XAT 2018 answer key with solutions

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: If history doesn’t follow any stable rules, and if we cannot predict its future course, why study it? It often seems that the chief aim of science is to predict the future – meteorologists are expected to forecast whether tomorrow will bring rain or sunshine; economists should know whether devaluing the currency will avert or precipitate an economic crisis; good doctors foresee whether chemotherapy or radiation therapy will be more successful in curing lung cancer. Similarly, historians are asked to examine the actions of our ancestors so that we can repeat their wise decisions and avoid their mistakes. But it never works like that because the present is just too different from the past. It is a waste of time to study Hannibal’s tactics in the Second Punic War so as to copy them in the Third World War. What worked well in cavalry battles will not necessarily be of much benefit in cyber warfare. Science is not just about predicting the future, though. Scholars in all fields often seek to broaden our horizons, thereby opening before us new and unknown futures. This is especially true of history. Though historians occasionally try their hand at prophecy (without notable success), the study of history aims above all to make us aware of possibilities we don’t normally consider. Historians study the past not in order to repeat it, but in order to be liberated from it. Each and every one of us has been born into a given historical reality, ruled by particular norms and values, and managed by a unique economic and political system. We take this reality for granted, thinking it is natural, inevitable and immutable. We forget that our world was created by an accidental chain of events, and that history shaped not only our technology, politics and society, but also our thoughts, fears and dreams. The cold hand of the past emerges from the grave of our ancestors, grips us by the neck and directs our gaze towards a single future. We have felt that grip from the moment we were born, so we assume that it is a natural and inescapable part of who we are. Therefore we seldom try to shake ourselves free, and envision alternative futures. Studying history aims to loosen the grip of the past. It enables us to turn our head this way and that, and begin to notice possibilities that our ancestors could not imagine, or didn’t want us to imagine. By observing the accidental chain of events that led us here, we realise how our very thoughts and dreams took shape – and we can begin to think and dream differently. Studying history will not tell us what to choose, but at least it gives us more options.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: If history doesn’t follow any stable rules, and if we cannot predict its future course, why study it? It often seems that the chief aim of science is to predict the future – meteorologists are expected to forecast whether tomorrow will bring rain or sunshine; economists should know whether devaluing the currency will avert or precipitate an economic crisis; good doctors foresee whether chemotherapy or radiation therapy will be more successful in curing lung cancer. Similarly, historians are asked to examine the actions of our ancestors so that we can repeat their wise decisions and avoid their mistakes. But it never works like that because the present is just too different from the past. It is a waste of time to study Hannibal’s tactics in the Second Punic War so as to copy them in the Third World War. What worked well in cavalry battles will not necessarily be of much benefit in cyber warfare. Science is not just about predicting the future, though. Scholars in all fields often seek to broaden our horizons, thereby opening before us new and unknown futures. This is especially true of history. Though historians occasionally try their hand at prophecy (without notable success), the study of history aims above all to make us aware of possibilities we don’t normally consider. Historians study the past not in order to repeat it, but in order to be liberated from it. Each and every one of us has been born into a given historical reality, ruled by particular norms and values, and managed by a unique economic and political system. We take this reality for granted, thinking it is natural, inevitable and immutable. We forget that our world was created by an accidental chain of events, and that history shaped not only our technology, politics and society, but also our thoughts, fears and dreams. The cold hand of the past emerges from the grave of our ancestors, grips us by the neck and directs our gaze towards a single future. We have felt that grip from the moment we were born, so we assume that it is a natural and inescapable part of who we are. Therefore we seldom try to shake ourselves free, and envision alternative futures. Studying history aims to loosen the grip of the past. It enables us to turn our head this way and that, and begin to notice possibilities that our ancestors could not imagine, or didn’t want us to imagine. By observing the accidental chain of events that led us here, we realise how our very thoughts and dreams took shape – and we can begin to think and dream differently. Studying history will not tell us what to choose, but at least it gives us more options.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: If history doesn’t follow any stable rules, and if we cannot predict its future course, why study it? It often seems that the chief aim of science is to predict the future – meteorologists are expected to forecast whether tomorrow will bring rain or sunshine; economists should know whether devaluing the currency will avert or precipitate an economic crisis; good doctors foresee whether chemotherapy or radiation therapy will be more successful in curing lung cancer. Similarly, historians are asked to examine the actions of our ancestors so that we can repeat their wise decisions and avoid their mistakes. But it never works like that because the present is just too different from the past. It is a waste of time to study Hannibal’s tactics in the Second Punic War so as to copy them in the Third World War. What worked well in cavalry battles will not necessarily be of much benefit in cyber warfare. Science is not just about predicting the future, though. Scholars in all fields often seek to broaden our horizons, thereby opening before us new and unknown futures. This is especially true of history. Though historians occasionally try their hand at prophecy (without notable success), the study of history aims above all to make us aware of possibilities we don’t normally consider. Historians study the past not in order to repeat it, but in order to be liberated from it. Each and every one of us has been born into a given historical reality, ruled by particular norms and values, and managed by a unique economic and political system. We take this reality for granted, thinking it is natural, inevitable and immutable. We forget that our world was created by an accidental chain of events, and that history shaped not only our technology, politics and society, but also our thoughts, fears and dreams. The cold hand of the past emerges from the grave of our ancestors, grips us by the neck and directs our gaze towards a single future. We have felt that grip from the moment we were born, so we assume that it is a natural and inescapable part of who we are. Therefore we seldom try to shake ourselves free, and envision alternative futures. Studying history aims to loosen the grip of the past. It enables us to turn our head this way and that, and begin to notice possibilities that our ancestors could not imagine, or didn’t want us to imagine. By observing the accidental chain of events that led us here, we realise how our very thoughts and dreams took shape – and we can begin to think and dream differently. Studying history will not tell us what to choose, but at least it gives us more options. Read the following sentences: 1. A historian successfully predicted a political crisis based on similar events of the last century. 2. Using the latest technology, doctors could decipher the microbe causing the disease. 3. Students who prepared for an examination by perusing past 10 years' question papers did not do well in the examination. 4. A tribe in Andaman learns to predict epidemic outbreaks by listening to the stories of how their ancestors predicted the past outbreaks.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: Rene Descartes’ assertion that ideas may be held true with certainty if they are “clear and distinct” provides the context for Peirce’s title, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Peirce argued that an idea may seem clear if it is familiar. Distinctness depends on having good definitions, and while definitions are desirable they do not yield any new knowledge or certainty of the truth of empirical propositions. Peirce argues that thought needs more than a sense of clarity; it also needs a method for making ideas clear. Once we have made an idea clear, then we can begin the task of determining its truth. The method that Peirce offers came to be known as the pragmatic method and the epistemology on which it depends is pragmatism. Peirce rejected Descartes’ method of doubt. We cannot doubt something, for the sake of method, that we do not doubt in fact. In a later essay, he would state as his rule “Dismiss make-believes.” This refers to Descartes’ method of doubting things, in the safety of his study, such things as the existence of the material world, which he did not doubt when he went out on the street. Peirce proposed that a philosophical investigation can begin from only one state of mind, namely, the state of mind in which we find ourselves when we begin. If any of us examines our state of mind, we find two kinds of thoughts: beliefs and doubts. Peirce had presented the interaction of doubt and belief in an earlier essay “The Fixation of Belief”. Beliefs and doubts are distinct. Beliefs consist of states of mind in which we would make a statement; doubts are states in which we would ask a question. We experience a doubt as a sense of uneasiness and hesitation. Doubt serves as an irritant that causes us to appease it by answering a question and thereby fixing a belief and putting the mind to rest on that issue. A common example of a doubt would be arriving in an unfamiliar city and not being sure of the location of our destination address in relation to our present location. We overcome this doubt and fix a belief by getting the directions. Once we achieve a belief, we can take the necessary action to reach our destination. Peirce defines a belief subjectively as something of which we are aware and which appeases the doubt. Objectively, a belief is a rule of action. The whole purpose of thought consists in overcoming a doubt and attaining a belief. Peirce acknowledges that some people like to think about things or argue about them without caring to find a true belief, but he asserts that such dilettantism does not constitute thought. The beliefs that we hold determine how we will act. If we believe, rightly or wrongly, that the building that we are trying to reach sits one block to our north, we will walk in that direction. We have beliefs about matters of fact, near and far. For example, we believe in the real objects in front of us and we believe generally accepted historical statements. We also believe in relations of ideas such as that seven and five equal twelve. In addition to these we have many beliefs about science, politics, economics, religion and so on. Some of our beliefs may be false since we are capable of error. To believe something means to think that it is true.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: Rene Descartes’ assertion that ideas may be held true with certainty if they are “clear and distinct” provides the context for Peirce’s title, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Peirce argued that an idea may seem clear if it is familiar. Distinctness depends on having good definitions, and while definitions are desirable they do not yield any new knowledge or certainty of the truth of empirical propositions. Peirce argues that thought needs more than a sense of clarity; it also needs a method for making ideas clear. Once we have made an idea clear, then we can begin the task of determining its truth. The method that Peirce offers came to be known as the pragmatic method and the epistemology on which it depends is pragmatism. Peirce rejected Descartes’ method of doubt. We cannot doubt something, for the sake of method, that we do not doubt in fact. In a later essay, he would state as his rule “Dismiss make-believes.” This refers to Descartes’ method of doubting things, in the safety of his study, such things as the existence of the material world, which he did not doubt when he went out on the street. Peirce proposed that a philosophical investigation can begin from only one state of mind, namely, the state of mind in which we find ourselves when we begin. If any of us examines our state of mind, we find two kinds of thoughts: beliefs and doubts. Peirce had presented the interaction of doubt and belief in an earlier essay “The Fixation of Belief”. Beliefs and doubts are distinct. Beliefs consist of states of mind in which we would make a statement; doubts are states in which we would ask a question. We experience a doubt as a sense of uneasiness and hesitation. Doubt serves as an irritant that causes us to appease it by answering a question and thereby fixing a belief and putting the mind to rest on that issue. A common example of a doubt would be arriving in an unfamiliar city and not being sure of the location of our destination address in relation to our present location. We overcome this doubt and fix a belief by getting the directions. Once we achieve a belief, we can take the necessary action to reach our destination. Peirce defines a belief subjectively as something of which we are aware and which appeases the doubt. Objectively, a belief is a rule of action. The whole purpose of thought consists in overcoming a doubt and attaining a belief. Peirce acknowledges that some people like to think about things or argue about them without caring to find a true belief, but he asserts that such dilettantism does not constitute thought. The beliefs that we hold determine how we will act. If we believe, rightly or wrongly, that the building that we are trying to reach sits one block to our north, we will walk in that direction. We have beliefs about matters of fact, near and far. For example, we believe in the real objects in front of us and we believe generally accepted historical statements. We also believe in relations of ideas such as that seven and five equal twelve. In addition to these we have many beliefs about science, politics, economics, religion and so on. Some of our beliefs may be false since we are capable of error. To believe something means to think that it is true. "A candidate has applied for XAT".

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: Rene Descartes’ assertion that ideas may be held true with certainty if they are “clear and distinct” provides the context for Peirce’s title, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Peirce argued that an idea may seem clear if it is familiar. Distinctness depends on having good definitions, and while definitions are desirable they do not yield any new knowledge or certainty of the truth of empirical propositions. Peirce argues that thought needs more than a sense of clarity; it also needs a method for making ideas clear. Once we have made an idea clear, then we can begin the task of determining its truth. The method that Peirce offers came to be known as the pragmatic method and the epistemology on which it depends is pragmatism. Peirce rejected Descartes’ method of doubt. We cannot doubt something, for the sake of method, that we do not doubt in fact. In a later essay, he would state as his rule “Dismiss make-believes.” This refers to Descartes’ method of doubting things, in the safety of his study, such things as the existence of the material world, which he did not doubt when he went out on the street. Peirce proposed that a philosophical investigation can begin from only one state of mind, namely, the state of mind in which we find ourselves when we begin. If any of us examines our state of mind, we find two kinds of thoughts: beliefs and doubts. Peirce had presented the interaction of doubt and belief in an earlier essay “The Fixation of Belief”. Beliefs and doubts are distinct. Beliefs consist of states of mind in which we would make a statement; doubts are states in which we would ask a question. We experience a doubt as a sense of uneasiness and hesitation. Doubt serves as an irritant that causes us to appease it by answering a question and thereby fixing a belief and putting the mind to rest on that issue. A common example of a doubt would be arriving in an unfamiliar city and not being sure of the location of our destination address in relation to our present location. We overcome this doubt and fix a belief by getting the directions. Once we achieve a belief, we can take the necessary action to reach our destination. Peirce defines a belief subjectively as something of which we are aware and which appeases the doubt. Objectively, a belief is a rule of action. The whole purpose of thought consists in overcoming a doubt and attaining a belief. Peirce acknowledges that some people like to think about things or argue about them without caring to find a true belief, but he asserts that such dilettantism does not constitute thought. The beliefs that we hold determine how we will act. If we believe, rightly or wrongly, that the building that we are trying to reach sits one block to our north, we will walk in that direction. We have beliefs about matters of fact, near and far. For example, we believe in the real objects in front of us and we believe generally accepted historical statements. We also believe in relations of ideas such as that seven and five equal twelve. In addition to these we have many beliefs about science, politics, economics, religion and so on. Some of our beliefs may be false since we are capable of error. To believe something means to think that it is true.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: Rene Descartes’ assertion that ideas may be held true with certainty if they are “clear and distinct” provides the context for Peirce’s title, “How to Make Our Ideas Clear.” Peirce argued that an idea may seem clear if it is familiar. Distinctness depends on having good definitions, and while definitions are desirable they do not yield any new knowledge or certainty of the truth of empirical propositions. Peirce argues that thought needs more than a sense of clarity; it also needs a method for making ideas clear. Once we have made an idea clear, then we can begin the task of determining its truth. The method that Peirce offers came to be known as the pragmatic method and the epistemology on which it depends is pragmatism. Peirce rejected Descartes’ method of doubt. We cannot doubt something, for the sake of method, that we do not doubt in fact. In a later essay, he would state as his rule “Dismiss make-believes.” This refers to Descartes’ method of doubting things, in the safety of his study, such things as the existence of the material world, which he did not doubt when he went out on the street. Peirce proposed that a philosophical investigation can begin from only one state of mind, namely, the state of mind in which we find ourselves when we begin. If any of us examines our state of mind, we find two kinds of thoughts: beliefs and doubts. Peirce had presented the interaction of doubt and belief in an earlier essay “The Fixation of Belief”. Beliefs and doubts are distinct. Beliefs consist of states of mind in which we would make a statement; doubts are states in which we would ask a question. We experience a doubt as a sense of uneasiness and hesitation. Doubt serves as an irritant that causes us to appease it by answering a question and thereby fixing a belief and putting the mind to rest on that issue. A common example of a doubt would be arriving in an unfamiliar city and not being sure of the location of our destination address in relation to our present location. We overcome this doubt and fix a belief by getting the directions. Once we achieve a belief, we can take the necessary action to reach our destination. Peirce defines a belief subjectively as something of which we are aware and which appeases the doubt. Objectively, a belief is a rule of action. The whole purpose of thought consists in overcoming a doubt and attaining a belief. Peirce acknowledges that some people like to think about things or argue about them without caring to find a true belief, but he asserts that such dilettantism does not constitute thought. The beliefs that we hold determine how we will act. If we believe, rightly or wrongly, that the building that we are trying to reach sits one block to our north, we will walk in that direction. We have beliefs about matters of fact, near and far. For example, we believe in the real objects in front of us and we believe generally accepted historical statements. We also believe in relations of ideas such as that seven and five equal twelve. In addition to these we have many beliefs about science, politics, economics, religion and so on. Some of our beliefs may be false since we are capable of error. To believe something means to think that it is true. A person thinks that s/he has to keep awake for twenty hours in a day to score well in an examination, but is awake for only fifteen hours.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: It is sometimes said that consciousness is a mystery in the sense that we have no idea what it is. This is clearly not true. What could be better known to us than our own feelings and experiences? The mystery of consciousness is not what consciousness is, but why it is. Modern brain imaging techniques have provided us with a rich body of correlations between physical processes in the brain and the experiences had by the person whose brain it is. We know, for example, that a person undergoing stimulation in her or his ventromedial hypothalamus feels hunger. The problem is that no one knows why these correlations hold. It seems perfectly conceivable that ventromedial hypothalamus stimulation could do its job in the brain without giving rise to any kind of feeling at all. No one has even the beginnings of an explanation of why some physical systems, such as the human brain, have experiences. This is the difficulty David Chalmers famously called ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Materialists hope that we will one day be able to explain consciousness in purely physical terms. But this project now has a long history of failure. The problem with materialist approaches to the hard problem is that they always end up avoiding the issue by redefining what we mean by ‘consciousness’. They start off by declaring that they are going to solve the hard problem, to explain experience; but somewhere along the way they start using the word ‘consciousness’ to refer not to experience but to some complex behavioural functioning associated with experience, such as the ability of a person to monitor their internal states or to process information about the environment. Explaining complex behaviours is an important scientific endeavour. But the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved by changing the subject. In spite of these difficulties, many scientists and philosophers maintain optimism that materialism will prevail. At every point in this glorious history, it is claimed, philosophers have declared that certain phenomena are too special to be explained by physical science – light, chemistry, life – only to be subsequently proven wrong by the relentless march of scientific progress. Before Galileo it was generally assumed that matter had sensory qualities: tomatoes were red, paprika was spicy, flowers were sweet-smelling. How could an equation capture the taste of spicy paprika? And if sensory qualities can’t be captured in a mathematical vocabulary, it seemed to follow that a mathematical vocabulary could never capture the complete nature of matter. Galileo’s solution was to strip matter of its sensory qualities and put them in the soul (as we might put it, in the mind). The sweet smell isn’t really in the flowers, but in the soul (mind) of the person smelling them … Even colours for Galileo aren’t on the surfaces of the objects themselves, but in the soul of the person observing them. And if matter in itself has no sensory qualities, then it’s possible in principle to describe the material world in the purely quantitative vocabulary of mathematics. This was the birth of mathematical physics. But of course Galileo didn’t deny the existence of the sensory qualities. If Galileo were to time travel to the present day and be told that scientific materialists are having a problem explaining consciousness in purely physical terms, he would no doubt reply, “Of course they do, I created physical science by taking consciousness out of the physical world!”

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: It is sometimes said that consciousness is a mystery in the sense that we have no idea what it is. This is clearly not true. What could be better known to us than our own feelings and experiences? The mystery of consciousness is not what consciousness is, but why it is. Modern brain imaging techniques have provided us with a rich body of correlations between physical processes in the brain and the experiences had by the person whose brain it is. We know, for example, that a person undergoing stimulation in her or his ventromedial hypothalamus feels hunger. The problem is that no one knows why these correlations hold. It seems perfectly conceivable that ventromedial hypothalamus stimulation could do its job in the brain without giving rise to any kind of feeling at all. No one has even the beginnings of an explanation of why some physical systems, such as the human brain, have experiences. This is the difficulty David Chalmers famously called ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Materialists hope that we will one day be able to explain consciousness in purely physical terms. But this project now has a long history of failure. The problem with materialist approaches to the hard problem is that they always end up avoiding the issue by redefining what we mean by ‘consciousness’. They start off by declaring that they are going to solve the hard problem, to explain experience; but somewhere along the way they start using the word ‘consciousness’ to refer not to experience but to some complex behavioural functioning associated with experience, such as the ability of a person to monitor their internal states or to process information about the environment. Explaining complex behaviours is an important scientific endeavour. But the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved by changing the subject. In spite of these difficulties, many scientists and philosophers maintain optimism that materialism will prevail. At every point in this glorious history, it is claimed, philosophers have declared that certain phenomena are too special to be explained by physical science – light, chemistry, life – only to be subsequently proven wrong by the relentless march of scientific progress. Before Galileo it was generally assumed that matter had sensory qualities: tomatoes were red, paprika was spicy, flowers were sweet-smelling. How could an equation capture the taste of spicy paprika? And if sensory qualities can’t be captured in a mathematical vocabulary, it seemed to follow that a mathematical vocabulary could never capture the complete nature of matter. Galileo’s solution was to strip matter of its sensory qualities and put them in the soul (as we might put it, in the mind). The sweet smell isn’t really in the flowers, but in the soul (mind) of the person smelling them … Even colours for Galileo aren’t on the surfaces of the objects themselves, but in the soul of the person observing them. And if matter in itself has no sensory qualities, then it’s possible in principle to describe the material world in the purely quantitative vocabulary of mathematics. This was the birth of mathematical physics. But of course Galileo didn’t deny the existence of the sensory qualities. If Galileo were to time travel to the present day and be told that scientific materialists are having a problem explaining consciousness in purely physical terms, he would no doubt reply, “Of course they do, I created physical science by taking consciousness out of the physical world!”

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: It is sometimes said that consciousness is a mystery in the sense that we have no idea what it is. This is clearly not true. What could be better known to us than our own feelings and experiences? The mystery of consciousness is not what consciousness is, but why it is. Modern brain imaging techniques have provided us with a rich body of correlations between physical processes in the brain and the experiences had by the person whose brain it is. We know, for example, that a person undergoing stimulation in her or his ventromedial hypothalamus feels hunger. The problem is that no one knows why these correlations hold. It seems perfectly conceivable that ventromedial hypothalamus stimulation could do its job in the brain without giving rise to any kind of feeling at all. No one has even the beginnings of an explanation of why some physical systems, such as the human brain, have experiences. This is the difficulty David Chalmers famously called ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Materialists hope that we will one day be able to explain consciousness in purely physical terms. But this project now has a long history of failure. The problem with materialist approaches to the hard problem is that they always end up avoiding the issue by redefining what we mean by ‘consciousness’. They start off by declaring that they are going to solve the hard problem, to explain experience; but somewhere along the way they start using the word ‘consciousness’ to refer not to experience but to some complex behavioural functioning associated with experience, such as the ability of a person to monitor their internal states or to process information about the environment. Explaining complex behaviours is an important scientific endeavour. But the hard problem of consciousness cannot be solved by changing the subject. In spite of these difficulties, many scientists and philosophers maintain optimism that materialism will prevail. At every point in this glorious history, it is claimed, philosophers have declared that certain phenomena are too special to be explained by physical science – light, chemistry, life – only to be subsequently proven wrong by the relentless march of scientific progress. Before Galileo it was generally assumed that matter had sensory qualities: tomatoes were red, paprika was spicy, flowers were sweet-smelling. How could an equation capture the taste of spicy paprika? And if sensory qualities can’t be captured in a mathematical vocabulary, it seemed to follow that a mathematical vocabulary could never capture the complete nature of matter. Galileo’s solution was to strip matter of its sensory qualities and put them in the soul (as we might put it, in the mind). The sweet smell isn’t really in the flowers, but in the soul (mind) of the person smelling them … Even colours for Galileo aren’t on the surfaces of the objects themselves, but in the soul of the person observing them. And if matter in itself has no sensory qualities, then it’s possible in principle to describe the material world in the purely quantitative vocabulary of mathematics. This was the birth of mathematical physics. But of course Galileo didn’t deny the existence of the sensory qualities. If Galileo were to time travel to the present day and be told that scientific materialists are having a problem explaining consciousness in purely physical terms, he would no doubt reply, “Of course they do, I created physical science by taking consciousness out of the physical world!”

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: Labor and capital are the opposite poles of capitalist society. This polarity begins in each enterprise and is realized on a national and even international scale as a giant duality of classes which dominates the social structure. And yet this polarity is incorporated in a necessary identity between the two. Whatever its form, whether as money or commodities or means of production, capital is labor: it is labor that has been performed in the past, the objectified product of preceding phases of the cycle of production which becomes capital only through appropriation by the capitalist and its use in the accumulation of more capital. At the same time, as living labor which is purchased by the capitalist to set the production process into motion, labor is capital. That portion of money capital which is set aside for the payment of labor, the portion which in each cycle is converted into living labor power, is the portion of capital which stands for and corresponds to the working population, and upon which the latter subsists. Before it is anything else, therefore, the working class is the animate part of capital, the part which will set in motion the process that yields to the total capital its increment of surplus value. As such, the working class is first of all, raw material for exploitation. This working class lives a social and political existence of its own, outside the direct grip of capital. It protests and submits, rebels or is integrated into bourgeois society, sees itself as a class or loses sight of its own existence, in accordance with the forces that act upon it and the moods, conjunctures, and conflicts of social and political life. But since, in its permanent existence, it is the living part of capital, its occupational structure, modes of work, and distribution through the industries of society are determined by the ongoing processes of the accumulation of capital. It is seized, released, flung into various parts of the social machinery and expelled by others, not in accord with its own will or self-activity, but in accord with the movement of capital.

Please read the passage below and answer the questions that follow: Labor and capital are the opposite poles of capitalist society. This polarity begins in each enterprise and is realized on a national and even international scale as a giant duality of classes which dominates the social structure. And yet this polarity is incorporated in a necessary identity between the two. Whatever its form, whether as money or commodities or means of production, capital is labor: it is labor that has been performed in the past, the objectified product of preceding phases of the cycle of production which becomes capital only through appropriation by the capitalist and its use in the accumulation of more capital. At the same time, as living labor which is purchased by the capitalist to set the production process into motion, labor is capital. That portion of money capital which is set aside for the payment of labor, the portion which in each cycle is converted into living labor power, is the portion of capital which stands for and corresponds to the working population, and upon which the latter subsists. Before it is anything else, therefore, the working class is the animate part of capital, the part which will set in motion the process that yields to the total capital its increment of surplus value. As such, the working class is first of all, raw material for exploitation. This working class lives a social and political existence of its own, outside the direct grip of capital. It protests and submits, rebels or is integrated into bourgeois society, sees itself as a class or loses sight of its own existence, in accordance with the forces that act upon it and the moods, conjunctures, and conflicts of social and political life. But since, in its permanent existence, it is the living part of capital, its occupational structure, modes of work, and distribution through the industries of society are determined by the ongoing processes of the accumulation of capital. It is seized, released, flung into various parts of the social machinery and expelled by others, not in accord with its own will or self-activity, but in accord with the movement of capital.

Read the Following statements and answer the question that follows: 1. But its most advanced formulation is called superstring theory, which even predicts the precise number of dimensions: ten. 2. However, the theory has already swept across the major physics research laboratories of the world and has irrevocably altered the scientific landscape of modern physics, generating a staggering number of research papers in the scientific literature (over 5,000 by one count). 3. Scientifically, the hyperspace theory goes by the names of Kaluza-Klein theory and supergravity. 4. The usual three dimensions of space (length, width, and breadth) and one of time are now extended by six more spatial dimensions. 5. We caution that the theory of hyperspace has not yet been experimentally confirmed and would, in fact, be exceedingly difficult to prove in the laboratory.

Read the Following statements and answer the question that follows: 1. It is less appealing, but morally more urgent, to understand the actions of the perpetrators. 2. It is easy to sanctify policies or identities by the deaths of the victims. 3. The victims were people; a true identification with them would involve grasping their lives rather than grasping at their deaths. 4. The moral danger, after all, is never that one might become a victim but that one might be a perpetrator or a bystander. 5. By definition the victims are dead, and unable to defend themselves from the use that others make of their deaths.

Read the following paragraph and answer the question that follows: Arti is planning for higher studies and her future goals include working as a manager of a non-profit organization designed to provide assistance to under-represented populations. Arti researched the mission statements of various colleges and discovered that college X, a small private college with a fee of Rs. 8 lakhs per year, was dedicated to producing compassionate and curious leaders. College Y, a large institute with a fee of Rs. 9 lakh per year, promoted itself as a leading research facility. Based on her research, she decided to apply to college X rather than College Y.

Carefully read the following paragraphs: The Lannisters had ______ gold than the Tyrells until the Lannister army sacked Highgarden and took the Tyrell fortune to pay back the Iron Bank. On the other hand, the Northern army has ______ than 10,000 men and therefore, Jon needs to bend the knee to Daenerys. What happens in the story next is dependent on George R. Martin, the writer of the series. For ______, he has not written anything further and we hope George R. Martin will get around to finishing the book _______. But as it happens, ________, book releases are delayed.

Read the following poem and answer the questions that follow: A spirit that lives in this world and does not wear the shirt of love, such an existence in a deep disgrace. Be foolish in love, because love is all there is. There is no way into presence except through love exchange. If someone asks, But what is love? Answer, dissolving the will. True freedom comes to those who have escaped the question of freewill and fate. Love is an emperor. The two worlds play across him. He barely notices their tumbling game. Love and lover live in eternity. Other desires are substitute for that way of being. How long do you lay embracing a corpse? Love rather the soul, which cannot be held. Anything born in spring dies in the fall, but love is not seasonal. With wine pressed from grapes, expect a hangover. But this love path has no expectations. You are uneasy riding the body? Dismount, travel lighter. Wings will be given. Be clear like mirror holding nothing. Be clean of pictures and the worry that comes with images. Gaze into what is not ashamed or afraid of any truth. Contain all human faces in your own without any judgment of them. Be pure emptiness. What is inside of that? You ask. Silence is all I can say. Lovers have some secrets they keep.

Read the following poem and answer the questions that follow: A spirit that lives in this world and does not wear the shirt of love, such an existence in a deep disgrace. Be foolish in love, because love is all there is. There is no way into presence except through love exchange. If someone asks, But what is love? Answer, dissolving the will. True freedom comes to those who have escaped the question of freewill and fate. Love is an emperor. The two worlds play across him. He barely notices their tumbling game. Love and lover live in eternity. Other desires are substitute for that way of being. How long do you lay embracing a corpse? Love rather the soul, which cannot be held. Anything born in spring dies in the fall, but love is not seasonal. With wine pressed from grapes, expect a hangover. But this love path has no expectations. You are uneasy riding the body? Dismount, travel lighter. Wings will be given. Be clear like mirror holding nothing. Be clean of pictures and the worry that comes with images. Gaze into what is not ashamed or afraid of any truth. Contain all human faces in your own without any judgment of them. Be pure emptiness. What is inside of that? You ask. Silence is all I can say. Lovers have some secrets they keep.

Read the following paragraph and answer the question that follows: The size of oceanic waves is a function of the velocity of the wind and of fetch, the length of the surface of the water subject to those winds. The average impact of waves against a coastline is a function of the size of the waves and the shape of the sea bottom. The degree of erosion on coastline is a function of the average impact of waves and the geologic composition of the coastline. According to the above paragraph,

Read the following paragraph and answer the question that follows: Indian religious and ethical space is different from that of the western countries. The Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, and the Mahabharata etc. enrich Indian religious and social space. Details of the treatment of human values and Dharmas have a long tradition. They are often compared, contrasted and debated by the characters in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. In the process, it has given birth to a tradition of dharma, which has been transferred from generation to generation. Ethical discourse was not a one-time affair. From time to time, religious leaders from various regions of India nourished and strengthened the Indian ethical arena. ), Sri Chaitanya (Sixteenth century) were prominent.

Read the following paragraph: "Music probably does something interesting," explains neuropsychologist Catherine Loveday of the University of Westminster. "It stimulates the brain in a very powerful way, because of our emotional connection with it." Unlike brain-games, playing an instrument is a rich and complex experience. This is because it's integrating information from senses like vision, hearing, and touch, along with fine movements. This can result in long-lasting changes in the brain. This can also be applicable in the business world. Go through the following statements: 1. Playing a musical instrument is a unique experience involving vision, hearing and touch. 2. Instrumental musicians are far more creative than vocalists. 3. Playing brain games does not integrate various senses and movements as much as playing a musical instrument. 4. Integrating the five senses is critical in the business world.

Carefully read the following statement: Though he thought of himself as a/an ______ person, his boss's abusive behaviour made him talk back. However, as he engaged in a/an _______ with his boss, all he got in response was a/an _______, which only filled him with _____

Answer questions 27-29 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Satyender heads a branch of a Micro-Finance company. The company provides small-size loans catering to rural households. As the head of the branch, he supervises three collection officers - Palani,

Answer questions 27-29 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Satyender heads a branch of a Micro-Finance company. The company provides small-size loans catering to rural households. As the head of the branch, he supervises three collection officers - Palani,

Answer questions 27-29 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Satyender heads a branch of a Micro-Finance company. The company provides small-size loans catering to rural households. As the head of the branch, he supervises three collection officers - Palani,

Answer questions 30-32 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Lal & Sons, a family business, comprises three different companies in three different industries. Sudarshan Lal was heading this entire business from the inception. Two years ago, he hired three managers, one for each company and Chhaganlal Jha as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to look after the entire business. These three managers are reporting to the CEO.

Answer questions 30-32 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Lal & Sons, a family business, comprises three different companies in three different industries. Sudarshan Lal was heading this entire business from the inception. Two years ago, he hired three managers, one for each company and Chhaganlal Jha as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to look after the entire business. These three managers are reporting to the CEO.

Answer questions 30-32 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Lal & Sons, a family business, comprises three different companies in three different industries. Sudarshan Lal was heading this entire business from the inception. Two years ago, he hired three managers, one for each company and Chhaganlal Jha as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to look after the entire business. These three managers are reporting to the CEO.

Answer questions 33-35 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Rose is the Queen of Kingdom A and Emily is the Queen of Kingdom B; both share a common border. They also share a border with Kingdom C, a much larger kingdom, ruled by King Jonathan who has expansive ambitions. Though individually their armies were no match to his might, together their armies were more powerful than King Jonathan’s army. Jonathan’s kingdom also bordered Kingdom K on the opposite side, making Kingdom C a buffer state between Kingdoms A, B and K. Kingdom K is ruled by King Summer Sault, who united a group of warring and belligerent tribes under his aegis. Kingdom K and Kingdom C had continuous skirmishes with each other. Jonathan realized that he has limited arms and ammunition to fight on all the three fronts simultaneously. Therefore, he planned to double the arms and ammunition which will take a few years.

Answer questions 33-35 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Rose is the Queen of Kingdom A and Emily is the Queen of Kingdom B; both share a common border. They also share a border with Kingdom C, a much larger kingdom, ruled by King Jonathan who has expansive ambitions. Though individually their armies were no match to his might, together their armies were more powerful than King Jonathan’s army. Jonathan’s kingdom also bordered Kingdom K on the opposite side, making Kingdom C a buffer state between Kingdoms A, B and K. Kingdom K is ruled by King Summer Sault, who united a group of warring and belligerent tribes under his aegis. Kingdom K and Kingdom C had continuous skirmishes with each other. Jonathan aims to invade and annex Kingdom K once and for all.

Answer questions 33-35 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Rose is the Queen of Kingdom A and Emily is the Queen of Kingdom B; both share a common border. They also share a border with Kingdom C, a much larger kingdom, ruled by King Jonathan who has expansive ambitions. Though individually their armies were no match to his might, together their armies were more powerful than King Jonathan’s army. Jonathan’s kingdom also bordered Kingdom K on the opposite side, making Kingdom C a buffer state between Kingdoms A, B and K. Kingdom K is ruled by King Summer Sault, who united a group of warring and belligerent tribes under his aegis. Kingdom K and Kingdom C had continuous skirmishes with each other. King Summer Sault was growing tired of the warring tribes, who slowed down the overall economic development of Kingdom K.

Answer questions 36-38 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Ava is the CEO of Ratan Brothers, a bicycle manufacturing company. The organization is doing well financially, with a steadily increasing share price. Recently, Ava promoted Bhushan, her nephew, to the position of head of procurement after he completed five years in the organization. After the promotion, he was automatically inducted into the quality council headed by Ava. Dev and Sons is a supplier to Ratan Brothers. It supplies “ball bearings”, an important part of any bicycle. After Bhushan took over, he switched to a new supplier citing quality deficiencies in Dev and Sons’ product. Dev and Sons responded by publicly declaring that quality was not compromised. Further, it alleged that its competitor bribed Bhushan to get the contract. Post this public allegation, the share price of Ratan Brothers started falling.

Answer questions 36-38 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Ava is the CEO of Ratan Brothers, a bicycle manufacturing company. The organization is doing well financially, with a steadily increasing share price. Recently, Ava promoted Bhushan, her nephew, to the position of head of procurement after he completed five years in the organization. After the promotion, he was automatically inducted into the quality council headed by Ava. Dev and Sons is a supplier to Ratan Brothers. It supplies “ball bearings”, an important part of any bicycle. After Bhushan took over, he switched to a new supplier citing quality deficiencies in Dev and Sons’ product. Dev and Sons responded by publicly declaring that quality was not compromised. Further, it alleged that its competitor bribed Bhushan to get the contract. Post this public allegation, the share price of Ratan Brothers started falling.

Answer questions 36-38 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Ava is the CEO of Ratan Brothers, a bicycle manufacturing company. The organization is doing well financially, with a steadily increasing share price. Recently, Ava promoted Bhushan, her nephew, to the position of head of procurement after he completed five years in the organization. After the promotion, he was automatically inducted into the quality council headed by Ava. Dev and Sons is a supplier to Ratan Brothers. It supplies “ball bearings”, an important part of any bicycle. After Bhushan took over, he switched to a new supplier citing quality deficiencies in Dev and Sons’ product. Dev and Sons responded by publicly declaring that quality was not compromised. Further, it alleged that its competitor bribed Bhushan to get the contract. Post this public allegation, the share price of Ratan Brothers started falling.

An employee, starting from Howrah station, has to deliver one parcel at Kharagpur office and another parcel at Jamshedpur office. His task starts the moment he boards the train at Howrah station, and gets completed immediately after delivering the second parcel.

An employee, starting from Kharagpur station, has to deliver one parcel at Howrah office and another parcel at Jamshedpur office. His task starts the moment he boards the train at Kharagpur station, and gets completed immediately after delivering the second parcel.

Answer questions 42-43 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Three persons, A, B and C, lived on an island hill. A lived on the top of the island hill, B occupied the middle portion of the hill and C occupied the bottom of the hill. The top of the hill received good rainfall, the main source of water in the hill, though this portion of the hill had few trees. The middle of the hill however was lush with trees offering timber. The bottom of the hill had a good amount of stones and sand. A, B and C assessed their wealth in terms of ownership of timber, water, stones and sand available in the island hill only. During heavy rains, stones and sand from the top and middle portion of the hill rolled over to the bottom.

Answer questions 42-43 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Three persons, A, B and C, lived on an island hill. A lived on the top of the island hill, B occupied the middle portion of the hill and C occupied the bottom of the hill. The top of the hill received good rainfall, the main source of water in the hill, though this portion of the hill had few trees. The middle of the hill however was lush with trees offering timber. The bottom of the hill had a good amount of stones and sand. A, B and C assessed their wealth in terms of ownership of timber, water, stones and sand available in the island hill only. During heavy rains, stones and sand from the top and middle portion of the hill rolled over to the bottom.

Answer questions 44-45 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Ramesh, the owner of an auto-component manufacturing company in Sanand, had just returned after attending the funeral of his employee, Pankaj Kumar, who had died of cancer at the age of 35. Pankaj was a hardworking and sincere employee with impeccable performance record. Pankaj was the sole bread earner for his family with negligible savings and was survived by his wife and two school going children. His wife will get around 8 lakh rupees accrued to Pankaj as social security benefit. A large number of employees wanted the organization to employ Pankaj’s wife on compassionate grounds so that she could support her family. Though Ramesh was sympathetic to the demand, he realized that this could set a precedence, where the organization will have to provide jobs for everyone with similar conditions in the future. In fact, only recently, Ramesh had refused a request for a job to the daughter of an employee, who had died a few months before he was to retire. Ramesh formed a committee to look into this matter and the committee came up with the following suggestions: 1. Create a fund to take care of immediate family expenses. 2. Finance the school and college education of his children. 3. Sponsor the vocational education of his wife and subsequently help her find a job. 4. Purchase insurance for all the family members. 5. Request all employees of the organization to contribute towards the welfare of the family.

Answer questions 44-45 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Ramesh, the owner of an auto-component manufacturing company in Sanand, had just returned after attending the funeral of his employee, Pankaj Kumar, who had died of cancer at the age of 35. Pankaj was a hardworking and sincere employee with impeccable performance record. Pankaj was the sole bread earner for his family with negligible savings and was survived by his wife and two school going children. His wife will get around 8 lakh rupees accrued to Pankaj as social security benefit. A large number of employees wanted the organization to employ Pankaj’s wife on compassionate grounds so that she could support her family. Though Ramesh was sympathetic to the demand, he realized that this could set a precedence, where the organization will have to provide jobs for everyone with similar conditions in the future. In fact, only recently, Ramesh had refused a request for a job to the daughter of an employee, who had died a few months before he was to retire. Ramesh, along with senior managers, was in the process of designing a policy to deal with such issues in the future.

Answer questions 46-47 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Madhuri Apte, a busy professional, rents out her studio apartment located in South Mumbai. Since she stays three hours away from the studio apartment, she uses a networked digital lock to monitor the property remotely. Each customer gets a temporary and unique access code for the digital lock that enables them to enter the studio apartment for the duration of stay. The apartment’s entrance door can also be opened with physical keys and Madhuri Apte has two such keys in her possession. Madhuri Apte has employed a cleaner who has a permanent access code to enter the apartment for cleaning every day. She is available only between 15:00 hrs and 17:00 hrs. Madhuri Apte’s apartment caters largely to international customers. A customer typically stays for 3 days, paying an average rent of $125 per day. While Madhuri Apte's studio apartment gets good feedback on other aspects, many seem unhappy as they found the operation of the digital lock complicated.

Answer questions 46-47 on the basis of information given in the following situation. Madhuri Apte, a busy professional, rents out her studio apartment located in South Mumbai. Since she stays three hours away from the studio apartment, she uses a networked digital lock to monitor the property remotely. Each customer gets a temporary and unique access code for the digital lock that enables them to enter the studio apartment for the duration of stay. The apartment’s entrance door can also be opened with physical keys and Madhuri Apte has two such keys in her possession. Madhuri Apte has employed a cleaner who has a permanent access code to enter the apartment for cleaning every day. She is available only between 15:00 hrs and 17:00 hrs. Madhuri Apte’s apartment caters largely to international customers. A customer typically stays for 3 days, paying an average rent of $125 per day. While Madhuri Apte's studio apartment gets good feedback on other aspects, many seem unhappy as they found the operation of the digital lock complicated.

Six teams are playing in a hockey tournament where each team is playing against every other team exactly once. At an intermediate stage, the status is as follows:

Six teams are playing in a hockey tournament where each team is playing against every other team exactly once. At an intermediate stage, the status is as follows:

Six teams are playing in a hockey tournament where each team is playing against every other team exactly once. At an intermediate stage, the status is as follows:

Six teams are playing in a hockey tournament where each team is playing against every other team exactly once. At an intermediate stage, the status is as follows:

Six teams are playing in a hockey tournament where each team is playing against every other team exactly once. At an intermediate stage, the status is as follows: