minor things, how can the results of an experiment be wrong? Only by being inaccurate. For example, the mass of an object never seems to change; a spinning top has the same weight as a still one. So a “law” was invented: mass is constant, independent of speed. That “law” is now found to be incorrect. Mass is found is to increase with velocity, but appreciable increase requires velocities near that of light. A true law is: if an object moves with a speed of less than one hundred miles a second the mass is constant to within one part in a million. In some such approximate form this is a correct law. So in practice one might think that the new law makes no significant difference. Well, yes and no. For ordinary speeds we can certainly forget it and use the simple constant mass law as a good approximation. But for high speeds we are wrong, and the higher the speed, the wrong we are. Finally, and most interesting, philosophically we are completely wrong with the approximate law. Our entire picture of the world has to be altered even though the mass changes only by a little bit. This is a very peculiar thing about the philosophy, or the ideas, behind the laws. Even a very small effect sometimes requires profound changes to our ideas.

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:

Indian Institute of Research is a Government-established body to promote research. In addition to helping in policy making, it also provides free online access to all the articles to the public. It has a mission of publishing high quality research articles. Till 2010, the publication of articles was very slow because there was no incentive for researchers to publish. Researchers stuck to the mandatory one article a year. Most of the researchers engaged in offering consultancy and earned extra income. Since its inception, the institute was considered the best place for cutting edge research. The new director of the institute was not happy with the work done by researchers in silo and came out with a new research policy in 2013 to increase research output and improve collaboration among researchers. It was decided that extra benefits would be offered to researchers with new publications. As a result, the number of research articles increased fourfold in 2014. At the 2015 annual audit, an objection was raised against increased expenses towards remuneration for researchers. Further, the Government opined that the publication was itself a reward and hence researchers need be paid nothing extra. The director tried to defend his policy but the response from the government was not encouraging.
l. Note: Auditors role is to verify accounts.

Analyse the following caselet and answer the questions that follow:

Kamal Chinnappa, Vimal Rao, Ganesh Krishnan and Dinesh Kumar own a saloon each on the Barbil street. They are the only hairdressers on that street. Each of them offered three services viz. haircut, shaving and hair-dye. One evening, all four of them met in a nearby tea-stall and agreed to charge Rs. 100 for any of the three services (haircut, shave and hair-dye) on weekdays. They also agreed to increase this rate to Rs. 115 on weekends and holidays. All verbally decided to implement the agreement.