Please wait...

Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Test - 5
Result
Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Test - 5
  • /

    Score
  • -

    Rank
Time Taken: -
  • Question 1/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    A basic truth is once again trying to break through the agony of worldwide pandemic and the enduring inhumanity of racist oppression. Healthcare workers risking their lives for others, mutual aid networks empowering neighbourhoods, farmers delivering food to quarantined customers, mothers forming lines to protect youth from police violence: we’re in this life together. We - young and old, citizen and immigrant - do best when we collaborate. Indeed, our only way to survive is to have each other’s back while safeguarding the resilience and diversity of this planet we call home.

    As an insight, it’s not new, or surprising. Anthropologists have long told us that, as a species neither particularly strong nor fast, humans survived because of our unique ability to create and cooperate. ‘All our thriving is mutual’ is how the Indigenous scholar Edgar Villanueva captured the age-old wisdom in his book Decolonizing Wealth (2018). What is new is the extent to which so many civic and corporate leaders - sometimes entire cultures - have lost sight of our most precious collective quality.

    This loss is rooted, in large part, in the tragedy of the private - this notion that moved, in short order, from curious idea to ideology to global economic system. It claimed selfishness, greed and private property as the real seeds of progress. Indeed, the mistaken concept many readers have likely heard under the name ‘the tragedy of the commons’ has its origins in the sophomoric assumption that private interest is the naturally predominant guide for human action. The real tragedy, however, lies not in the commons, but in the private. It is the private that produces violence, destruction and exclusion. Standing on its head thousands of years of cultural wisdom, the idea of the private variously separates, exploits and exhausts those living under its cold operating logic.

    In preindustrial societies, cooperation represented naked necessity for survival. Yet the realisation that a healthy whole is larger than its parts never stopped informing cultures. It embodies the pillars of Christianity as much as the Islamic Golden Age, the Enlightenment or the New Deal. In the midst of a global depression, the US president Franklin D Roosevelt evoked an ‘industrial covenant’ - a commitment to living wages and a right to work for all. During the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr gave voice to the broader idea when he said that no one is free until we are all free. On Earth Day 1970, the US senator Edmund Muskie proclaimed that the only society to survive is one that ‘will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, … clean air for some and filth for others’. We should call these ideas what they are - central civilisational insights. Social and economic prosperity depends on the wellbeing of all, not just the few.

    ...view full instructions


    What does the author intend to convey through the penultimate paragraph?

    Solutions

    In the second paragraph{antepenultimate para}, the author mentions how the significance of the concept of cooperation has been forgotten ("lost sight of") {by "civic and corporate leaders"; "entire cultures"} . The ensuing discussion {in the penultimate para} proceeds to highlight the reason behind this loss. The author ascribes this loss of the collective quality to the misbelief that private interest are the "real seeds of progress". The following criticism is presented concerning this idea: {"...It is the private that produces violence, destruction and exclusion. Standing on its head thousands of years of cultural wisdom, the idea of the private variously separates, exploits and exhausts those living under its cold operating logic..."}. The next paragraph refocuses the dicussion to the subject of cooperation. Thus, through the penultimate paragraph, the author tries to present private interest as the negative element responsible for the loss in the value of collaboration and perhaps, its potential of being detrimental to the collective good. Option C best captures this idea.

    Option A contains a distortion. The author contests the phrase "tragedy of commons" by saying that it is not collaboration (commons) that causes destruction but private interest. The author calls this the "tragedy of private".

    Option B is missing a crucial aspect. The author does not attach just the growth of the idea of private interest to the loss of the collective quality. Considering private interest as a critical force driving progress is the core reason, and needs to be incorporated in the answer.

    Option D is one of the sub-elements presented, but not the main idea/point being conveyed via the penultimate paragraph.

    Hence, of the given options, Option C correctly captures the message that the author intends to convey through the penultimate paragraph.

  • Question 2/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    A basic truth is once again trying to break through the agony of worldwide pandemic and the enduring inhumanity of racist oppression. Healthcare workers risking their lives for others, mutual aid networks empowering neighbourhoods, farmers delivering food to quarantined customers, mothers forming lines to protect youth from police violence: we’re in this life together. We - young and old, citizen and immigrant - do best when we collaborate. Indeed, our only way to survive is to have each other’s back while safeguarding the resilience and diversity of this planet we call home.

    As an insight, it’s not new, or surprising. Anthropologists have long told us that, as a species neither particularly strong nor fast, humans survived because of our unique ability to create and cooperate. ‘All our thriving is mutual’ is how the Indigenous scholar Edgar Villanueva captured the age-old wisdom in his book Decolonizing Wealth (2018). What is new is the extent to which so many civic and corporate leaders - sometimes entire cultures - have lost sight of our most precious collective quality.

    This loss is rooted, in large part, in the tragedy of the private - this notion that moved, in short order, from curious idea to ideology to global economic system. It claimed selfishness, greed and private property as the real seeds of progress. Indeed, the mistaken concept many readers have likely heard under the name ‘the tragedy of the commons’ has its origins in the sophomoric assumption that private interest is the naturally predominant guide for human action. The real tragedy, however, lies not in the commons, but in the private. It is the private that produces violence, destruction and exclusion. Standing on its head thousands of years of cultural wisdom, the idea of the private variously separates, exploits and exhausts those living under its cold operating logic.

    In preindustrial societies, cooperation represented naked necessity for survival. Yet the realisation that a healthy whole is larger than its parts never stopped informing cultures. It embodies the pillars of Christianity as much as the Islamic Golden Age, the Enlightenment or the New Deal. In the midst of a global depression, the US president Franklin D Roosevelt evoked an ‘industrial covenant’ - a commitment to living wages and a right to work for all. During the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr gave voice to the broader idea when he said that no one is free until we are all free. On Earth Day 1970, the US senator Edmund Muskie proclaimed that the only society to survive is one that ‘will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, … clean air for some and filth for others’. We should call these ideas what they are - central civilisational insights. Social and economic prosperity depends on the wellbeing of all, not just the few.

    ...view full instructions


    The author cites multiple examples in the last paragraph to highlight that:

    Solutions

    The reason behind citing the examples is being asked in this question. This motive can be discerned using the opening and ending excerpts of the last paragraph: {" In preindustrial societies, cooperation represented naked necessity for survival. Yet the realisation that a healthy whole is larger than its parts never stopped informing cultures."} and {"Social and economic prosperity depends on the wellbeing of all, not just the few."}

    In the preindustrial world, the concept of cooperation was considered necessary for survival {perhaps, not given much consideration in terms of survival anymore}. However, the author highlights that the idea did not lose its value over time and continues to be meaningful/relevant. Examples are then provided in this regard. Thus, the continued utility of the concept and it being a requirement for the collective good is the aspect that the author plans to supplement with examples. Option A correctly conveys this reason.

    Option B does not highlight the element of cooperation being relevant, and the use of the phrase "some individuals" limits the impact of the idea {broad/far-reaching impact}. Option C limits and distorts the ideas discussed in the last paragraph and is not the reason. {These are two very specific concepts presented in the examples}. Option D is neither implied nor the basis of citing the examples.

    Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

  • Question 3/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    A basic truth is once again trying to break through the agony of worldwide pandemic and the enduring inhumanity of racist oppression. Healthcare workers risking their lives for others, mutual aid networks empowering neighbourhoods, farmers delivering food to quarantined customers, mothers forming lines to protect youth from police violence: we’re in this life together. We - young and old, citizen and immigrant - do best when we collaborate. Indeed, our only way to survive is to have each other’s back while safeguarding the resilience and diversity of this planet we call home.

    As an insight, it’s not new, or surprising. Anthropologists have long told us that, as a species neither particularly strong nor fast, humans survived because of our unique ability to create and cooperate. ‘All our thriving is mutual’ is how the Indigenous scholar Edgar Villanueva captured the age-old wisdom in his book Decolonizing Wealth (2018). What is new is the extent to which so many civic and corporate leaders - sometimes entire cultures - have lost sight of our most precious collective quality.

    This loss is rooted, in large part, in the tragedy of the private - this notion that moved, in short order, from curious idea to ideology to global economic system. It claimed selfishness, greed and private property as the real seeds of progress. Indeed, the mistaken concept many readers have likely heard under the name ‘the tragedy of the commons’ has its origins in the sophomoric assumption that private interest is the naturally predominant guide for human action. The real tragedy, however, lies not in the commons, but in the private. It is the private that produces violence, destruction and exclusion. Standing on its head thousands of years of cultural wisdom, the idea of the private variously separates, exploits and exhausts those living under its cold operating logic.

    In preindustrial societies, cooperation represented naked necessity for survival. Yet the realisation that a healthy whole is larger than its parts never stopped informing cultures. It embodies the pillars of Christianity as much as the Islamic Golden Age, the Enlightenment or the New Deal. In the midst of a global depression, the US president Franklin D Roosevelt evoked an ‘industrial covenant’ - a commitment to living wages and a right to work for all. During the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr gave voice to the broader idea when he said that no one is free until we are all free. On Earth Day 1970, the US senator Edmund Muskie proclaimed that the only society to survive is one that ‘will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, … clean air for some and filth for others’. We should call these ideas what they are - central civilisational insights. Social and economic prosperity depends on the wellbeing of all, not just the few.

    ...view full instructions


    All of the following are stated EXCEPT

    Solutions

    Option A: can be inferred from the first paragraph: {"...We - young and old, citizen and immigrant - do best when we collaborate. Indeed, our only way to survive is to have each other’s back while safeguarding the resilience and diversity of this planet we call home..."}

    Option B: can be inferred from the second paragraph: {"...As an insight, it’s not new, or surprising. Anthropologists have long told us that, as a species neither particularly strong nor fast, humans survived because of our unique ability to create and cooperate. ‘All our thriving is mutual’ is how the Indigenous scholar..."}

    Option C: can be inferred from the third paragraph: {"...This loss is rooted, in large part, in the tragedy of the private - this notion that moved, in short order, from curious idea to ideology to global economic system. It claimed selfishness, greed and private property as the real seeds of progress..."}

    Option D cannot be understood from the passage. Although multiple elements have been mentioned as civilizational insights, the author does not tag them as "necessary" for the prosperity of society. Instead, this idea of social and economic prosperity is presented as being dependent on the "well being of all". Thus, we can zero in on Option D as the incorrect statement, and consequently, the correct answer.

  • Question 4/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    A basic truth is once again trying to break through the agony of worldwide pandemic and the enduring inhumanity of racist oppression. Healthcare workers risking their lives for others, mutual aid networks empowering neighbourhoods, farmers delivering food to quarantined customers, mothers forming lines to protect youth from police violence: we’re in this life together. We - young and old, citizen and immigrant - do best when we collaborate. Indeed, our only way to survive is to have each other’s back while safeguarding the resilience and diversity of this planet we call home.

    As an insight, it’s not new, or surprising. Anthropologists have long told us that, as a species neither particularly strong nor fast, humans survived because of our unique ability to create and cooperate. ‘All our thriving is mutual’ is how the Indigenous scholar Edgar Villanueva captured the age-old wisdom in his book Decolonizing Wealth (2018). What is new is the extent to which so many civic and corporate leaders - sometimes entire cultures - have lost sight of our most precious collective quality.

    This loss is rooted, in large part, in the tragedy of the private - this notion that moved, in short order, from curious idea to ideology to global economic system. It claimed selfishness, greed and private property as the real seeds of progress. Indeed, the mistaken concept many readers have likely heard under the name ‘the tragedy of the commons’ has its origins in the sophomoric assumption that private interest is the naturally predominant guide for human action. The real tragedy, however, lies not in the commons, but in the private. It is the private that produces violence, destruction and exclusion. Standing on its head thousands of years of cultural wisdom, the idea of the private variously separates, exploits and exhausts those living under its cold operating logic.

    In preindustrial societies, cooperation represented naked necessity for survival. Yet the realisation that a healthy whole is larger than its parts never stopped informing cultures. It embodies the pillars of Christianity as much as the Islamic Golden Age, the Enlightenment or the New Deal. In the midst of a global depression, the US president Franklin D Roosevelt evoked an ‘industrial covenant’ - a commitment to living wages and a right to work for all. During the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr gave voice to the broader idea when he said that no one is free until we are all free. On Earth Day 1970, the US senator Edmund Muskie proclaimed that the only society to survive is one that ‘will not tolerate slums for some and decent houses for others, … clean air for some and filth for others’. We should call these ideas what they are - central civilisational insights. Social and economic prosperity depends on the wellbeing of all, not just the few.

    ...view full instructions


    Which of the following, if true, most weakens the author’s main point?

    Solutions

    Across the passage, the author paints a positive picture of the concept of cooperation and the essential nature of this quality. It displays the quality of collaboration as constructive and conducive to a society's growth. Any idea attacking this portrayal/depiction, will serve as the answer.

    Option A shows cooperation in a negative light. An individualistic society is shown to be better off since it is devoid of certain negative aspects present in a collaborative society. This is contrary to the representation of the quality and weakens the author's point to a huge extent. Portraying an individual-centric system to be relatively superior to a colloborative one is opposite to the case that the author is making.

    Although Option B negates one of the ideas discussed, it doesn’t do much to weaken the main point. Options C and D are irrelevant, and can be easily eliminated.

    Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

  • Question 5/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Answer the given questions based on the passage given below:

    The thumping of valves. The cacophonous rumbling. The powerful kick in the back as the rocket’s engines ignite. The alarmingly realistic possibility that these will be your last precious moments alive.

    By all accounts, the journey into space is a thrilling ride. During the second launch of his career in 1982, the cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev sensed the rocket swaying to the right and the left, as if it were losing balance… then finally, he felt himself leave the ground. As the crew soared into space, they yelled “G-o-o-u” - it’s not entirely clear why.

    But though Lebedev’s space adventure began with a hit of adrenaline, this soon wore off - and just a week into his seven-month mission aboard the space station Salyut 7, he was bored. In reality, hurtling through low-Earth orbit at around 8 km/s (17,900mph) in a small aluminium can, was not enough to absorb him. As he wrote in his diary, “the drab routine has begun”.

    We tend to think of boredom as a fairly straightforward response to tedious activities. After all, it’s rare to find someone who claims to enjoy washing up or doing their taxes - and it’s deeply suspicious when you do. Except that boredom isn’t quite this clear-cut. Decades of research have revealed that it’s as mysterious as it is agonising, and there’s a surprising amount of variation in how much monotony each person can handle.

    “I think everybody gets the boredom signal,” says James Danckert, who heads a boredom lab at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. “Some people are really, really good at dealing with it though.”

    In 2014, a team of social psychologists from the University of Virginia discovered during a series of experiments on mind wandering that many participants - around 25% of women and 67% of men - were deliberately electrocuting themselves when they were left alone in a room for just 15 minutes, purely for something to do. One person shocked themselves nearly 200 times.

    And from the man who diligently recreated a Babylonian feast from a recipe on a 3,750-year-old clay tablet to the woman who resat her school exam paper from seven years ago out of mild curiosity, the recent lockdowns have revealed that peculiar and desperate strategies for dealing with boredom are very much not limited to a lab environment.

    At the other end of the spectrum, some people actively seek out situations which might normally be considered tedious. The hermit Christopher Knight, who drove to a forest in Maine in 1986 and didn’t emerge for 27 years, claims he never got bored once - though by his own admission, for the majority of his time there, he was occupied with doing absolutely nothing. 

    So, why is that?

    One of the earliest accounts of boredom dates back to Roman times, when the philosopher Seneca may have begun the long tradition of moaning about it. During a ponderous exchange of letters with a friend, he asked, “Quo usque eadem” - “How much longer [must we endure] the same things?”, and followed up with, “I do nothing new. I see nothing new. Eventually, there’s a nausea even of this”.

    ...view full instructions


    Which of the following is true based on the passage?

    Solutions

    Option B: Even though it is stated that "We tend to think of boredom as a fairly straightforward response to tedious activities." this option is not true based on the following line which states "Except that boredom isn’t quite this clear-cut.". Hence, option B is incorrect.
    Option C: The passage states the journey into space is a thrilling ride and Lebedev's mission started (i.e. the journey into space) with hit of adrenaline. However, he found his stay at the space station boring. Hence, option C is not true.
    Option D: The passage states that "it’s rare to find someone who claims to enjoy washing up or doing their taxes". Rare means only a few would enjoy doing that. But few is different from none. Hence, D is incorrect.
    Option A: This can be said to be true based on the lines "At the other end of the spectrum, some people actively seek out situations which might normally be considered tedious."
    Hence the only Option which is true is Option A.

  • Question 6/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Answer the given questions based on the passage given below:

    The thumping of valves. The cacophonous rumbling. The powerful kick in the back as the rocket’s engines ignite. The alarmingly realistic possibility that these will be your last precious moments alive.

    By all accounts, the journey into space is a thrilling ride. During the second launch of his career in 1982, the cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev sensed the rocket swaying to the right and the left, as if it were losing balance… then finally, he felt himself leave the ground. As the crew soared into space, they yelled “G-o-o-u” - it’s not entirely clear why.

    But though Lebedev’s space adventure began with a hit of adrenaline, this soon wore off - and just a week into his seven-month mission aboard the space station Salyut 7, he was bored. In reality, hurtling through low-Earth orbit at around 8 km/s (17,900mph) in a small aluminium can, was not enough to absorb him. As he wrote in his diary, “the drab routine has begun”.

    We tend to think of boredom as a fairly straightforward response to tedious activities. After all, it’s rare to find someone who claims to enjoy washing up or doing their taxes - and it’s deeply suspicious when you do. Except that boredom isn’t quite this clear-cut. Decades of research have revealed that it’s as mysterious as it is agonising, and there’s a surprising amount of variation in how much monotony each person can handle.

    “I think everybody gets the boredom signal,” says James Danckert, who heads a boredom lab at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. “Some people are really, really good at dealing with it though.”

    In 2014, a team of social psychologists from the University of Virginia discovered during a series of experiments on mind wandering that many participants - around 25% of women and 67% of men - were deliberately electrocuting themselves when they were left alone in a room for just 15 minutes, purely for something to do. One person shocked themselves nearly 200 times.

    And from the man who diligently recreated a Babylonian feast from a recipe on a 3,750-year-old clay tablet to the woman who resat her school exam paper from seven years ago out of mild curiosity, the recent lockdowns have revealed that peculiar and desperate strategies for dealing with boredom are very much not limited to a lab environment.

    At the other end of the spectrum, some people actively seek out situations which might normally be considered tedious. The hermit Christopher Knight, who drove to a forest in Maine in 1986 and didn’t emerge for 27 years, claims he never got bored once - though by his own admission, for the majority of his time there, he was occupied with doing absolutely nothing. 

    So, why is that?

    One of the earliest accounts of boredom dates back to Roman times, when the philosopher Seneca may have begun the long tradition of moaning about it. During a ponderous exchange of letters with a friend, he asked, “Quo usque eadem” - “How much longer [must we endure] the same things?”, and followed up with, “I do nothing new. I see nothing new. Eventually, there’s a nausea even of this”.

    ...view full instructions


    What is the author trying to convey by talking about the experiments conducted by the social psychologists from the University of Virginia?

    Solutions

    The author talks about the experiments conducted by the social psychologists from the University of Virginia in order to make the point that people tend to adopt desperate strategies for dealing with boredom.
    Options A, B and C: While these can be inferred in a fashion, these are not the author's intention behind talking about the experiments.
    Option D correctly summarizes the idea and hence is the answer. 

  • Question 7/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Answer the given questions based on the passage given below:

    The thumping of valves. The cacophonous rumbling. The powerful kick in the back as the rocket’s engines ignite. The alarmingly realistic possibility that these will be your last precious moments alive.

    By all accounts, the journey into space is a thrilling ride. During the second launch of his career in 1982, the cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev sensed the rocket swaying to the right and the left, as if it were losing balance… then finally, he felt himself leave the ground. As the crew soared into space, they yelled “G-o-o-u” - it’s not entirely clear why.

    But though Lebedev’s space adventure began with a hit of adrenaline, this soon wore off - and just a week into his seven-month mission aboard the space station Salyut 7, he was bored. In reality, hurtling through low-Earth orbit at around 8 km/s (17,900mph) in a small aluminium can, was not enough to absorb him. As he wrote in his diary, “the drab routine has begun”.

    We tend to think of boredom as a fairly straightforward response to tedious activities. After all, it’s rare to find someone who claims to enjoy washing up or doing their taxes - and it’s deeply suspicious when you do. Except that boredom isn’t quite this clear-cut. Decades of research have revealed that it’s as mysterious as it is agonising, and there’s a surprising amount of variation in how much monotony each person can handle.

    “I think everybody gets the boredom signal,” says James Danckert, who heads a boredom lab at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. “Some people are really, really good at dealing with it though.”

    In 2014, a team of social psychologists from the University of Virginia discovered during a series of experiments on mind wandering that many participants - around 25% of women and 67% of men - were deliberately electrocuting themselves when they were left alone in a room for just 15 minutes, purely for something to do. One person shocked themselves nearly 200 times.

    And from the man who diligently recreated a Babylonian feast from a recipe on a 3,750-year-old clay tablet to the woman who resat her school exam paper from seven years ago out of mild curiosity, the recent lockdowns have revealed that peculiar and desperate strategies for dealing with boredom are very much not limited to a lab environment.

    At the other end of the spectrum, some people actively seek out situations which might normally be considered tedious. The hermit Christopher Knight, who drove to a forest in Maine in 1986 and didn’t emerge for 27 years, claims he never got bored once - though by his own admission, for the majority of his time there, he was occupied with doing absolutely nothing. 

    So, why is that?

    One of the earliest accounts of boredom dates back to Roman times, when the philosopher Seneca may have begun the long tradition of moaning about it. During a ponderous exchange of letters with a friend, he asked, “Quo usque eadem” - “How much longer [must we endure] the same things?”, and followed up with, “I do nothing new. I see nothing new. Eventually, there’s a nausea even of this”.

    ...view full instructions


    What is the primary purpose of the passage?

    Solutions

    At the start of the passage, the author explains how what can be considered to be thrilling can often turn out to be boring for some people. Then the author ponders on what causes boredom and how different people deal with boredom. The author gives varying responses to boredom and ponders on how different people have different tolerance for it. Hence, the primary purpose of the passage is to  talk about how people deal with boredom in different ways.
    Option B: Causes of boredom are not discussed in the passage.
    Option C: No effective solution for boredom has been given in the passage.
    Option D: The passage is not a narration.
    Option A: This correctly states the primary purpose of the passage.

  • Question 8/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Answer the given questions based on the passage given below:

    The thumping of valves. The cacophonous rumbling. The powerful kick in the back as the rocket’s engines ignite. The alarmingly realistic possibility that these will be your last precious moments alive.

    By all accounts, the journey into space is a thrilling ride. During the second launch of his career in 1982, the cosmonaut Valentin Lebedev sensed the rocket swaying to the right and the left, as if it were losing balance… then finally, he felt himself leave the ground. As the crew soared into space, they yelled “G-o-o-u” - it’s not entirely clear why.

    But though Lebedev’s space adventure began with a hit of adrenaline, this soon wore off - and just a week into his seven-month mission aboard the space station Salyut 7, he was bored. In reality, hurtling through low-Earth orbit at around 8 km/s (17,900mph) in a small aluminium can, was not enough to absorb him. As he wrote in his diary, “the drab routine has begun”.

    We tend to think of boredom as a fairly straightforward response to tedious activities. After all, it’s rare to find someone who claims to enjoy washing up or doing their taxes - and it’s deeply suspicious when you do. Except that boredom isn’t quite this clear-cut. Decades of research have revealed that it’s as mysterious as it is agonising, and there’s a surprising amount of variation in how much monotony each person can handle.

    “I think everybody gets the boredom signal,” says James Danckert, who heads a boredom lab at the University of Waterloo, Ontario. “Some people are really, really good at dealing with it though.”

    In 2014, a team of social psychologists from the University of Virginia discovered during a series of experiments on mind wandering that many participants - around 25% of women and 67% of men - were deliberately electrocuting themselves when they were left alone in a room for just 15 minutes, purely for something to do. One person shocked themselves nearly 200 times.

    And from the man who diligently recreated a Babylonian feast from a recipe on a 3,750-year-old clay tablet to the woman who resat her school exam paper from seven years ago out of mild curiosity, the recent lockdowns have revealed that peculiar and desperate strategies for dealing with boredom are very much not limited to a lab environment.

    At the other end of the spectrum, some people actively seek out situations which might normally be considered tedious. The hermit Christopher Knight, who drove to a forest in Maine in 1986 and didn’t emerge for 27 years, claims he never got bored once - though by his own admission, for the majority of his time there, he was occupied with doing absolutely nothing. 

    So, why is that?

    One of the earliest accounts of boredom dates back to Roman times, when the philosopher Seneca may have begun the long tradition of moaning about it. During a ponderous exchange of letters with a friend, he asked, “Quo usque eadem” - “How much longer [must we endure] the same things?”, and followed up with, “I do nothing new. I see nothing new. Eventually, there’s a nausea even of this”.

    ...view full instructions


    Why does the author talk about the cosmonaut's experience? 

    Solutions

    The author talks about the cosmonaut's experience to show that even exciting experiences can get boring with time.
    Option A: The intent is not to understand, rather show.
    Option B: This is not the intention of the author.
    Option D: The idea is not restricted to spacetravel.
    Option C is the answer. 

  • Question 9/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    U.S. health officials are urging Americans to get their flu shots this year in the hopes of thwarting a winter “twindemic”—a situation in which both influenza and COVID-19 spread and sicken the public. But a new study suggests that there could be another key reason to get a flu jab this year: it might reduce your risk of COVID-19. The research, released as a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicates that a flu vaccine against the influenza virus may also trigger the body to produce broad infection-fighting molecules that combat the pandemic-causing coronavirus. The paper is in line with some other recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals that point to similar effects. But researchers caution the research is preliminary and needs to be bolstered by more rigorous experiments.

    In the new study, Mihai Netea, an infectious disease immunologist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, and his colleagues combed through their hospital’s databases to see if employees who got a flu shot during the 2019-2020 season were more or less likely to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 per cent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 per cent of nonvaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 per cent of vaccinated ones did. Netea and his team posted their findings on the preprint server MedRxiv on October 16.

    These findings do not prove that flu vaccines prevent COVID-19, however. “This is an intriguing study, but it doesn’t provide definitive evidence,” says Ellen Foxman, an immunobiologist and clinical pathologist at the Yale School of Medicine. There could be other explanations for the association the Radboud scientists and their colleagues found. For instance, people who choose to receive a flu shot may be more health-conscious and more likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines than individuals who do not get vaccinated. Netea agrees, noting that overall behaviour, rather than the shot, might have made people in the former group less likely to get sick in his study.

    Studies such as these, which find correlations between behaviours and outcomes, cannot establish cause and effect. Determining whether flu shots actually prevent COVID-19 “requires big clinical trials at the level of the [general] population,” says Maziar Divangahi, a pulmonary immunologist at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Netea acknowledges this but points out that such a clinical trial would require a randomly chosen control group of subjects to be denied flu shots. “That’s not ethical,” he says.

    ...view full instructions


    Which of the following options best describes the main finding of the new study mentioned in the first two paragraphs?

    Solutions

    The first two paragraphs present the following details: "...The research, released as a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicates that a flu vaccine against the influenza virus may also trigger the body to produce broad infection-fighting molecules that combat the pandemic-causing coronavirus..." and "...Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 per cent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 per cent of nonvaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 per cent of vaccinated ones did..."

    Thus, taking flu shots reduces the likelihood of a person contracting the coronavirus. It reduces the risk of testing positive. This point is clearly captured by Option B.

    Option A: The research is not conclusive and talks about reducing the risk. We cannot infer if it makes a person "immune" to the coronavirus. In fact, it is stated that 1.33% of those who got flu shots tested positive. Hence, Option A is not true and can be eliminated.

    Option C: This does not capture the main finding of the research. No such discussion concerning the "innate fighting ability" is undertaken. While the author does indicate that the flu shots trigger the production of broad infection-fighting molecules against the coronavirus, it cannot be interpreted as "boosting the body's innate ability to fend off any infection."

    Option D: The statement here is unspecific; it appears as a general comment {"contracting a virus"; which virus?}.

    Of the given options, Option B correctly presents the main finding of the new study mentioned in the first two paragraphs.

  • Question 10/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    U.S. health officials are urging Americans to get their flu shots this year in the hopes of thwarting a winter “twindemic”—a situation in which both influenza and COVID-19 spread and sicken the public. But a new study suggests that there could be another key reason to get a flu jab this year: it might reduce your risk of COVID-19. The research, released as a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicates that a flu vaccine against the influenza virus may also trigger the body to produce broad infection-fighting molecules that combat the pandemic-causing coronavirus. The paper is in line with some other recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals that point to similar effects. But researchers caution the research is preliminary and needs to be bolstered by more rigorous experiments.

    In the new study, Mihai Netea, an infectious disease immunologist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, and his colleagues combed through their hospital’s databases to see if employees who got a flu shot during the 2019-2020 season were more or less likely to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 per cent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 per cent of nonvaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 per cent of vaccinated ones did. Netea and his team posted their findings on the preprint server MedRxiv on October 16.

    These findings do not prove that flu vaccines prevent COVID-19, however. “This is an intriguing study, but it doesn’t provide definitive evidence,” says Ellen Foxman, an immunobiologist and clinical pathologist at the Yale School of Medicine. There could be other explanations for the association the Radboud scientists and their colleagues found. For instance, people who choose to receive a flu shot may be more health-conscious and more likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines than individuals who do not get vaccinated. Netea agrees, noting that overall behaviour, rather than the shot, might have made people in the former group less likely to get sick in his study.

    Studies such as these, which find correlations between behaviours and outcomes, cannot establish cause and effect. Determining whether flu shots actually prevent COVID-19 “requires big clinical trials at the level of the [general] population,” says Maziar Divangahi, a pulmonary immunologist at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Netea acknowledges this but points out that such a clinical trial would require a randomly chosen control group of subjects to be denied flu shots. “That’s not ethical,” he says.

    ...view full instructions


    Based on the passage, which of the following statements is definitely true:

    Solutions

    Let us check the validity of the statements:

    Option A: The author makes the following point in this regard: {"...Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 per cent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 per cent of non-vaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 per cent of vaccinated ones did..."} The percentage values are given, not the numbers. Considering both as being equivalent would result in a major fallacy {percentage vs numbers}. Thus, Option A is not necessarily true and not the required answer.

    Option B: The author states the following: {"...For instance, people who choose to receive a flu shot may be more health-conscious and more likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines than individuals who do not get vaccinated..."} The discussion evidently presents the likelihood of something being true and not an absolutely true claim. Thus, the option changes a statement from likely to be true to definitely true. Hence, it is incorrect.

    Option C: This point is being conveyed across the passage {"...But researchers caution the research is preliminary and needs to be bolstered by more rigorous experiments..."}. Hence, this is true. 

    Option D: Netea acknowledges the need for clinical trials and not their ethicality. He is the one who presents this idea of it being unethical. {"...Netea acknowledges this but points out that such a clinical trial would require a randomly chosen control group of subjects to be denied flu shots. “That’s not ethical,” he says..."}. Hence, this option can be eliminated.

    Therefore, Option C is the correct answer.

  • Question 11/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    U.S. health officials are urging Americans to get their flu shots this year in the hopes of thwarting a winter “twindemic”—a situation in which both influenza and COVID-19 spread and sicken the public. But a new study suggests that there could be another key reason to get a flu jab this year: it might reduce your risk of COVID-19. The research, released as a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicates that a flu vaccine against the influenza virus may also trigger the body to produce broad infection-fighting molecules that combat the pandemic-causing coronavirus. The paper is in line with some other recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals that point to similar effects. But researchers caution the research is preliminary and needs to be bolstered by more rigorous experiments.

    In the new study, Mihai Netea, an infectious disease immunologist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, and his colleagues combed through their hospital’s databases to see if employees who got a flu shot during the 2019-2020 season were more or less likely to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 per cent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 per cent of nonvaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 per cent of vaccinated ones did. Netea and his team posted their findings on the preprint server MedRxiv on October 16.

    These findings do not prove that flu vaccines prevent COVID-19, however. “This is an intriguing study, but it doesn’t provide definitive evidence,” says Ellen Foxman, an immunobiologist and clinical pathologist at the Yale School of Medicine. There could be other explanations for the association the Radboud scientists and their colleagues found. For instance, people who choose to receive a flu shot may be more health-conscious and more likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines than individuals who do not get vaccinated. Netea agrees, noting that overall behaviour, rather than the shot, might have made people in the former group less likely to get sick in his study.

    Studies such as these, which find correlations between behaviours and outcomes, cannot establish cause and effect. Determining whether flu shots actually prevent COVID-19 “requires big clinical trials at the level of the [general] population,” says Maziar Divangahi, a pulmonary immunologist at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Netea acknowledges this but points out that such a clinical trial would require a randomly chosen control group of subjects to be denied flu shots. “That’s not ethical,” he says.

    ...view full instructions


    The author presents the opinion of Ellen Foxman to

    Solutions

    The following is presented in this regard: {...These findings do not prove that flu vaccines prevent COVID-19, however. “This is an intriguing study, but it doesn’t provide definitive evidence,” says Ellen Foxman, an immunobiologist and clinical pathologist at the Yale School of Medicine. There could be other explanations for the association the Radboud scientists and their colleagues found. For instance, people who choose to receive a flu shot may be more health-conscious and more likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines than individuals who do not get vaccinated...} Foxman highlights how the study is not definitive evidence. The author then goes on to add that alternative explanations could exist for the results observed. This portrays the research as an unverified study requiring more evidence to be considered conclusive and acceptable. Option D aptly depicts this idea.

    Option A: Although close, the spotlight is not on the intriguing nature of the research but rather on the lack of definitive evidence. The option misses out on this critical point, and is, hence, incorrect.

    Option B: The research is not presented or hinted at as "implausible". Thus, we can easily eliminate this as a possible choice.

    Option C: The need for more experimentation/evidence is presented earlier on. This is not the reason behind the author citing Foxman.

    Hence, Option D is the correct answer.

  • Question 12/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions:

    U.S. health officials are urging Americans to get their flu shots this year in the hopes of thwarting a winter “twindemic”—a situation in which both influenza and COVID-19 spread and sicken the public. But a new study suggests that there could be another key reason to get a flu jab this year: it might reduce your risk of COVID-19. The research, released as a preprint that has not yet been peer-reviewed, indicates that a flu vaccine against the influenza virus may also trigger the body to produce broad infection-fighting molecules that combat the pandemic-causing coronavirus. The paper is in line with some other recent studies published in peer-reviewed journals that point to similar effects. But researchers caution the research is preliminary and needs to be bolstered by more rigorous experiments.

    In the new study, Mihai Netea, an infectious disease immunologist at Radboud University Medical Center in the Netherlands, and his colleagues combed through their hospital’s databases to see if employees who got a flu shot during the 2019-2020 season were more or less likely to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Workers who received a flu vaccine, the researchers found, were 39 per cent less likely to test positive for the coronavirus as of June 1, 2020. While 2.23 per cent of nonvaccinated employees tested positive, only 1.33 per cent of vaccinated ones did. Netea and his team posted their findings on the preprint server MedRxiv on October 16.

    These findings do not prove that flu vaccines prevent COVID-19, however. “This is an intriguing study, but it doesn’t provide definitive evidence,” says Ellen Foxman, an immunobiologist and clinical pathologist at the Yale School of Medicine. There could be other explanations for the association the Radboud scientists and their colleagues found. For instance, people who choose to receive a flu shot may be more health-conscious and more likely to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines than individuals who do not get vaccinated. Netea agrees, noting that overall behaviour, rather than the shot, might have made people in the former group less likely to get sick in his study.

    Studies such as these, which find correlations between behaviours and outcomes, cannot establish cause and effect. Determining whether flu shots actually prevent COVID-19 “requires big clinical trials at the level of the [general] population,” says Maziar Divangahi, a pulmonary immunologist at the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center. Netea acknowledges this but points out that such a clinical trial would require a randomly chosen control group of subjects to be denied flu shots. “That’s not ethical,” he says.

    ...view full instructions


    Netea gives one argument to undermine Divangahi's suggestion in the last paragraph. Which of the following represents a second argument that could undermine his suggestion?

    Solutions

    Option A: The statement here presents the ramification of heeding to Divangahi's suggestion. The proposition by Maziar to test the viability of the flu-shots is presented under the assumption that such a process would be beneficial for the general masses. However, if it has such grave and negative consequences, it cannot be utilized and the suggestion does not hold. By the time the suggested procedure is completed, many individuals will lose their lives. Thus, the statement in (A) greatly undermines Maziar Divangahi’s suggestion.

    Option B: The point here does not attack the usefulness of the suggestion by Maziar. The process is possible, albeit gradual and to some extent, a bit inefficient. Thus, the statement in (B) does not do much to weaken the suggestion.

    Option C: The ethical debate around the subject might or might not weaken the suggestion. We cannot conclusively discern this element having a major impact and thus, we can eliminate this option. {A comment is already made in this regard}

    Option D: The statement here does little to weaken the point. Having alternative ways does not discard the utility of conducting these trials {as suggested by Maziar}.

    Hence, Option A is the correct answer.

  • Question 13/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

    A new paper in the journal NeuroImage has shown that synchrony can be seen in the brain activities of the audience and performer. Data for the musician, collected during a performance, was compared to those for the listener during playback. In all, there were 12 selections of familiar musical works, including “Edelweiss,” Franz Schubert’s “Ave Maria,” “Auld Lang Syne” and Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” The brain activities of 16 listeners were compared to that of a single violinist.

    It was found that it is the right brain hemisphere that is most often associated with interpretation of musical melody—in contrast to the left hemisphere, which is specialized for the interpretation of speech. These sites involve “mirror neurons,” brain cells that are thought to enables a mirroring or internalization of others’ thoughts and actions.

    Mirror neurons both control movement and respond to the sight of it, giving rise to the notion that their activity during passive observation is a silent rehearsal for when they become engaged in active movement. They were once thought to be a biological substrate for mimicry and, more importantly, empathy—the source of our understanding of the actions and intentions of others. Mirror neurons have been faddishly implicated in everything from autism to substance abuse. Nevertheless, nerves that control movement are generally involved in perception as well. And this arrangement is especially true of music, in which physical movement emphasizes melodic gesture or follows a rhythmic beat. Indeed, the auditory cortex enlists other regions of the brain that control movement, showing an innate connection between movement and our understanding of music.

    Because music is a group endeavor, it is often used as the context to study coordinated brain function. Synchronized brain responses among music listeners have been measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in some studies, while others have examined the coordinated actions of performers by tracking the electrical activities of their brain using electroencephalography.

    The various methods used in exploring these relationships have their advantages and shortcomings. For example, the new paper used a technique called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)—which measures the flow of oxygen-rich blood—and it cannot penetrate the brain to investigate deeper structures as well as fMRI does. The major advantage of fNIRS is that no large, expensive instrument is needed so subjects are comparatively unconstrained when they are tested: it would have been impossible for a violinist to play in an MRI machine.

    It is remarkable that the observed degree of synchronization between the performer and audience was connected to enjoyment of the music. Such pleasure could provide a powerful means by which music promotes positive social behavior. The pleasantness of music has been attributed to synchronization of electrical activity in the right hemisphere of the brain. Music commands greater attention when it is pleasant, which could contribute to one’s feeling of being swept away when listening to a favorite piece. While the authors of the NeuroImage paper suggest that the audience’s enjoyment was linked to the music matching pattern expectations, other studies have shown that surprise is associated with the greatest degree of musical pleasure. Remarkably, even sad music can bring great enjoyment. For example, Mimì’s illness and death in the opera La Bohème is filled with tragic sadness, endless regrets and lost opportunities for redemption, but the music ultimately leads the audience to a bittersweet sense of transcendence.

    ...view full instructions


    Which of the following is the primary conclusion of the research discussed in the passage?

    Solutions

    The entire passage discusses the findings of a new paper in the journal NeuroImage and explains them. According to the paper, the experiments showed that there was synchronization in the brain activity of the performer and the audience. The author then goes on to give a plausible explanation for the synchronization seen. The remarkable conclusion derived from this paper was that the level of synchronization between the brain activities depended on how much the audience enjoyed the music. Option A, which captures both facts that there was synchronization and that synchronization varied with enjoyment is the right answer.

    Option B is incorrect as no such claim is made in the passage. The author does not say that the paper confirms the role of mirror neurons.

    Option C is incorrect as well, as discussing positive social behaviour is not a conclusion of the research discussed in the passage.

    Option D is suggested by the authors of the paper. But it is not the primary finding of their research.

    Option A best expresses the main idea of the passage, and hence it is the correct answer.

  • Question 14/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

    A new paper in the journal NeuroImage has shown that synchrony can be seen in the brain activities of the audience and performer. Data for the musician, collected during a performance, was compared to those for the listener during playback. In all, there were 12 selections of familiar musical works, including “Edelweiss,” Franz Schubert’s “Ave Maria,” “Auld Lang Syne” and Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” The brain activities of 16 listeners were compared to that of a single violinist.

    It was found that it is the right brain hemisphere that is most often associated with interpretation of musical melody—in contrast to the left hemisphere, which is specialized for the interpretation of speech. These sites involve “mirror neurons,” brain cells that are thought to enables a mirroring or internalization of others’ thoughts and actions.

    Mirror neurons both control movement and respond to the sight of it, giving rise to the notion that their activity during passive observation is a silent rehearsal for when they become engaged in active movement. They were once thought to be a biological substrate for mimicry and, more importantly, empathy—the source of our understanding of the actions and intentions of others. Mirror neurons have been faddishly implicated in everything from autism to substance abuse. Nevertheless, nerves that control movement are generally involved in perception as well. And this arrangement is especially true of music, in which physical movement emphasizes melodic gesture or follows a rhythmic beat. Indeed, the auditory cortex enlists other regions of the brain that control movement, showing an innate connection between movement and our understanding of music.

    Because music is a group endeavor, it is often used as the context to study coordinated brain function. Synchronized brain responses among music listeners have been measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in some studies, while others have examined the coordinated actions of performers by tracking the electrical activities of their brain using electroencephalography.

    The various methods used in exploring these relationships have their advantages and shortcomings. For example, the new paper used a technique called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)—which measures the flow of oxygen-rich blood—and it cannot penetrate the brain to investigate deeper structures as well as fMRI does. The major advantage of fNIRS is that no large, expensive instrument is needed so subjects are comparatively unconstrained when they are tested: it would have been impossible for a violinist to play in an MRI machine.

    It is remarkable that the observed degree of synchronization between the performer and audience was connected to enjoyment of the music. Such pleasure could provide a powerful means by which music promotes positive social behavior. The pleasantness of music has been attributed to synchronization of electrical activity in the right hemisphere of the brain. Music commands greater attention when it is pleasant, which could contribute to one’s feeling of being swept away when listening to a favorite piece. While the authors of the NeuroImage paper suggest that the audience’s enjoyment was linked to the music matching pattern expectations, other studies have shown that surprise is associated with the greatest degree of musical pleasure. Remarkably, even sad music can bring great enjoyment. For example, Mimì’s illness and death in the opera La Bohème is filled with tragic sadness, endless regrets and lost opportunities for redemption, but the music ultimately leads the audience to a bittersweet sense of transcendence.

    ...view full instructions


    All of the following ideas are discussed in the third pagaraph EXCEPT:

    Solutions

    Option A is discussed in the passage. It can be observed from the lines, “Mirror neurons both control movement and respond to the sight of it, giving rise to the notion that their activity during passive observation is a silent rehearsal for when they become engaged in active movement.” Hence, this option is incorrect

    Refer to the lines "nerves that control movement are generally involved in perception as well. And this arrangement is especially true of music, in which physical movement emphasizes melodic gesture or follows a rhythmic beat." Option C is also correct as we can infer that the movement that happens when we listen to music, is dance. Hence, this option is incorrect.

    Option D can also be inferred from the lines, “were once thought to be a biological substrate for mimicry and, more importantly, empathy—the source of our understanding of the actions and intentions of others.”

    Option B cannot be inferred from the passage as the author says that mirror neurons have been faddishly implicated in the same. Thus, the author suggests that it is not true. Hence, option B is the correct answer. 

  • Question 15/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

    A new paper in the journal NeuroImage has shown that synchrony can be seen in the brain activities of the audience and performer. Data for the musician, collected during a performance, was compared to those for the listener during playback. In all, there were 12 selections of familiar musical works, including “Edelweiss,” Franz Schubert’s “Ave Maria,” “Auld Lang Syne” and Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” The brain activities of 16 listeners were compared to that of a single violinist.

    It was found that it is the right brain hemisphere that is most often associated with interpretation of musical melody—in contrast to the left hemisphere, which is specialized for the interpretation of speech. These sites involve “mirror neurons,” brain cells that are thought to enables a mirroring or internalization of others’ thoughts and actions.

    Mirror neurons both control movement and respond to the sight of it, giving rise to the notion that their activity during passive observation is a silent rehearsal for when they become engaged in active movement. They were once thought to be a biological substrate for mimicry and, more importantly, empathy—the source of our understanding of the actions and intentions of others. Mirror neurons have been faddishly implicated in everything from autism to substance abuse. Nevertheless, nerves that control movement are generally involved in perception as well. And this arrangement is especially true of music, in which physical movement emphasizes melodic gesture or follows a rhythmic beat. Indeed, the auditory cortex enlists other regions of the brain that control movement, showing an innate connection between movement and our understanding of music.

    Because music is a group endeavor, it is often used as the context to study coordinated brain function. Synchronized brain responses among music listeners have been measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in some studies, while others have examined the coordinated actions of performers by tracking the electrical activities of their brain using electroencephalography.

    The various methods used in exploring these relationships have their advantages and shortcomings. For example, the new paper used a technique called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)—which measures the flow of oxygen-rich blood—and it cannot penetrate the brain to investigate deeper structures as well as fMRI does. The major advantage of fNIRS is that no large, expensive instrument is needed so subjects are comparatively unconstrained when they are tested: it would have been impossible for a violinist to play in an MRI machine.

    It is remarkable that the observed degree of synchronization between the performer and audience was connected to enjoyment of the music. Such pleasure could provide a powerful means by which music promotes positive social behavior. The pleasantness of music has been attributed to synchronization of electrical activity in the right hemisphere of the brain. Music commands greater attention when it is pleasant, which could contribute to one’s feeling of being swept away when listening to a favorite piece. While the authors of the NeuroImage paper suggest that the audience’s enjoyment was linked to the music matching pattern expectations, other studies have shown that surprise is associated with the greatest degree of musical pleasure. Remarkably, even sad music can bring great enjoyment. For example, Mimì’s illness and death in the opera La Bohème is filled with tragic sadness, endless regrets and lost opportunities for redemption, but the music ultimately leads the audience to a bittersweet sense of transcendence.

    ...view full instructions


    Which of the following is true with respect to the different methods of studying synchronized brain responses?

    Solutions

    Option A is incorrect as the degree does not match with the discussion undertaken in the passage. The author says that between fNIRS and fMRI, the former is not as large or expensive as the latter. Of the given methods (electroencephalography, fNIRS and fMRI), since no detailed comparison has been made, a comment involving superlatives would be incorrect.

    Option B is incorrect on similar grounds (as that of Option A). Since no detailed/"exhaustive" comparison has been made, we cannot say if fMRIs are more advantageous than fNIRS. 

    Option C is untrue since the author simply mentions the method of measuring utilised in the studies. The functionality has not been discussed and the author plainly states that in some studies, electroencephalography was used to sample the data.

    Option D is true and has been mentioned in the passage: "...The various methods used in exploring these relationships have their advantages and shortcomings. For example, the new paper used a technique called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)—which measures the flow of oxygen-rich blood—and it cannot penetrate the brain to investigate deeper structures as well as fMRI does..." Thus, fMRIs can provide more detailed information as compared to fNIRS.

  • Question 16/24
    3 / -1

    Directions For Questions

    Read the passage carefully and answer the following questions

    A new paper in the journal NeuroImage has shown that synchrony can be seen in the brain activities of the audience and performer. Data for the musician, collected during a performance, was compared to those for the listener during playback. In all, there were 12 selections of familiar musical works, including “Edelweiss,” Franz Schubert’s “Ave Maria,” “Auld Lang Syne” and Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” The brain activities of 16 listeners were compared to that of a single violinist.

    It was found that it is the right brain hemisphere that is most often associated with interpretation of musical melody—in contrast to the left hemisphere, which is specialized for the interpretation of speech. These sites involve “mirror neurons,” brain cells that are thought to enables a mirroring or internalization of others’ thoughts and actions.

    Mirror neurons both control movement and respond to the sight of it, giving rise to the notion that their activity during passive observation is a silent rehearsal for when they become engaged in active movement. They were once thought to be a biological substrate for mimicry and, more importantly, empathy—the source of our understanding of the actions and intentions of others. Mirror neurons have been faddishly implicated in everything from autism to substance abuse. Nevertheless, nerves that control movement are generally involved in perception as well. And this arrangement is especially true of music, in which physical movement emphasizes melodic gesture or follows a rhythmic beat. Indeed, the auditory cortex enlists other regions of the brain that control movement, showing an innate connection between movement and our understanding of music.

    Because music is a group endeavor, it is often used as the context to study coordinated brain function. Synchronized brain responses among music listeners have been measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) in some studies, while others have examined the coordinated actions of performers by tracking the electrical activities of their brain using electroencephalography.

    The various methods used in exploring these relationships have their advantages and shortcomings. For example, the new paper used a technique called functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS)—which measures the flow of oxygen-rich blood—and it cannot penetrate the brain to investigate deeper structures as well as fMRI does. The major advantage of fNIRS is that no large, expensive instrument is needed so subjects are comparatively unconstrained when they are tested: it would have been impossible for a violinist to play in an MRI machine.

    It is remarkable that the observed degree of synchronization between the performer and audience was connected to enjoyment of the music. Such pleasure could provide a powerful means by which music promotes positive social behavior. The pleasantness of music has been attributed to synchronization of electrical activity in the right hemisphere of the brain. Music commands greater attention when it is pleasant, which could contribute to one’s feeling of being swept away when listening to a favorite piece. While the authors of the NeuroImage paper suggest that the audience’s enjoyment was linked to the music matching pattern expectations, other studies have shown that surprise is associated with the greatest degree of musical pleasure. Remarkably, even sad music can bring great enjoyment. For example, Mimì’s illness and death in the opera La Bohème is filled with tragic sadness, endless regrets and lost opportunities for redemption, but the music ultimately leads the audience to a bittersweet sense of transcendence.

    ...view full instructions


    Choose the number of statements that can be inferred from the choices given below.
    (i): When the music pattern matches the audience’s expectation, the audience tend to like that piece of music more.
    (ii): Pleasant music is usually more enjoyable than sad music, with La Boheme being an exception.
    (iii):There is greater activity in the right hemisphere of the brain when we listen to pleasant music.

    Solutions

    Option (i) cannot be inferred as the last paragraph states that different studies proclaim different results.

    Option (ii) also cannot be inferred as such a comparison has never been made in the passage. Also La Boheme is just an example that is stated in the passage, and it is not mentioned as an outright exception.
    Option (iii) is also incorrect as there is no increased activity of the brain, but increased synchronization of electrical activity in the brain.

    Hence, none of the statements are correct. Option D is the correct answer.

  • Question 17/24
    3 / -1

    Read the following paragraph and choose the option that best captures its essence.

    For one thing, reality looks the same. For another thing, reality feels completely different. And in this new reality, many old paradigms no longer work. Like when you upgrade your operating system, you have to upgrade much of your software. In fact, most of the old ways of operating are now defunct. You can't apply the old rules of power in this new reality. Your energetic engine has changed. Gasoline doesn't work in your Tesla. Your ego may value being an expert. It may value being the know it all, having all the answers, being better than and smarter than. Yet in this new consciousness, approaching things with a bigger mind is far more powerful.

    Solutions

    The main point that the author addresses through the para is how to adjust in this new changing world. He says that in the new reality, the old paradigms no longer work and the old ways of operating become defunct. He gives the example of how one has to change the software when the operating system is upgraded. So, he advises the readers to change with the changing times.
    B is straightforwardly incorrect as it doesn’t go hand in hand with what is stated in the para.
    C is also incorrect. It suggests that one should word harder in tough times which is not quite what the author wants to convey.
    Between A and D, D is the better option to go with. A says that one cannot change the direction of the wind which doesn’t seem to fit with the gist of the passage.
    D correctly sums up the whole para. Thus, it is the correct answer.

  • Question 18/24
    3 / -1

    Read the following paragraph and choose the option that best captures its essence.

    The American economy is improving and businesses are on track to hire 5 percent more young workers in 2017 than they did in 2015. This sounds quite nice on the surface, but here is the reality: Today's college grads are not well prepared to enter the workforce upon their graduation. They are often the "deers in the headlights" of our nation's workforce when it comes to employment preparedness. And worse, these young grads don't know what they don't know, thinking a bit too highly of themselves as entry-level workforce contributors.

    Solutions

    D is straightforwardly incorrect. The author reasons that the college grads of the country are not prepared to enter the workforce even though economy is on track. The overall implication of the para is negative. However, this version suggests that the entire situation is positive even though the college grads are not prepared.
    B and C have a major flaw. They are referring to youth in general while the para talks about college grads in specific.
    A correctly encompasses the main theme of the para and thus is the correct answer.

  • Question 19/24
    3 / -1

    In the passage below, there are four sentences in jumbled order. These are labelled as P, Q, R, and S. Find out the proper order for the four sentences.

    1. The reason, the researchers surmised, was their high-marine-fat diet—in other words, fish oil.

    2. The hype didn’t stop with heart disease. Soon, fish oil was being hailed as a panacea. It could help prevent dementia, depression, obesity and even cancer!

    3. Incidence of heart disease, which once afflicted relatively few Americans, had shot up since the turn of the century, and here, seemingly, was a simple solution.

    4. In 1971, a team of Danish researchers stationed on Greenland’s northwest coast found that a local Inuit community had remarkably low levels of diabetes and heart disease.

    Solutions

    From reading the sentences, we can observe that it is about a team of researchers who found a community of people with very low levels of diabetes and heart disease.

    The discovery of a local Inuit community with remarkably low levels of diabetes and heart disease is tied to the idea in 3, which compares the situation in America. 4-1 forms a pair since 1 explains that the low levels of disease is possibly correlated to the consumption of fish oil. Statement 3 follows this by emphasising the implications of the discovery for Americans and how it was hyped up as a solution. 2 closes the discussion by elaborating on the hype around fish oil and how it suddenly became portrayed as a possible remedy for a range of other illnesses other than heart disease.

    Thus, the required sequence is 4132.

  • Question 20/24
    3 / -1

    Four sentences are given below. These sentences, when rearranged in proper order, form a meaningful paragraph. Rearrange the sentences and enter the correct order as the answer.

    1. Their growing costs and a growing economy-must be reckoned with realistically.
    2. Central programmes persist and in some cases grow.
    3. As demand expands, programmes expand.
    4. It is extremely difficult to curtail them.
    Solutions

    Statement 2 introduces the main subject of the paragraph which is growing in central programmes. Statement 3 is the logical extension of 2. Statement 4 follows 3 as it talks about curtailing the expanding program which is mentioned in 3. Option 1 correctly concludes the paragraph.

    The correct sequence is 2341. 

  • Question 21/24
    3 / -1

    A paragraph containing some information is given below. 4 different summaries are given for this paragraph. Choose the one which best summarizes the given paragraph.

    As an Australian in a country where fortunes are easily made and many opportunities for wealth creation crossed my path many cannot understand my attitude. What they don't realize is that I have wealth beyond whatever life provides. It comes in the form of a strong connection to the Spirit of the Universe and the benefits of it providing for my needs.

    Solutions

    In the given paragraph, the author states that people were surprised with her decision to not grab opportunities to create wealth.
    But they do not realize that she is having much more wealth than all that life can offer. That comes through the spiritual connection with the universe.
    Option A is true but it doesn’t summarize the entire paragraph.
    Option B is the main essence of the paragraph. Hence, it is the correct answer.
    Option C is false as she did not compare her status with anyone.
    Option D is true but it doesn’t capture the concept that the author is valuing the spiritual connection more than any material wealth.
    Hence, B is the correct answer.

  • Question 22/24
    3 / -1

    Five sentences are given below labeled as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Of these, four sentences, when arranged properly, make a meaningful and coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out.

    1) Even in the case of human beings, uncertain as their actions seem to be, we can predict their actions when our knowledge of the factors is sufficiently complete.
    2) In other fields, too, the scientist can predict with as much certainty as does the astronomer, provided his knowledge of the factors concerned is as complete as is the knowledge which the astronomer has of the solar system.
    3) The astronomer, knowing the relations of the members of the solar system, the sun and planets can successfully predict the occurrence of lunar and solar eclipses.
    4) It is true that our interest in ourselves is in our minds, and we can know these minds directly but we cannot know directly the mind of another person
    5) In a great many instances we do make such predictions.

    Solutions

    Statement 2, 1, 4 and 5 starts with a continuation word. Therefore, these statements cannot be opening statement of the paragraph. Therefore, statement 3 would be the first statement. Since, in statement 3, astronomy field has been mentioned, statement 2 comes next as author further explains himself. When the author has explained himself in statement 2, there is a parallel drawn from astronomy to the case of human beings, therefore, 321 forms an arrangement. Since statement 1 mentions about prediction; statement 5 should come next. In the whole paragraph, the author has nowhere mentioned about the working of minds. Hence, statement 4 is out of context and correct arrangement would be 3215

  • Question 23/24
    3 / -1

    Five sentences are given below labeled as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Of these, four sentences, when arranged properly, make a meaningful and coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out and key it in as the answer.

    1. From twenty-five to forty he led chiefly a contemplative life, spending months together in a cave, absorbed in his grand reflections,at intervals issuing from his retreat, visiting the marts of commerce, and gaining knowledge from learned men.

    2. The guardianship of this pagan temple was entrusted to the most ancient and honorable families of Mecca, and to it resorted innumerable pilgrims bringing precious offerings

    3. It is seldom that very great men lead either a life of perpetual contemplation or of perpetual activity. Without occasional rest, and leisure to mature knowledge, no man can arm himself with the weapons of the gods.

    4. Mohammad was now second to none in the capital of Arabia, and great thoughts began to fill his soul.

    5. His wife perceived his greatness, and, like Josephine and the wife of Disraeli, forwarded the fortunes of her husband, for he became rich as well as intellectual and noble, and thus had time and leisure to accomplish more easily his work.

    Solutions

    The paragraph mostly talks about Mohammad. Sentence 4 should be the first sentence as it introduces the subject of the paragraph. Sentence 5 talks more about his greatness and hence should come immediately after 4. Sentence 5 states that he had time and leisure and 1 adds more details about the life he led. Sentence 3 concludes the paragraph by stating why occasional rest is required. Hence, the order of the sentences is 4513. Sentence 2 refers to some temple which has not been mentioned before. Hence, it is the odd one out.

  • Question 24/24
    3 / -1

    The following sentences when ordered form a coherent paragraph. Find the correct order.

    1. In this way they have whimsically designated, not merely individuals, but nations; and, in their fondness for pushing a joke, they have not spared even themselves

    2. Thus they have taken a singular delight in exhibiting their most private foibles in a laughable point of view; and have been so successful in their delineations, that there is scarcely a being in actual existence more absolutely present to the public mind than that eccentric personage, John Bull

    3. There is no species of humor in which the English more excel, than that which consists in caricaturing and giving ludicrous appellations, or nicknames

    4. One would think that, in personifying itself, a nation would be apt to picture something grand, heroic and imposing, but it is characteristic of the peculiar humor of the English, and of their love for what is blunt, comic, and familiar, that they have embodied their national oddities in the figure of a sturdy, corpulent old fellow, with a three-cornered hat, red waistcoat, leather breeches, and stout oaken cudgel

    Solutions

    The basic chain of thought that we can see from the sentences is that the British, with their characteristic humour have not spared even themselves in caricaturing and have made the caricature of John Bull which is so perfectly representative of their foibles.

    We see a link between 1 and 4 where 1 states that they haven’t spared even themselves and 4 goes on to add that you would expect that when someone personified themselves they would use something grand or heroic. Also, statement 3 introduces the topic of caricaturing and hence should be the opening sentence of the paragraph. 2 is clearly the closing sentence stating the name of the caricature. Hence, the correct order is 3142.

User Profile
-

Correct (-)

Wrong (-)

Skipped (-)


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Click on Allow to receive notifications
×
Open Now