XAT 2026 Question Paper

The author discusses the 'necessity of compromise' by mentioning the fourth inherent difficulty of a liberal democracy. An individual would not believe in something that he or she considers to be bad and false, i.e, they would always believe that what they hold as an ideology is 'good and true', thus, it can be said that liberal democracy forces people to compromise by having them accept views that they do not consider to be aligning with their definitive ideas of good and true. The author says that the alternative to this compromise is either inaction (do nothing about the situation at hand) or oppression (force minorities to give up their perception of truth), which, more or less, are both damaging.

Option A is incorrect, as the compromise is discussed as a forced proposition among citizens in a liberal democracy, not as a threat to its ideals in and of itself. Option B is incorrect. Although it is true that we want our ideas reflected in the public sphere, it is also true that people often tolerate opposing views, and it is tolerance of opposing views that determines whether a liberal democracy is compromising. Option D is incorrect for the same reason as option C. Option E captures the nuances mentioned in the last paragraph by discussing liberty, compromise, incompatibility, and rights, and how they do not fit well with the compromise defined above. Option E is the correct answer.

The passage emphasises the importance of metaphors in communication among individuals who might not share the same language, writing that "Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience." Based on this, let us analyse each option provided.

Option A is incorrect. The passage states only that metaphors are crucial for creating rapport and for communicating the nature of 'unshared experience', not merely for 'lived experience' that causes a gap in communication. An experience that is not a 'lived experience', such as an abstract thought or a fragment of an individual's imagination, can still be communicated through metaphors.

Option B is incorrect. The passage does not suggest that science can communicate complex ideas in 'simple ways' necessarily. Although the aspect of 'relatability' is somewhat implied.

Option C is incorrect; the fact that metaphors play a crucial role in communication does not follow from their capacity to build empathy and social understanding, but rather from their translational purpose of "creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience."

Option D is incorrect; the alignment of one's cultural knowledge or expertise with others as an argument about the importance of metaphors is limited in scope, based on the information provided in the passage.

Option E best follows from the arguments presented in the passage, as it captures the nuances of differences in lived experiences among individuals and how metaphors communicate those experiences to (and from) everyone.

The most appropriate way to answer the question on the perceived premise of the passage would be to analyse the ideas presented in each of the options one by one and then select the one that best captures the discussion. 

Option A writes, "Large-scale communication systems, built on the CONDUIT metaphor, fuel misunderstanding and fracture social order." This cannot be the premise of the passage, as it is merely a limited account of the examples of the CONDUIT metaphor discussed in the last paragraph and of the discussions surrounding the CONDUIT metaphor.

Option B, assuming that the overview refers to the perspective a person has of effective communication, is not implied in the passage. The passage only addresses the communicative aspect, not whether the information conveyed through metaphors is subjective or objective. Another way to understand the meaning of 'overview' in this context is to say that it focuses primarily on conveying summaries rather than entire ideas, a point not hinted at in the passage.

Option C is a sound notion, based on the discussion in the passage. The very idea that we need metaphors to communicate unshared experiences, and that CONDUIT metaphors can turn from pathetic to evil "when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale", because in CONDUIT metaphors, one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, which not everyone shares. All these ideas support the conclusion that, for a genuine understanding of human interactions, we should acknowledge the limits of our own worldview.

Option D somewhat exaggerates the differences between people with shared and unshared language by claiming that it is rare for humans to achieve effortless understanding ('rare convenience'), which is not implied in the passage. All that the passage talks about is that "with enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and skill and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding." 

Option E, although a good statement, fails to capture why metaphors are discussed in the passage (especially why CONDUIT metaphors are discussed in the passage) and is incorrect.

The correct answer is option D.

The primary limitation of CONDUIT metaphors pointed out by the author lies in the fact that through the CONDUIT metaphor, "when it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated, that is, one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc." Thus, when it truly matters to communicate (meaning), in situations where people do not speak the same language, the CONDUIT metaphor is of no use.

Option A does not capture the limitations of unshared language discussed above. Whether the idea to be communicated is abstract or concrete, the CONDUIT metaphors fail to communicate it in scenarios in which the languages differ. Option B is incorrect because the very idea of communication is not necessarily to 'co-create understanding' but always to communicate one's interpretation/ knowledge to others.

Option C is incorrect; the limitation of the CONDUIT metaphor has little to do with its tendency to simplify ideas and avoid complexity, but rather with its limited capacity to account for the diverse interpretations people hold and the languages they speak. 

Option D is correct: using a CONDUIT metaphor, "one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition," and therefore the underlying assumption behind a CONDUIT metaphor is that meaning spans all possible interpretations, i.e., that words (or language expressions in general) have inherent 'fixed' meanings.

Option E is incorrect as neither in the CONDUIT metaphor, nor in any other metaphor in general (that the author would discuss positively) is it the case that the efforts needed to interpret the message are taken into consideration/ ignored. What would be true is that, in CONDUIT metaphors, the meaning is never conveyed to someone who does not share the language, not that, even if the meaning is conveyed, the interpretive effort is ignored. Option D remains the correct answer.

Let us evaluate the structure of and the arguments presented in each of the paragraphs of the passage.

The first paragraph introduces the common thread that connects seemingly disparate practices that trolls engage in. Discussing the irony of lulz and the fact that trolls do not believe that anything should be taken seriously. The second paragraph discusses how trolls insist on the celebration of their anonymity and further examines the benefits of anonymity that trolls enjoy, which they would not have had if they had used their real identities. The third paragraph, conversely, discusses how the lack of anonymity for the victim of trolling works to the victim's detriment, primarily because, for a troll, the internet should be an 'attachment-free zone.' 

Since the passage does not imply that the victims of trolling are necessarily 'weak,' option A cannot be inferred and is incorrect. Option C is incorrect because the passage suggests that trolls gravitate toward public forums because they see them as places where they can be anonymous and engage in their pursuit of "lulz." Option D cannot be inferred from the discussions in the passage, as summarised above, and is also incorrect. It cannot be said that trolls use offensive and provocative comments to emotionally upset the targets. Option E also cannot be inferred from the information presented in the passage. According to the passage, trolls consider a person who is willing to disclose real-life attachments, interests, and vulnerabilities an immediate target for trolling. This is the same reason why option B is the correct answer.

In the second paragraph, the author writes that "anonymity allows trolls to engage in behaviors they would never replicate in professional or otherwise public settings, either because the specific behaviors would be considered socially unacceptable, or because the trolls’ online persona would clash with their offline circumstances."

Based on this, option C directly follows and is the correct answer. Option A mentions that trolls aim to create 'caricatured versions of themselves' and is incorrect; trolls do not aim to create caricatured versions of themselves, but rather to spread or practice their ideas. Option B comes close, but also fails to capture the ideas of socially acceptable and unacceptable, and of professional and unprofessional behaviour. Option D talks about anonymity granting trolls the freedom to pursue their 'interests' and fails to capture that trolling, as a behaviour, might not qualify as an 'interest' in the first place. Option E is incorrect because the passage does not mention trolls as people with contradictory pursuits. The passage does talk about the irony of lulz and the trolls (in their own minds) doing their targets a favour, but the author never intends to pose these arguments as moral contradictions of the troll. Option C remains the correct answer.

In the final paragraph, the author writes that trolls frame their trolling explicitly in pedagogical terms (perhaps trying to 'teach' their victim the lesson that the internet is more of an 'attachment-free' zone than a place to disclose real-life attachments, interests, and vulnerabilities). The author says that trolls, in their own minds, understand this as a favour to the victim, causing the victim a sense of understanding that he or she perhaps did not have.

Option E captures this best: "trolls scare away their victims from being themselves ever again online," furthering their ideological stance that the internet is a place for anonymity. Option A is slightly broader than what the discussions in the passage intend to convey. The 'social conditioning' mentioned is not the same as 'internet conditioning' that the passage largely implies. Option B portrays the pursuit trolls engage in as largely positive, which the author would not agree with. Option C says that trolls make their targets resilient to any kind of bullying, which is false, as this is something only the trolls themselves believe. Option D is incorrect for the same reason as option B. Option E remains the correct answer.

Throughout the passage, the author emphasises that the pursuit of science is not towards moral correctness. The author uses the example of nuclear power and the discovery of fission, saying that someday or another, somewhere, we would have discovered nuclear power. These discoveries were going on at the time of Nazi Germany. To say then that physicists would have come together at as barbaric a place as the Nazi footholds to keep the discovery a secret is a stretch. The author is suggesting that the discovery of nuclear power was inevitable, regardless of its later consequences.

Option A is incorrect because the author repeatedly emphasises that science does not address moral questions, or that the moral quandary is not a consideration of science as it moves towards human discoveries; thus, science is neither benevolent nor not benevolent. Option B is incorrect. Although science lacks consideration of moral questions as it moves towards discovery, this is not because it is inconsiderate, but because it is a function of the pursuit of truth and not of morality. Option C is correct for the same reason; 'amoral' refers to something which is unconcerned with whether something is right or wrong.

Option D is incorrect; the author emphasises the pursuit of truth that science embodies, but also quotes Bohr by saying that science is a 'gradual removal of prejudices'. Since it cannot be said that science, at any point in time, has pursued the whole of the truth, option D cannot be inferred. Option E is incorrect for the same reason as option A, and also for the same reason why option C is correct; science is neither moral nor immoral, therefore, it is 'amoral'.

Option A can be inferred from the last paragraph. The author quotes Niels Bohr and writes that "the modest but relentless goal of science is the gradual removal of prejudices." Therefore, it can be said that science gradually removes false beliefs about the world. Option B claims that science is not driven by the pursuit of truth, which is contradicted when the author quotes Robert Oppenheimer by writing that "the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them." Thus, it is not utility, but the pursuit of truth that drives science.

Option C can be inferred from the passage, the author writes, "Knowledge is itself the basis for civilisation, you cannot have the one without the other". Option D is also true as per the information provided ("the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence"). Option E, lastly, can also be inferred from the information provided in the passage: "to stop it (a discovery), you would have had to stop physics."

Out of the options provided, only option B is false based on the information presented in the passage, and is the correct answer.

Based on the information provided in the passage about science and scientists in particular, let us analyse each option:

Option A is mostly true; the author keeps emphasising that science is amoral, that it indulges in the gradual removal of prejudices, and that the pursuit of knowledge is itself the basis of civilization. Option B conflates scientists only looking at the idea of truth as an inspiration to work towards making discoveries with scientists 'not caring' about the consequences of their work, and is incorrect.

Option C is incorrect, although science is amoral, and that it is unconcerned with moral priorities when it comes to the pursuit of truth, it cannot be said that science is not useful when it comes to answering moral questions. Science may provide insight into how we answer moral questions. Option D is incorrect; the author suggests throughout the passage that science can have both positive ('removal of prejudices') and negative ('weapons of mass destruction') effects in the real world. Option E is incorrect; although it is true that scientists (in general, according to the information provided in the passage) are driven by the urge to explore and not by the urge to produce consequences, there might indeed be exceptions.

Among the options provided, only option A can be inferred from the information presented in the passage, and is the correct answer.