Xat January 2013: Verbal And Logical Ability Solved Question Paper

Approved & Edited by ProProfs Editorial Team
The editorial team at ProProfs Quizzes consists of a select group of subject experts, trivia writers, and quiz masters who have authored over 10,000 quizzes taken by more than 100 million users. This team includes our in-house seasoned quiz moderators and subject matter experts. Our editorial experts, spread across the world, are rigorously trained using our comprehensive guidelines to ensure that you receive the highest quality quizzes.
Learn about Our Editorial Process
| By Tanmay Shankar
T
Tanmay Shankar
Community Contributor
Quizzes Created: 491 | Total Attempts: 1,792,595
Questions: 30 | Attempts: 772

SettingsSettingsSettings
Xat January 2013: Verbal And Logical Ability Solved Question Paper - Quiz


Questions and Answers
  • 1. 

    Choose the most appropriate option after reading the following statements. Statements: 1. Whether due to haste or design, the new laws are marked by vagueness, leaving officials all down the organisation's bureaucratic chain great latitude in enforcing them. 2. The opacity of the language leaves the law open to manipulation on political grounds.

    • A.

      Statement 2 can be induced from statement 1

    • B.

      Statement 1 can be induced from statement 2

    • C.

      Statement 2 can be deduced from statement 1

    • D.

      Statement 1 can be deduced from statement 2

    • E.

      Statements 1 and 2 are independent

    Correct Answer
    A. Statement 2 can be induced from statement 1
  • 2. 

    Choose the most appropriate option after reading the following statements. Statements: 1. If there is any endeavour whose fruits should be freely available, that endeavour is surely publicly financed science. 2. There is a widespread feeling that the journal publishers who have mediated the scientific exchange for the past century or more are becoming an impediment to free distribution of knowledge. 3. Internet revolution is happening, making knowledge transfer cheaper. Technology permits it; researchers and politicians want it, more public money can be spent on it.

    • A.

      Statement 2 definitely illustrates statement 1

    • B.

      Statement 3 is a facilitating condition for statement 1

    • C.

      Statement 3 states a condition under which statement 1 would be invalid

    • D.

      Statement 2 can be deduced from statement 3 but independent of Statement 1

    • E.

      Statement 1, 2 and 3 are necessarily independent

    Correct Answer
    B. Statement 3 is a facilitating condition for statement 1
    Explanation
    Statement 3 states that the internet revolution is happening, making knowledge transfer cheaper. This implies that the cost of distributing publicly financed science would be reduced, which aligns with statement 1 that the fruits of publicly financed science should be freely available. Therefore, statement 3 acts as a facilitating condition for statement 1.

    Rate this question:

  • 3. 

    Choose the most appropriate option after reading the following statements. Statements: 1. Business schools are ideally positioned to point out when an action that provides a benefit for an individual comes at a cost to society, but in reality they rarely bother. 2. It is part of the malaise that has befallen the political debate on capitalism, which has been taken over by special interests and people who have no faith in a real market-based system. 3. When governments favour the private sector it is all too often by being "pro-business" rather than "pro-market", meaning that favourable conditions are provided to particular institutions rather than to institutions broadly.

    • A.

      Statements 1 and 2 are necessarily dependent

    • B.

      Statements 2 and 3 are necessarily dependent

    • C.

      Statements 2 and 3 may be dependent

    • D.

      Statements 1, 2 and 3 cannot be independent

    • E.

      All the three statements are necessarily independent

    Correct Answer
    D. Statements 1, 2 and 3 cannot be independent
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "Statements 1, 2 and 3 cannot be independent". This means that all three statements are related and cannot exist independently of each other. The explanation for this answer is that statement 1 talks about the role of business schools in pointing out the cost to society of individual benefits, while statement 2 discusses the malaise in the political debate on capitalism. Statement 3 further elaborates on how governments often favor specific institutions rather than promoting a broad market-based system. These statements are interconnected and contribute to the understanding of the topic at hand.

    Rate this question:

  • 4. 

    Direction: Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate option that follows. ________ wolf, meeting with ________ lamb astray from ________ fold, resolved not to lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to ________ lamb ________ wolf's right to eat him.

    • A.

      A, a, the, the, the

    • B.

      The, a, the, a, the

    • C.

      A, a, a, the, the

    • D.

      The, the, the, the, the

    • E.

      The, a, the, a, a

    Correct Answer
    A. A, a, the, the, the
    Explanation
    This sentence is referring to a specific wolf, a specific lamb, and a specific fold. Therefore, "a" is used before "wolf" and "lamb" to indicate that they are specific but not previously mentioned. "The" is used before "fold" because it is a specific fold that the lamb is astray from. "The" is also used before "lamb" in the second blank because it refers back to the specific lamb mentioned earlier. "The" is used before "wolf" in the last blank because it refers back to the specific wolf mentioned earlier.

    Rate this question:

  • 5. 

    Direction: Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate option that follows. ________ bat who fell upon ________ ground and was caught by ________         weasel pleaded to be spared his life. ________ weasel refused, saying that he was by nature ________ enemy of all birds. ________ bat assured him that he was not ________ bird, but ________ mouse, and thus was set free.

    • A.

      A, the, a, the, the, the, the, a

    • B.

      A, the, a, the, a, the, a, a

    • C.

      The, a, a, the, the, a, the, the

    • D.

      A, the, a, the, the, the, a, a

    • E.

      The, a, a, a, the, the, a, a

    Correct Answer
    D. A, the, a, the, the, the, a, a
    Explanation
    The sentence describes a specific bat, ground, weasel, and bird, so the definite article "the" is used before these nouns. The bat and the weasel are singular, so the indefinite article "a" is used before them. The bat claims to be a mouse, which is a singular noun, so the indefinite article "a" is used before it. Therefore, the correct answer is "a, the, a, the, the, the, a, a."

    Rate this question:

  • 6. 

    Direction: Fill in the blanks with the most appropriate option that follows. He got ________ next morning, to be sure, and had his meals ________ usual, though he are ________ and had more, I am afraid, than his usual supply of rum, for he helped himself ________ the bar, scowling and blowing ________ his nose, and no one dared ________ cross him.

    • A.

      Down, like, a little, out of, out, to

    • B.

      Down, as, little, out of, out, to

    • C.

      Downstairs, as, little, out of, out of, through

    • D.

      Downstairs, like, a little, out, of, to

    • E.

      Down, like, a little, of, of, through

    Correct Answer
    B. Down, as, little, out of, out, to
  • 7. 

    Read the following sentence and choose the best alternative which should replace the italicized part of the sentence. To be a great manager requires, strong inter-personal skills, the ability to think fast, and demands a can-do attitude.

    • A.

      Requires strong inter-personal skills, the ability to think fast, and demands

    • B.

      Requires strong inter-personal skills, the ability to think fast, and

    • C.

      Requires strong inter-personal skills, demands the ability to think fast, and

    • D.

      Requiring strong inter-personal skill, an ability to think fast, and demands

    • E.

      Demands strong inter-personal skills, an ability to think fast, but with

    Correct Answer
    B. Requires strong inter-personal skills, the ability to think fast, and
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "requires strong inter-personal skills, the ability to think fast, and". This option provides a parallel structure by using the same verb form "requires" for all the listed qualities. The other options either lack parallelism or introduce unnecessary words.

    Rate this question:

  • 8. 

    Read the following sentence and choose the best alternative which should replace the italicized part of the sentence. The tremendous insight of Einstein was that the passage of time does not appear to be the same while standing still as it does to a person travelling at a speed which is a significant fraction of the speed of light.

    • A.

      While standing still as it does to a person travelling

    • B.

      To a person standing still as to a person travelling

    • C.

      To a person who is standing still as a person who is travelling

    • D.

      While standing still as to travelling

    • E.

      To a person standing still as to a person who travels

    Correct Answer
    B. To a person standing still as to a person travelling
    Explanation
    The correct answer is "to a person standing still as to a person travelling." This alternative maintains parallelism and clarity in the sentence by comparing the experience of time to a person standing still and a person travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

    Rate this question:

  • 9. 

    Read the following sentence and choose the best alternative which should replace the italicized part of the sentence. Economic theory fails to explain the extent to which savings from personal income has shifted to short-term bonds, money- market funds, and other near-term investments by the instability in the futures market.

    • A.

      To which savings from personal income has shifted

    • B.

      Of savings from personal income that has been shifted

    • C.

      Of savings from personal income shifting

    • D.

      to which savings from personal income have shifted

    • E.

      To which savings from personal income have been shifted

    Correct Answer
    D. to which savings from personal income have shifted
    Explanation
    The correct alternative is "to which savings from personal income have shifted" because it agrees with the plural subject "savings" and the plural verb "have shifted." This alternative accurately expresses that the extent to which savings have shifted is the focus of the sentence.

    Rate this question:

  • 10. 

    Read the following sentences and choose the option that best arranges them in a logical order. 1. I was scarcely in position ere my enemies began to arrive, seven or eight of them, running hard, their feet beating out of time along the road and the man with the lantern some paces in front. 2. My curiosity, in a sense, was stronger than my fear, for I could not remain where I was, but crept back to the bank again, whence, sheltering my head behind a bush of broom, I might command the road before our door. 3. Three men ran together, hand in hand; and I made out, even through the mist, that the middle man of this trio was the blind beggar. 4. The next moment his voice showed me that I was right.

    • A.

      1, 2, 3, 4

    • B.

      2, 1, 3, 4

    • C.

      1, 2, 4, 3

    • D.

      1, 3, 4, 2

    • E.

      1, 4, 2, 3

    Correct Answer
    B. 2, 1, 3, 4
    Explanation
    The correct order of the sentences is 2, 1, 3, 4. Sentence 2 sets the scene by describing the narrator's position and their curiosity. Sentence 1 introduces the arrival of the enemies and the man with the lantern. Sentence 3 provides additional details about the appearance of the men, including the fact that the middle man is the blind beggar. Finally, sentence 4 indicates that the narrator's initial assumption about the blind beggar was correct. This order creates a logical progression of events and information.

    Rate this question:

  • 11. 

    Read the following sentences and choose the option that best arranges them in a logical order. 1. Finally he took a wrong turn and ran a few steps past me, towards the hamlet, crying, "Johnny, Black Dog, Dirk," and other names, "you won't leave old Pew, mates-not old Pew!" 2. This quarrel was the saving of us, for while it was still raging, another sound came from the top of the hill on the side of the hamlet-the tramp of horses galloping. 3. And that was plainly the last signal of danger, for, the buccaneers turned at once and ran, separating in every direction, one seaward along the cove, one slant across the hill, and so on, so that in half a minute not a sign of them remained but Pew. 4. Him they had deserted, whether in sheer panic or out of revenge for his ill words and blows I know not; but there he remained behind, tapping up and down the road in a frenzy, and groping and calling for his comrades. 5. Almost at the same time a pistol-shot, flash and report, came from the hedge side.

    • A.

      5, 1, 3, 4, 2

    • B.

      1, 2, 3, 5, 4

    • C.

      2, 5, 3, 4, 1

    • D.

      4, 3, 2, 5, 1

    • E.

      2, 5, 4, 3, 1

    Correct Answer
    C. 2, 5, 3, 4, 1
    Explanation
    The correct order is 2, 5, 3, 4, 1. The logical order of the sentences is as follows: First, a quarrel is happening, which is then interrupted by the sound of horses approaching. This signals danger, causing the buccaneers to scatter and flee. However, Pew is left behind, desperately calling for his comrades. Finally, the protagonist describes how Pew takes a wrong turn and runs past him towards the hamlet, still calling out for his comrades.

    Rate this question:

  • 12. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. 'Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s] he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)". A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do "strategically" lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counteract the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations. Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e., consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more, dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture- specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation sensitivity on consumer expectations. Consider the following assertion and conclusion: Assertion: The meaning of karma in the above passage (refers to first two lines of the paragraph in italics). Conclusion: Belief that long term consequences are important. Now read the following statements carefully: 1. The conclusion will always follow the assertion. 2. The conclusion may follow the assertion. 3. The conclusion may follow the assertion only if an individual lives long enough. 4. The conclusion cannot follow the assertion. Which of the following statement(s) is correct?

    • A.

      1 only

    • B.

      1 and 2

    • C.

      2 only

    • D.

      3 only

    • E.

      4 only

    Correct Answer
    A. 1 only
    Explanation
    The correct answer is 1 only. The assertion states that the meaning of karma in the passage refers to the concept of reaping the consequences of one's actions in future existences. The conclusion states that belief in long term consequences is important. The conclusion follows logically from the assertion because if karma is understood as the belief in reaping consequences in future existences, then it implies a focus on long term consequences.

    Rate this question:

  • 13. 

    Read the following sentences and choose the option that best arranges them in a logical order. 1. As chroniclers of an incremental process, they discover that additional research makes it harder, not easier, to answer questions like: When was oxygen discovered? Who first conceived of energy conservation? 2. Simultaneously, these same historians confront growing difficulties in distinguishing the "scientific" component of past observation and belief from what their predecessors had readily labelled "error" and "superstition". 3. Increasingly, a few of them suspect that these are simply the wrong sorts of questions to ask. Perhaps science does not develop by the accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions. 4. In recent years, however, a few historians of science have been finding it more and more difficult to fulfill the functions that the concept of development-by- accumulation assigns to them.

    • A.

      2, 1, 3, 4

    • B.

      4, 3, 1, 2

    • C.

      4, 2, 3, 1

    • D.

      4, 3, 2, 1

    • E.

      4, 1, 3, 2

    Correct Answer
    E. 4, 1, 3, 2
    Explanation
    The correct order is 4, 1, 3, 2. The first sentence (4) introduces the topic by stating that some historians of science are finding it difficult to fulfill their assigned functions. The second sentence (1) explains that additional research makes it harder to answer certain questions about scientific discoveries. The third sentence (3) suggests that some historians are beginning to question whether science develops through the accumulation of individual discoveries. The final sentence (2) discusses the difficulties historians face in distinguishing between scientific observation and past beliefs labeled as "error" and "superstition."

    Rate this question:

  • 14. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. 'Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s] he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)". A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do "strategically" lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counteract the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations. Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e., consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more, dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture- specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation sensitivity on consumer expectations. "Future existences" in the first paragraph can refer to: 1. Human life, 5 years afterwards 2. Next, birth in human form 3. Next birth in any embodiment Which of the following statement(s) is correct?

    • A.

      1, 2

    • B.

      2, 3

    • C.

      1, 3

    • D.

      2 only

    • E.

      None of the three

    Correct Answer
    B. 2, 3
    Explanation
    The correct answer is 2, 3. The passage states that individuals reap the fruit of their actions in future existences, implying that they will experience the consequences of their actions in their next birth in any embodiment. This suggests that "future existences" refers to both the next birth in human form (option 2) and the next birth in any embodiment (option 3). Therefore, both statements 2 and 3 are correct.

    Rate this question:

  • 15. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. 'Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s] he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)". A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do "strategically" lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counteract the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations. Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e., consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more, dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture- specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation sensitivity on consumer expectations. Which of the following statements, if true, would contradict the first of the three premises mentioned in the first paragraph?

    • A.

      Higher satisfaction leads to lower expectation

    • B.

      Lower expectation leads to long term consequences

    • C.

      Satisfaction depends on achievement and not on expectation

    • D.

      Karma affects our immediate feelings

    • E.

      Lower expectation would lead to lower efforts

    Correct Answer
    C. Satisfaction depends on achievement and not on expectation
    Explanation
    The first premise mentioned in the first paragraph states that individuals have an incentive to strategically lower their expectations because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction. However, if satisfaction depends on achievement and not on expectation, it contradicts this premise. This would suggest that individuals do not need to lower their expectations in order to experience greater satisfaction, as their satisfaction is solely based on their achievements.

    Rate this question:

  • 16. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. 'Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s] he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)". A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do "strategically" lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counteract the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations. Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e., consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more, dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture- specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation sensitivity on consumer expectations. Read the following statements carefully: 1. Temporary feelings and law of karma are independent. 2. As per theory of karma, temporary feelings would not lower the expectation. 3. Temporary feelings and law of karma are contradictory. Which of the following combinations, of statements is consistent with the second premise?

    • A.

      1 only

    • B.

      1 and 2

    • C.

      1 and 3

    • D.

      3 only

    • E.

      1, 2 and 3

    Correct Answer
    D. 3 only
    Explanation
    The passage states that individuals with a long-term orientation, such as those who believe in karma, are less inclined to lower their expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. This implies that temporary feelings and the belief in karma are contradictory, as the belief in karma discourages the act of lowering expectations for temporary satisfaction. Therefore, the combination of statements consistent with the second premise is "3 only."

    Rate this question:

  • 17. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. 'Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s] he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)". A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do "strategically" lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counteract the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations. Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e., consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more, dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture- specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation sensitivity on consumer expectations. A manager went out to have dinner in a restaurant and found the food to be good. When asked to provide feedback on the quality of food, the manager rated the quality as "excellent". Which of the following can be concluded from this?

    • A.

      The manager does not believe in karma

    • B.

      The manager definitely has disconfirmation sensitivity

    • C.

      It is not possible to comment on the disconfirmation sensitivity of the manager

    • D.

      The manager does not have disconfirmation sensitivity

    • E.

      None of the above

    Correct Answer
    B. The manager definitely has disconfirmation sensitivity
    Explanation
    Based on the passage, individuals who have disconfirmation sensitivity are more satisfied when products perform better than expected and more dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected. In this case, the manager rated the quality of the food as "excellent" which implies that the food performed better than their expectations. Therefore, it can be concluded that the manager definitely has disconfirmation sensitivity.

    Rate this question:

  • 18. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. An example of scientist who could measure without instruments is Enrico Fermi (1901-1954), a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938. He had a well-developed knack for intuitive, even casual-sounding measurements. One renowned example of his measurement skills was demonstrated at the first detonation of the atom bomb, the Trinity Test site, on July 16, 1945, where he was one of the atomic scientists observing the blast from base camp. While final adjustments were being made to instruments used to measure the yield of the blast, Fermi was making confetti out of a page of notebook paper. As the wind from the initial blast wave began to blow through the camp, he slowly dribbled the confetti into the air, observing how far back it was scattered by the blast (taking the farthest scattered pieces as being the peak of the pressure wave). Fermi concluded that the yield must be greater than 10 kilotons. This would have been news, since other initial observers of the blast did not know that lower limit. After much analysis of the instrument readings, the final yield estimate was determined to be 18.6 kilotons. Like Eratosthenes, Fermi was aware of a rule relating one simple observation-the scattering of confetti in the wind-to a quantity he wanted to measure. The value of quick estimates was something Fermi was familiar with throughout his career. He was famous for teaching his students skills at approximation of fanciful-sounding quantities that, at first glance, they might presume they knew nothing about. The best-known example of such a "Fermi question" was Fermi asking his students to estimate the number of piano tuners in Chicago, when no one knows the answer. His students-science and engineering majors-would begin by saying that they could not possibly know anything about such a quantity. Of course, some solutions would be to simply do a count of every piano tuner perhaps by looking up advertisements, checking with a licensing agency of some sort, and so on. But Fermi was trying to teach his students how to solve problems where the ability to confirm the results would not be so easy. He wanted them to figure out that they knew something about the quantity in question. Suppose you apply the same logic as Fermi applied to confetti, which of the following statements would be the most appropriate?

    • A.

      You can calculate the minimum pressure inside the cooker by calculating the maximum distance travelled by any of its parts after it explodes

    • B.

      You can calculate the average potency of a fire cracker by calculating the distance covered by one of its bigger fragments

    • C.

      You can easily find out the average potency of an earthquake by measuring the length of a crack it makes on the surface of the earth

    • D.

      You can calculate the exact volume of water stored in a tank by measuring the distance covered by the stream of water coming out of the tap fixed on the lower corner of the tank

    • E.

      All of the above conclusions can be drawn

    Correct Answer
    E. All of the above conclusions can be drawn
  • 19. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. An example of scientist who could measure without instruments is Enrico Fermi (1901-1954), a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938. He had a well-developed knack for intuitive, even casual-sounding measurements. One renowned example of his measurement skills was demonstrated at the first detonation of the atom bomb, the Trinity Test site, on July 16, 1945, where he was one of the atomic scientists observing the blast from base camp. While final adjustments were being made to instruments used to measure the yield of the blast, Fermi was making confetti out of a page of notebook paper. As the wind from the initial blast wave began to blow through the camp, he slowly dribbled the confetti into the air, observing how far back it was scattered by the blast (taking the farthest scattered pieces as being the peak of the pressure wave). Fermi concluded that the yield must be greater than 10 kilotons. This would have been news, since other initial observers of the blast did not know that lower limit. After much analysis of the instrument readings, the final yield estimate was determined to be 18.6 kilotons. Like Eratosthenes, Fermi was aware of a rule relating one simple observation-the scattering of confetti in the wind-to a quantity he wanted to measure. The value of quick estimates was something Fermi was familiar with throughout his career. He was famous for teaching his students skills at approximation of fanciful-sounding quantities that, at first glance, they might presume they knew nothing about. The best-known example of such a "Fermi question" was Fermi asking his students to estimate the number of piano tuners in Chicago, when no one knows the answer. His students-science and engineering majors-would begin by saying that they could not possibly know anything about such a quantity. Of course, some solutions would be to simply do a count of every piano tuner perhaps by looking up advertisements, checking with a licensing agency of some sort, and so on. But Fermi was trying to teach his students how to solve problems where the ability to confirm the results would not be so easy. He wanted them to figure out that they knew something about the quantity in question. Quick estimate, as per Fermi, is most useful in:

    • A.

      In finding an approximate that is more useful than existing values

    • B.

      In finding out the exact minimum value of an estimate

    • C.

      In finding out the exact maximum value of an estimate

    • D.

      In finding out the range of values of an estimate

    • E.

      In finding out the average value of an estimate

    Correct Answer
    E. In finding out the average value of an estimate
  • 20. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. An example of scientist who could measure without instruments is Enrico Fermi (1901-1954), a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938. He had a well-developed knack for intuitive, even casual-sounding measurements. One renowned example of his measurement skills was demonstrated at the first detonation of the atom bomb, the Trinity Test site, on July 16, 1945, where he was one of the atomic scientists observing the blast from base camp. While final adjustments were being made to instruments used to measure the yield of the blast, Fermi was making confetti out of a page of notebook paper. As the wind from the initial blast wave began to blow through the camp, he slowly dribbled the confetti into the air, observing how far back it was scattered by the blast (taking the farthest scattered pieces as being the peak of the pressure wave). Fermi concluded that the yield must be greater than 10 kilotons. This would have been news, since other initial observers of the blast did not know that lower limit. After much analysis of the instrument readings, the final yield estimate was determined to be 18.6 kilotons. Like Eratosthenes, Fermi was aware of a rule relating one simple observation-the scattering of confetti in the wind-to a quantity he wanted to measure. The value of quick estimates was something Fermi was familiar with throughout his career. He was famous for teaching his students skills at approximation of fanciful-sounding quantities that, at first glance, they might presume they knew nothing about. The best-known example of such a "Fermi question" was Fermi asking his students to estimate the number of piano tuners in Chicago, when no one knows the answer. His students-science and engineering majors-would begin by saying that they could not possibly know anything about such a quantity. Of course, some solutions would be to simply do a count of every piano tuner perhaps by looking up advertisements, checking with a licensing agency of some sort, and so on. But Fermi was trying to teach his students how to solve problems where the ability to confirm the results would not be so easy. He wanted them to figure out that they knew something about the quantity in question. Given below are some statements that attempt to capture the central idea of the passage: 1. It is useful to estimate; even when the exact answer is known. 2. It is possible to estimate any physical quantity. 3. It is possible to estimate the number of units of a newly launched car that can be sold in a city. 4. Fermi was a genius. Which of the following statement(s) best captures the central idea?

    • A.

      1, 2 and 4

    • B.

      2, 3 and 4

    • C.

      2 and 3

    • D.

      2 only

    • E.

      1, 2 and 3

    Correct Answer
    E. 1, 2 and 3
    Explanation
    The central idea of the passage is that estimating quantities, even when the exact answer is known, can be useful. This is supported by examples of Enrico Fermi's ability to make intuitive measurements and teach his students how to estimate quantities. The passage also mentions Fermi's famous "Fermi questions," which involve estimating quantities that may not have a readily available answer. Therefore, statements 1, 2, and 3 best capture the central idea of the passage.

    Rate this question:

  • 21. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for these questions. An example of scientist who could measure without instruments is Enrico Fermi (1901-1954), a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1938. He had a well-developed knack for intuitive, even casual-sounding measurements. One renowned example of his measurement skills was demonstrated at the first detonation of the atom bomb, the Trinity Test site, on July 16, 1945, where he was one of the atomic scientists observing the blast from base camp. While final adjustments were being made to instruments used to measure the yield of the blast, Fermi was making confetti out of a page of notebook paper. As the wind from the initial blast wave began to blow through the camp, he slowly dribbled the confetti into the air, observing how far back it was scattered by the blast (taking the farthest scattered pieces as being the peak of the pressure wave). Fermi concluded that the yield must be greater than 10 kilotons. This would have been news, since other initial observers of the blast did not know that lower limit. After much analysis of the instrument readings, the final yield estimate was determined to be 18.6 kilotons. Like Eratosthenes, Fermi was aware of a rule relating one simple observation-the scattering of confetti in the wind-to a quantity he wanted to measure. The value of quick estimates was something Fermi was familiar with throughout his career. He was famous for teaching his students skills at approximation of fanciful-sounding quantities that, at first glance, they might presume they knew nothing about. The best-known example of such a "Fermi question" was Fermi asking his students to estimate the number of piano tuners in Chicago, when no one knows the answer. His students-science and engineering majors-would begin by saying that they could not possibly know anything about such a quantity. Of course, some solutions would be to simply do a count of every piano tuner perhaps by looking up advertisements, checking with a licensing agency of some sort, and so on. But Fermi was trying to teach his students how to solve problems where the ability to confirm the results would not be so easy. He wanted them to figure out that they knew something about the quantity in question. Read the statements given below: 1. Atomic bomb detonation was a result of Fermi's Nobel Prize contribution. 2. Fermi's students respected him as a scientist. 3. Yield of atomic bomb can only be measured in Kilotons. Which of the following statement(s) can be inferred from the passage?

    • A.

      1, 2

    • B.

      2, 3

    • C.

      1, 3

    • D.

      2 only

    • E.

      One of the three statements is correct

    Correct Answer
    E. One of the three statements is correct
    Explanation
    The passage does not provide any information about whether the atomic bomb detonation was a result of Fermi's Nobel Prize contribution or whether Fermi's students respected him as a scientist. However, it does mention that Fermi made a measurement of the yield of the atomic bomb, indicating that the yield can be measured. Therefore, the correct statement that can be inferred from the passage is that the yield of the atomic bomb can only be measured in kilotons.

    Rate this question:

  • 22. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Soros, we must note, has never been a champion of free market capitalism. He has followed for nearly all his public life the political ideas of the late Sir Karl Popper who laid out a rather jumbled case for what he dubbed "the open society" in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1953). Such a society is what we ordinarily call the pragmatic system in which politicians get involved in people's lives but without any heavy theoretical machinery to guide them, simply as the ad hoc parental authorities who are believed to be needed to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Popper was at one time a Marxist socialist but became disillusioned with that idea because he came to believe that systematic ideas do not work in any area of human concern. The Popperian open society Soros promotes is characterised by a very general policy of having no firm principles, not even those needed for it to have some constancy and integrity. This makes the open society a rather wobbly idea, since even what Popper himself regarded as central to all human thinking, critical rationalism, may be undermined by the openness of the open society since its main target is negative: avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid anything that even comes close to a set of unbreachable principles. No, the open society is open to anything at all, at least for experimental purposes. No holds are barred, which, if you think about it, undermines even that very idea and becomes unworkable. Accordingly, in a society Soros regards suited to human community living, the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including, of course, the economic behaviour of individuals and firms. It can control the money' supply, impose wage and price controls, dabble in demand or supply side economics, and do nearly everything a central planning board might- provided it does not settle into anyone policy firmly, unbendingly. That is the gist of Soros's Popperian politics. Soros distrusts capitalism In particular, because of the alleged inadequacy of neoclassical economics, the technical economic underpinnings of capitalist thinking offered up in many university economics departments. He, like many others outside and even inside the economics discipline, finds the arid reductionism of this social science false to the facts, and rightly so. But the defence of capitalist free markets does not rest on this position. Neo-classical thinking depends in large part on the 18th-and-19th century belief that human society operates according to laws, not unlike those that govern the physical universe. Most of social science embraced that faith, so economics isn't unusual in its loyalty to classical mechanics. Nor do all economists take the deterministic lawfulness of economic science literally-some understand that the laws begin to operate only once people embark upon economic pursuits. Outside their commercial ventures, people can follow different principles and priorities, even if it is undeniable that most of their endeavours have economic features. Yet, it would be foolish to construe religion or romance or even scientific inquiry as solely explicable by reference to the laws of economics. In his criticism of neo-classical economic science, then, George Soros has a point: the discipline is too dependent on Newtonian physics as the model of science. As a result, the predictions of economists who look at markets as if they were machines need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some-for example the school of Austrian economists-have made exactly that point against the neo- classical. Soros draws a mistaken inference: if one defence of the market is flawed, the market lacks defence. This is wrong. If it is true that from A we can infer B, it does not prove that Bean only be inferred from A; C or Z, too, might be a reason for B. According to the author which of the following statements could be true about critical rationalism.

    • A.

      Ideas of critical rationalism underpin the foundation of neo- classical economics

    • B.

      Ideas of critical rationalism underpin the foundation of laissez- faire

    • C.

      Ideas of critical rationalism underpin the foundation of open society

    • D.

      Ideas of critical rationalism underpin the foundation of Newtonian physics

    • E.

      None of the above

    Correct Answer
    D. Ideas of critical rationalism underpin the foundation of Newtonian physics
    Explanation
    The passage states that critical rationalism is central to all human thinking and is a concept promoted by Karl Popper. It also mentions that neo-classical economics is based on the belief that human society operates according to laws, similar to those that govern the physical universe. Therefore, it can be inferred that the ideas of critical rationalism underpin the foundation of Newtonian physics.

    Rate this question:

  • 23. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Soros, we must note, has never been a champion of free market capitalism. He has followed for nearly all his public life the political ideas of the late Sir Karl Popper who laid out a rather jumbled case for what he dubbed "the open society" in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1953). Such a society is what we ordinarily call the pragmatic system in which politicians get involved in people's lives but without any heavy theoretical machinery to guide them, simply as the ad hoc parental authorities who are believed to be needed to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Popper was at one time a Marxist socialist but became disillusioned with that idea because he came to believe that systematic ideas do not work in any area of human concern. The Popperian open society Soros promotes is characterised by a very general policy of having no firm principles, not even those needed for it to have some constancy and integrity. This makes the open society a rather wobbly idea, since even what Popper himself regarded as central to all human thinking, critical rationalism, may be undermined by the openness of the open society since its main target is negative: avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid anything that even comes close to a set of unbreachable principles. No, the open society is open to anything at all, at least for experimental purposes. No holds are barred, which, if you think about it, undermines even that very idea and becomes unworkable. Accordingly, in a society Soros regards suited to human community living, the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including, of course, the economic behaviour of individuals and firms. It can control the money' supply, impose wage and price controls, dabble in demand or supply side economics, and do nearly everything a central planning board might- provided it does not settle into anyone policy firmly, unbendingly. That is the gist of Soros's Popperian politics. Soros distrusts capitalism In particular, because of the alleged inadequacy of neoclassical economics, the technical economic underpinnings of capitalist thinking offered up in many university economics departments. He, like many others outside and even inside the economics discipline, finds the arid reductionism of this social science false to the facts, and rightly so. But the defence of capitalist free markets does not rest on this position. Neo-classical thinking depends in large part on the 18th-and-19th century belief that human society operates according to laws, not unlike those that govern the physical universe. Most of social science embraced that faith, so economics isn't unusual in its loyalty to classical mechanics. Nor do all economists take the deterministic lawfulness of economic science literally-some understand that the laws begin to operate only once people embark upon economic pursuits. Outside their commercial ventures, people can follow different principles and priorities, even if it is undeniable that most of their endeavours have economic features. Yet, it would be foolish to construe religion or romance or even scientific inquiry as solely explicable by reference to the laws of economics. In his criticism of neo-classical economic science, then, George Soros has a point: the discipline is too dependent on Newtonian physics as the model of science. As a result, the predictions of economists who look at markets as if they were machines need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some-for example the school of Austrian economists-have made exactly that point against the neo- classical. Soros draws a mistaken inference: if one defence of the market is flawed, the market lacks defence. This is wrong. If it is true that from A we can infer B, it does not prove that Bean only be inferred from A; C or Z, too, might be a reason for B. As per the paragraph, author believes that

    • A.

      Free market capitalism can be explained using neo-classical economics

    • B.

      Neo-c1assical economics does not address the idea of free-market system

    • C.

      Free market capitalism and open society are not different from each other

    • D.

      Free market capitalism and laissez-faire are not different from each other

    • E.

      Technical underpinning of neo- classical economics can address the idea of laissez-faire

    Correct Answer
    A. Free market capitalism can be explained using neo-classical economics
    Explanation
    The passage suggests that the author believes that free market capitalism can be explained using neo-classical economics. The author criticizes neo-classical economics for its reliance on Newtonian physics as a model of science, but acknowledges that this does not mean the market lacks defense. The passage does not address the other options provided in the question.

    Rate this question:

  • 24. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Soros, we must note, has never been a champion of free market capitalism. He has followed for nearly all his public life the political ideas of the late Sir Karl Popper who laid out a rather jumbled case for what he dubbed "the open society" in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1953). Such a society is what we ordinarily call the pragmatic system in which politicians get involved in people's lives but without any heavy theoretical machinery to guide them, simply as the ad hoc parental authorities who are believed to be needed to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Popper was at one time a Marxist socialist but became disillusioned with that idea because he came to believe that systematic ideas do not work in any area of human concern. The Popperian open society Soros promotes is characterised by a very general policy of having no firm principles, not even those needed for it to have some constancy and integrity. This makes the open society a rather wobbly idea, since even what Popper himself regarded as central to all human thinking, critical rationalism, may be undermined by the openness of the open society since its main target is negative: avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid anything that even comes close to a set of unbreachable principles. No, the open society is open to anything at all, at least for experimental purposes. No holds are barred, which, if you think about it, undermines even that very idea and becomes unworkable. Accordingly, in a society Soros regards suited to human community living, the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including, of course, the economic behaviour of individuals and firms. It can control the money' supply, impose wage and price controls, dabble in demand or supply side economics, and do nearly everything a central planning board might- provided it does not settle into anyone policy firmly, unbendingly. That is the gist of Soros's Popperian politics. Soros distrusts capitalism In particular, because of the alleged inadequacy of neoclassical economics, the technical economic underpinnings of capitalist thinking offered up in many university economics departments. He, like many others outside and even inside the economics discipline, finds the arid reductionism of this social science false to the facts, and rightly so. But the defence of capitalist free markets does not rest on this position. Neo-classical thinking depends in large part on the 18th-and-19th century belief that human society operates according to laws, not unlike those that govern the physical universe. Most of social science embraced that faith, so economics isn't unusual in its loyalty to classical mechanics. Nor do all economists take the deterministic lawfulness of economic science literally-some understand that the laws begin to operate only once people embark upon economic pursuits. Outside their commercial ventures, people can follow different principles and priorities, even if it is undeniable that most of their endeavours have economic features. Yet, it would be foolish to construe religion or romance or even scientific inquiry as solely explicable by reference to the laws of economics. In his criticism of neo-classical economic science, then, George Soros has a point: the discipline is too dependent on Newtonian physics as the model of science. As a result, the predictions of economists who look at markets as if they were machines need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some-for example the school of Austrian economists-have made exactly that point against the neo- classical. Soros draws a mistaken inference: if one defence of the market is flawed, the market lacks defence. This is wrong. If it is true that from A we can infer B, it does not prove that Bean only be inferred from A; C or Z, too, might be a reason for B. As per the paragraph, which of the following statements is true?

    • A.

      Economic benefits of open society and laissez-faire are same

    • B.

      Soros' open society means no interference from the government

    • C.

      Free market capitalism means no interference from the government

    • D.

      Laws of economics are not capable of explaining the human nature completely

    • E.

      Laws of economics capture the human nature completely as most of the human endeavours are economic in nature

    Correct Answer
    A. Economic benefits of open society and laissez-faire are same
    Explanation
    The passage suggests that Soros' open society, which promotes government intervention and manipulation of economic behavior, does not necessarily align with the concept of laissez-faire capitalism. It implies that Soros believes an open society can provide economic benefits similar to those of a free market, but it does not explicitly state that the economic benefits of an open society and laissez-faire are the same.

    Rate this question:

  • 25. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage, and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive; or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence, which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right- angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons. The statement, "this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be", implies that

    • A.

      Falsification is better than verification in universal acceptance of scientific beliefs

    • B.

      Verification is better than falsification in universal acceptance of scientific beliefs

    • C.

      Both falsification and verification together can result in universal acceptance of scientific beliefs

    • D.

      Capability of falsification in acceptance of scientific beliefs is not better than that of verification in rejection of scientific beliefs

    • E.

      Capability of falsification in rejection of scientific beliefs is not always better than that of verification in acceptance of scientific beliefs

    Correct Answer
    E. Capability of falsification in rejection of scientific beliefs is not always better than that of verification in acceptance of scientific beliefs
    Explanation
    The passage argues that while falsification may not be conclusive in rejecting scientific beliefs, if we accept falsifying claims, we must reject falsified claims to remain consistent. On the other hand, even when verifying claims are accepted, they do not provide a good reason for accepting any scientific belief. Therefore, the statement implies that the capability of falsification in rejection of scientific beliefs is not always better than that of verification in acceptance of scientific beliefs.

    Rate this question:

  • 26. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Soros, we must note, has never been a champion of free market capitalism. He has followed for nearly all his public life the political ideas of the late Sir Karl Popper who laid out a rather jumbled case for what he dubbed "the open society" in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1953). Such a society is what we ordinarily call the pragmatic system in which politicians get involved in people's lives but without any heavy theoretical machinery to guide them, simply as the ad hoc parental authorities who are believed to be needed to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Popper was at one time a Marxist socialist but became disillusioned with that idea because he came to believe that systematic ideas do not work in any area of human concern. The Popperian open society Soros promotes is characterised by a very general policy of having no firm principles, not even those needed for it to have some constancy and integrity. This makes the open society a rather wobbly idea, since even what Popper himself regarded as central to all human thinking, critical rationalism, may be undermined by the openness of the open society since its main target is negative: avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid anything that even comes close to a set of unbreachable principles. No, the open society is open to anything at all, at least for experimental purposes. No holds are barred, which, if you think about it, undermines even that very idea and becomes unworkable. Accordingly, in a society Soros regards suited to human community living, the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including, of course, the economic behaviour of individuals and firms. It can control the money' supply, impose wage and price controls, dabble in demand or supply side economics, and do nearly everything a central planning board might- provided it does not settle into anyone policy firmly, unbendingly. That is the gist of Soros's Popperian politics. Soros distrusts capitalism In particular, because of the alleged inadequacy of neoclassical economics, the technical economic underpinnings of capitalist thinking offered up in many university economics departments. He, like many others outside and even inside the economics discipline, finds the arid reductionism of this social science false to the facts, and rightly so. But the defence of capitalist free markets does not rest on this position. Neo-classical thinking depends in large part on the 18th-and-19th century belief that human society operates according to laws, not unlike those that govern the physical universe. Most of social science embraced that faith, so economics isn't unusual in its loyalty to classical mechanics. Nor do all economists take the deterministic lawfulness of economic science literally-some understand that the laws begin to operate only once people embark upon economic pursuits. Outside their commercial ventures, people can follow different principles and priorities, even if it is undeniable that most of their endeavours have economic features. Yet, it would be foolish to construe religion or romance or even scientific inquiry as solely explicable by reference to the laws of economics. In his criticism of neo-classical economic science, then, George Soros has a point: the discipline is too dependent on Newtonian physics as the model of science. As a result, the predictions of economists who look at markets as if they were machines need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some-for example the school of Austrian economists-have made exactly that point against the neo- classical. Soros draws a mistaken inference: if one defence of the market is flawed, the market lacks defence. This is wrong. If it is true that from A we can infer B, it does not prove that Bean only be inferred from A; C or Z, too, might be a reason for B. According to the author,

    • A.

      George Soros believes in regulated economies

    • B.

      George Soros does not believe in government intervention in state policies

    • C.

      George Soros believes in state intervention provided it does not remain static

    • D.

      George Soros believes that laissez-faire economies perform better than free-market- economies

    • E.

      George Soros believes that free-market economies perform better than controlled economies

    Correct Answer
    C. George Soros believes in state intervention provided it does not remain static
    Explanation
    The passage states that Soros believes in a society where the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including economic behavior, but it should not settle into any one policy firmly. This implies that Soros supports state intervention as long as it remains flexible and adaptable, rather than static. Therefore, the correct answer is "George Soros believes in state intervention provided it does not remain static."

    Rate this question:

  • 27. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage, and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive; or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence, which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right- angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons. Which of the following would be the most appropriate conclusion?

    • A.

      Falsification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief

    • B.

      Falsification gives us all the reasons for accepting a claim

    • C.

      Verification gives us a reason for rejecting a claim

    • D.

      Verification gives us an appropriate reason for accepting a scientific belief

    • E.

      Verification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief

    Correct Answer
    A. Falsification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief
    Explanation
    Falsification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief because accepting falsifying claims requires us to reject falsified claims. On the other hand, verification, even when accepted, does not provide us with an appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, as there are no good inductive reasons for doing so. Therefore, falsification is more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific beliefs than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances.

    Rate this question:

  • 28. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Soros, we must note, has never been a champion of free market capitalism. He has followed for nearly all his public life the political ideas of the late Sir Karl Popper who laid out a rather jumbled case for what he dubbed "the open society" in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1953). Such a society is what we ordinarily call the pragmatic system in which politicians get involved in people's lives but without any heavy theoretical machinery to guide them, simply as the ad hoc parental authorities who are believed to be needed to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Popper was at one time a Marxist socialist but became disillusioned with that idea because he came to believe that systematic ideas do not work in any area of human concern. The Popperian open society Soros promotes is characterised by a very general policy of having no firm principles, not even those needed for it to have some constancy and integrity. This makes the open society a rather wobbly idea, since even what Popper himself regarded as central to all human thinking, critical rationalism, may be undermined by the openness of the open society since its main target is negative: avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid anything that even comes close to a set of unbreachable principles. No, the open society is open to anything at all, at least for experimental purposes. No holds are barred, which, if you think about it, undermines even that very idea and becomes unworkable. Accordingly, in a society Soros regards suited to human community living, the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including, of course, the economic behaviour of individuals and firms. It can control the money' supply, impose wage and price controls, dabble in demand or supply side economics, and do nearly everything a central planning board might- provided it does not settle into anyone policy firmly, unbendingly. That is the gist of Soros's Popperian politics. Soros distrusts capitalism In particular, because of the alleged inadequacy of neoclassical economics, the technical economic underpinnings of capitalist thinking offered up in many university economics departments. He, like many others outside and even inside the economics discipline, finds the arid reductionism of this social science false to the facts, and rightly so. But the defence of capitalist free markets does not rest on this position. Neo-classical thinking depends in large part on the 18th-and-19th century belief that human society operates according to laws, not unlike those that govern the physical universe. Most of social science embraced that faith, so economics isn't unusual in its loyalty to classical mechanics. Nor do all economists take the deterministic lawfulness of economic science literally-some understand that the laws begin to operate only once people embark upon economic pursuits. Outside their commercial ventures, people can follow different principles and priorities, even if it is undeniable that most of their endeavours have economic features. Yet, it would be foolish to construe religion or romance or even scientific inquiry as solely explicable by reference to the laws of economics. In his criticism of neo-classical economic science, then, George Soros has a point: the discipline is too dependent on Newtonian physics as the model of science. As a result, the predictions of economists who look at markets as if they were machines need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some-for example the school of Austrian economists-have made exactly that point against the neo- classical. Soros draws a mistaken inference: if one defence of the market is flawed, the market lacks defence. This is wrong. If it is true that from A we can infer B, it does not prove that Bean only be inferred from A; C or Z, too, might be a reason for B. The word deterministic (used in fourth line of fifth paragraph), in the above passage refers to:

    • A.

      An effect can only be caused by a single event

    • B.

      An effect may be produced by many causes

    • C.

      An effect cannot be produced by a cause

    • D.

      Cause(s) of an effect can always be known

    • E.

      Economics does not follow cause and effect relationship

    Correct Answer
    B. An effect may be produced by many causes
    Explanation
    The word "deterministic" refers to the idea that an effect may be produced by many causes. In the context of the passage, it is discussing how neo-classical economic science is based on the belief that human society operates according to laws, similar to those that govern the physical universe. However, it is acknowledged that people can follow different principles and priorities outside of their economic pursuits. Therefore, the word "deterministic" implies that there are multiple causes that can lead to a particular effect in economics, rather than a single cause.

    Rate this question:

  • 29. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage, and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive; or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence, which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right- angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons. According to Popper, the statement "Scientific beliefs are universal in character" implies that

    • A.

      Positive instances of scientific belief imply that it is universal in character

    • B.

      There are equal numbers of negative and positive instances of a universal scientific belief

    • C.

      If there are negative and positive instances of a scientific belief then it cannot be universal

    • D.

      We can only deduce that a scientific belief is false but cannot induce that it is true

    • E.

      We can only induce that a scientific belief is false but cannot induce that it is true

    Correct Answer
    D. We can only deduce that a scientific belief is false but cannot induce that it is true
    Explanation
    The passage explains Popper's view on the universality of scientific beliefs and their implications for explanation and prediction. According to Popper, a scientific belief must be universal in character in order to serve us in explanation and prediction. The universality of a scientific belief means that there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances that may or may not be positive. While a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that a belief is false, positive instances do not provide conclusive evidence for the truth of a belief. Therefore, we can only deduce that a scientific belief is false based on negative instances, but we cannot induce that it is true based on positive instances.

    Rate this question:

  • 30. 

    Direction: Analyse the following passage, and provide appropriate answers for the questions. Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive; or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true. It is sometimes argued that this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence, which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right- angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed. We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons. With which of the following statements, would the author agree most?

    • A.

      Verification is better than falsification in establishing the claims

    • B.

      Falsification and verification are equally good in establishing the claims

    • C.

      Verification and falsification are equally bad in establishing the claims

    • D.

      Falsification is better than verification in disproving the claims

    • E.

      Verification is better than falsification in disproving the claims

    Correct Answer
    D. Falsification is better than verification in disproving the claims
    Explanation
    The author would agree that falsification is better than verification in disproving the claims. The passage explains that a single negative instance can prove a belief false, while positive instances do not provide a conclusive reason to accept a belief. Falsification, therefore, has more logical significance in rejecting scientific beliefs compared to verification.

    Rate this question:

Quiz Review Timeline +

Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.

  • Current Version
  • Sep 02, 2023
    Quiz Edited by
    ProProfs Editorial Team
  • Dec 13, 2013
    Quiz Created by
    Tanmay Shankar
Back to Top Back to top
Advertisement
×

Wait!
Here's an interesting quiz for you.

We have other quizzes matching your interest.