XAT 2025 Question Paper

A: The sentence should be: There are "fewer" cars on the road; hence this is incorrect. 

C: The sentence should be: I have been here "since" Monday; hence this statement is incorrect. 

E: Although this format is also acceptable in common language, the grammatically correct version would be: She is the girl "who" won the case competition. 

Sentences B, D, and F are grammatically correct. 

Therefore, Option D would be the correct answer. 

Here, “young” fits logically in the second blank since the sentence discusses the perspective of older generations on younger ones. Similarly, the usage of “hypocritically” in the fourth blank highlights the irony in how older generations criticize younger ones for behaviors they themselves engaged in. This matches the intent. The correct word in the first blank is “successive,” refering to one generation following another, making it appropriate in this context.

We need to arrange the sentences in a logically sequenced order; to do that, we need to get an idea of what the particular paragraph will be about. So, we look at the sentences and we see sentence C: On Earth almost every living thing ultimately depends on photosynthesis for its energy, including the rich ecosystems in the ocean depths, discovered in the 1980s and which helped the idea of life on Europa gain a foothold.
We realise that the paragraph is referring to energy and living organisms and ecosystems.
We see that, D and E are abrupt sentences to start a paragraph with, they obviously need previous context and reference. A
Starting with A would abruptly introduce Europa's sunlight issue without first providing the necessary context that a habitable world needs an energy source, making the discussion lack a clear foundation.
Between C and B, B seems like a much more suitable options to start a paragraph with, where it introduces the concept of Energy needed for a habitable world. 

We look at the option that starts with B, which is B, A, E, C, D

Following B, A specifies the particular energy challenge on Europa, linking the general need for energy to a specific case: lack of sunlight on Europa.
E reacts to the challenge presented in A, acknowledging the issue created by the absence of sunlight, maintaining logical flow.
C introduces an Earth analogy, explaining how life adapts in deep-sea environments away from sunlight, offering a possible parallel for Europa's situation.
Finally, D elaborates on the mechanism behind these deep-sea ecosystems, completing the explanation and connecting back to the possibility of life on Europa.

The sequence B-A-E-C-D moves from the general requirement of an energy source (B), through the problem of no sunlight on Europa (A, E), to an analogous Earth scenario (C, D) that suggests how life might thrive without direct sunlight, creating a coherent narrative.

The essence of the passage is that only someone who acts good knows how hard it can be to tempt evil. A person who does evil has already given in and hence does not know how much more he would have had to face the hardships. A good man, on the other hand, is still putting up the fight and hence knows the extent of the hardships he would have to face. 

The question asks for what bet can be concluded. Let's take a look at each option individually:

Option A: The idea of judging ourselves is not present. Further, the idea is not that to know anything, we must apply ourselves to it; the idea of resisting temptation can not be connected to this in a sensible manner. 

Option B: This is also fetched from the text's central idea, It is not about the labels of good or bad or who gets to call themselves good, but about what it means to know the temptations of falling to the other side. 

Option C: This is the best of the given options, essentially carrying a higher meaning that is present in the text. An idea similar to "having principles is easy until they are tested". The text is about how anyone can give in to temptations and stop being good, and they might never even face the real hard temptations. Only a good person can claim to have known temptation since he has been through it all. Hence, unless you have tested your belief of being good, you can not tell your true beliefs. You might think you are good, but if you falter at the slightest inconvenience, your beliefs might be unjustified. 

Option D: This is an easy elimination. Nowhere is it implied that most people are not good, so this can be concluded. 

Option E: This essentially repeats what the passage wants to say but in the reverse order. It is not that knowing temptations makes you a good person, but a good person knows what temptation is. 

Therefore, Option C is the correct answer. 

Given the seemingly complex appearance of the jumbled sentence, a good starting point would be to look at the repeated words in sentences A and E: both mention a treaty and the idea of convergence.

We begin with Sentence E, which introduces the Maastricht treaty and its convergence criteria. This sentence highlights the motivations behind the treaty: Germany wanted to design the rules to exclude fiscally unstable countries, specifically pointing to Italy as a target of these restrictions.

Sentence A naturally follows because it elaborates on the specific criteria outlined in the treaty. Where E sets the broader context of the treaty and its purpose, A narrows it down to the actual numerical benchmarks - a 3% budget deficit limit and public debt converging toward 60% of GDP. It then highlights Italy’s struggle to meet these standards, describing them as nearly impossible to achieve by 1999.

Together, E→A presents a clear situation: the treaty (E) was crafted to exclude countries like Italy, and Italy’s financial state (A) made it a clear candidate for exclusion.

Once the situation has been clarified, the natural question becomes: How did Italy respond to these challenges? This is where Sentence D comes into play. The sentence introduces Romano Prodi, then Italian prime minister, and highlights his resolve to ensure Italy joined the group under question (the group from which Germany wanted to prevent Italy from entering). Despite the challenges outlined in A, Prodi decided that Italy, as a founding member of (perhaps the European) bloc, had to join the group. Prodi’s determination wasn’t arbitrary - it was a reaction to the realization that countries like Spain were pushing to join the group, too. Therefore, the link between A→D reflects an action-response relationship, where the constraints in A led to the decisive response in D. At this stage, E-A-D forms a coherent narrative. E introduces the treaty, A highlights the challenge for Italy, and D shows how Italy’s leadership decided to deal with it.

We observe that Sentence B further cements this narrative by informing us how certain factors might have played in Italy’s favour; its attempt to join the group in spite of the restrictions placed by the treaty might have been expedited by the presence of Belgium, which also did not meet the convergence criteria, with a “public debt above 100 percent of GDP.”

We observe from the options that only Option B presents an arrangement correctly representing the narrative E-A-D-B. This suggests that Sentence C likely serves as the context.

Let us understand what the passage is trying to convey, 
We see that the first line talks about the beauty of unsaid things, the author is trying to emphasize the charm of unsaid things and how that charm is lost when it spoken out by stating that it loses all mystery and ambiguity when it is said out loud. 
They then bring in the idea of art, and how art acts as a tool that can convey ideas and thoughts without saying it. 
They mention that it is clouded in secrecy and obfuscation and the fact that the interpretation of a piece of art lies in the eyes of the beholder. 
They conclude by stating the beauty of unsayable things and how things are better when they are left unsaid. 

After understanding the passage, taking a look at the options we see that
Art echoes the language that is unintelligible can be eliminated as it is out of context and brings in the idea of intelligence out of nowhere. 
Explaining an art metamorphoses into another piece of art can be eliminated too as this actually goes against what the author is trying to convey; by explaining the art you are tainting the beauty of the art according to the author. 
Any piece of art defies expression this too is wrong as it defies the author, the author clearly states that art expresses things while leaving it unsaid. 
Art unfolds the mystery of human tongues, this option emphasizes on the human tongue over the beauty of unsaid things and the charm of art, which cannot be inferred. 

Art expresses what humans cannot communicate in words, this can be inferred as the author talks about the beauty of art as it can convey unsaid thoughts and ideas. 

Let's look at each option individually:

Option A: Although close, this option introduces the idea that listlessness is produced only around good performers, while the passage implies that it affects employees in general. While not a sure shot elimination, we can look at other options. 

Option B: This sense of urgency by "immediate" and the call for action is absent from the text and can be eliminated as an option. 

Option C: This has the same flaw as option A, where it focuses on the good employees, and the idea of boredom is not said to be the cause but the mundane tasks creating listlessness, which results in boredom .

Option D: This extreme option can not be inferred from the text. 

Option E: This is what the passage is hinting towards. Since outcomes are consistent, even if the employees are listless and bored, the organization might not find out about this and might overlook this change since performance is maintained. 

Hence, of all the given options, only E can be inferred from the text. 

The cartoon subtly highlights the mismatch between the perspectives of the man and the dog. While the man sees the dog’s actions as simple and joyful, the dog interprets its actions as a heavy emotional responsibility to alleviate the man's depression. This disparity underscores how our understanding of others, often based on our assumptions and beliefs, may not align with their true experiences or reality (Option A).

Option B is a close competitor but misses the likely theme of the cartoon: the mismatch between how the man perceives the dog and how the dog perceives its own actions. The cartoon is more about the misunderstanding between perspectives than just the weight of duty. Option D might seem relevant as well; however, “arbitrary” implies randomness or lack of reason, which is not quite the point here. The man’s interpretation of the dog’s joy is not arbitrary; it’s a genuine but incorrect assumption based on his beliefs.

On the other hand, Option C emphasizes love and sacrifice, but the cartoon does not clearly depict mutual affection or love. The man’s perspective is superficial (“joy in simple things”), and the dog's thought focuses on burden, not love or care. Similarly, Option E implies that the dog’s identity is shaped by the man’s interpretation, which is not the case. The cartoon focuses on how the man misunderstands the dog’s reality rather than the dog’s identity being influenced by that misunderstanding.

Through the line, the author is essentially saying that a comic can have its effect only on a calm person, as in a person who is not himself meddled by the problem at hand. (It would be difficult to make a person laugh at a phone falling off a building when it is his phone. )

Looking at the options:

Option A: It is not that he wants them to be unaware but unaffected; this is inaccurate. 

Option B: This is precisely what the author is trying to convey not only from this particular line but from the entire penultimate paragraph. Only when a would is unruffled, which is unaffected or detached, can it fully let the comic do its work. 

Option C: It is not about actually relaxed people or edgy or disturbing things; this can be easily eliminated. 

Option D: This comes close, but the idea of an unsettling tone is not accurate. The disturbing effect is not about the joke itself being dark or unsettling. 

Option E: This is also unrelated to what the author is trying to say. 

Therefore, Option B is the correct answer. 

Let's look at each option individually: 

Option A: This is what the entire penultimate paragraph builds towards, that comedy works when one is indifferent and not close to the situation being laughed at. Hence, this statement can be inferred. 

Option B: This is what the first paragraph talks about. A hat is laughed at because of the traits humans have given it and what human characteristics it resembles; no squirrel is laughing at a "hat"; hence, this too can be inferred. 

Option C: While this might seem like an extreme option, this is what the passage conveys, "In a society composed of pure intelligences there would probably be no more tears, though perhaps there would still be laughter; whereas highly emotional souls, in tune and unison with life, in whom every event would be sentimentally prolonged and re-echoed, would neither know nor understand laughter." Hence, this, too, can be inferred. 

Option D: Similar to option B, this can be inferred from the passage's first paragraph. "...if any other animal, or some lifeless object, produces the same effect, it is always because of some resemblance to man, of the stamp he gives it or the use he puts it to." Hence, this too can be inferred from the passage. 

Option E: Although the penultimate paragraph has the line: "To produce the whole of its effect, then, the comic demands something like a momentary anesthesia of the heart."  The options distort it by omitting the heart; it is not that we need actual anaesthesia but that we need to put our feelings and pity on hold. 

Hence, of all the given statements only option E can not be inferred and would be the correct answer.