Analysis

The CAT 2015 : Detailed Analysis and conclusions
CAT 2015 was a mixed bag with more pleasant and less painful surprises. The Language section often dreaded by students in our side of India was fairly simple one and easy to negotiate. The Quantitative Ability section was truly a sitter for anyone who has been preparing sincerely for CAT. A CHEM student who has done even his Thrust & Accelerate portion of material – would confidently do 28-30 questions with almost cent-percent accuracy.

The spanner in the easy ride was the DI/LR section. In last several years this was probably the toughest ever DI & LR section. The do well in the section students will have to spend substantial time in understanding and structuring the data and building the structure clearly. Even after having done that the questions would require good comprehension to finally arrive at the answer.

Forenoon (morning) session
Section – 1 : Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension

This was the first section of the CAT paper was divided into two sub-sections
One, with 24 questions based on Reading Comprehension and
Second, with 10 questions 5 Para jumbles , 3 on Essence of the paragraph and 2 on odd sentence out of a jumbled up paragraph.
Overall the section was very manageable. Anyone who is practicing the RC section regularly will find very few difficulties in navigating the section. A good student should be able to attempt up to 30 questions with almost 85% accuracy. Do not worry about accuracy in the jumbled up paragraph types.

Here is a detailed analysis of the section
Sub – section I : Reading Comprehension

Subject

URL

Yes we even found the source

No. of Qs.

Difficulty Level

  1. Relationship of Economic inequality and accumulation of wealth

Edited from
https://hbr.org/2014/04/pikettys-capital-in-a-lot-less-than-696-pages/

3

2 simple

1 moderate

  1. Increasing dependence of human memory on internet resource

http://www.iht.com/2014/03/22/the-web-is-here-to-stay/

6

1 tough

2 moderate

3 simple

  1. Relevance of studying humanities in a dominantly technical world

 

3

3 simple

  1. Economic Theory that suggests migration actually results in making a country/world richer

Edited from

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/debunking-the-myth-of-the-job-stealing-immigrant.html

6

1 tricky

2 moderate

3 simple

  1. Why world’s poor  need grid power not just solar panels

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329804-400-worlds-poor-need-grid-power-not-just-solar-panels/

6

2 moderate

4 simple

 

Sub – section II : Verbal Ability
What was interesting is that all VA questions except the essence questions were non MCQ . The questions in which the sentences had to be arranged in a logical paragraph had 5 sentences each and were numbered 1 to 5. The message was clear attempt all the jumbled up paragraphs because there was no negative marking for them.

Again questions on Odd sentence out and those on essence were fairly simple and could be easily done accurately by eliminating the “not possible” choices. While even when one is confused in the jumbled up paragraphs because one did not have the support of the option choices – one must still attempt them as all of them were non-MCQ questions and hence one does not have to worry about negative marks.

The Topics for the PARA JUMBLES and essence writing were :
1) Jeruselam syndrome
2) Narratives being an important tool to engage audience and to drive the message
3) How the rivers in Nepal could be the source of economic revival for a battered country
4) Relation between animal size/structure and its eating habits hence classified as bingers and grazers
5) Dark matter and the Galaxy
The odd sentence out and the essence questions were fairly simple and could be answered easily by eliminating the options.

Surprises
Not much except that in tune with the sample paper that IIMs had put up – the questions based on vocabulary and English Usage (Grammar) went missing completely.

Section – 2 : Data Interpretation and Logical Reasoning
Most cases were time consuming beyond the generally challenging DI & LR. However one case in DI and one using a line graph and data on Tourist was fairly simple. Similarly once you get the logic right a case on cube made of smaller numbered cubes was also a simple one. Combined with these two one can do up to two to three more cases and hence an attempt of anywhere between 16-20 questions in this section would be a good idea.
Here is a detailed analysis of the section

Sub Section 1 : Data Interpretation

Case #

 

Type

Difficulty level

Case 1

Qs. : 4

10 plants their Installed capacities & utilization

Table

Moderate to tough

Case 2

Qs. : 4

4 people doing different jobs A, B and C

Mathematical Reasoning

Moderate and Manageable

Case 3

Qs. : 4

Newspapers Daily News, Daily Planet

Set Theory (Venn Diagram)

Very tough to arrange the data

Otherwise venn diagram logic – many venn diagrams hence lengthy

Case 4

Qs. : 4

Tourists Visiting a country

Line graph and Table

Manageable (Easy to Moderate)

 

Sub Section 2 : Logical Reasoning

Case #

 

Type

Difficulty level

Case 1

Qs. : 4

Cube (visuaisation & Mathematical Reasoning)

Advanced basic of reasoning

Moderate to tough but manageable

Case 2

Qs. : 4

10 people, 5 projects, distribution of laptops

Conditional Reasoning

Moderate to Tough

Case 3

Qs. : 4

 

 

 

Case 4

Qs. : 4

 

 

 

 

Surprises
As already suggested, that this section was surprisingly tough.

The other surprise was total absence of questions on sequencing, arranging, relating or associating. No questions on blood relations which had found some presence in recent previous CATs.

The primary skill that was tested was puzzle solving which required students to try out scenarios, try and verify and to visualize strongly.

Section – 3 : Quantitaive Ability

This section was a pleasant surprise for all those students who are scared of mathematics. It was sitter in the true sense of the word. Increased stress on arithmetic made it all the more of a blessing for CHEM students. The ratios approach would have increased their speed immensely in solving many questions. Geometry questions were simple and could have been easily done by observation of diagrams drawn. While all questions could have been done but even if we discount a few cumbersome ones – a sincere student can do up to 30 questions with almost cent percent accuracy.
Here is a detailed analysis of the section

Subject

No. of Qs.

Difficulty Level

Ratios & Percentages

4

3 simple

1 moderate

Profit & Loss

2

Both simple

Averages, Mixtures & Alligation

2

1 simple
1 simple; little high on calculations

Work & Time

1

Moderate

Speed, Time & Distance

2

1 moderate

1 Time Consuming not tough

Number Theory

1

High on Calculation – not tough

Geometry & Mensuration

7

3 simple

3 moderate

1 high on calculation

P & C

1

Tricky but simple once understood

Quadratic & higher order equation

5

3 simple & moderate

2 tricky

Logaritham

1

Simple

Functions

1

Simple

Squences & series

2

Both simple

Trigonometry – Heights & Distance

1

simple

Coordinate Geometry

1

Simple (actually of P& C)

Set Theory

1

Very Simple

Misc.

1

Tricky

 

Overall View
The test was simple overall – one expects it to be high on attempts. Here is what a top IIM call might demand

Section

Attempt

Accuracy

VA & RC

27-30

85%

DI & LR

16-22

95%

QA

27-30

95%

Overall

70-80

90%

 

For A & B+ category B-Schools a good overall attack could be as under

Section

Attempt

Accuracy

VA & RC

25

85%

DI & LR

12-14

95%

QA

25

95%

Overall

60-70

90%

 

One can grade the tables proportionately lower for next level of colleges.

Go on and see a more detailed analysis on the following pages.

Hope you like and appreciate the effort of Team-CHEM in putting up this analysis.


QA

Question 1
Question:

How many roots of the question x3 + x2 + 2x – 4 = 0 are real?

Solution:

At x = 1, the given expression becomes zero. Hence, the above equation can be factorised to (x – 1) (x2 + 2x + 4) = 0 x2 + 2x + 4 = 0 has imaginary roots. Hence, x = 1 is the only real root.


Question 2
Question:

A number is divided in the ratio of 3 : 4 : 5 first and then in the ratio 1: 2 : 4 : 5. Difference between the smallest parts in the above two divisions is 40. What is the number.

Solution:

therefore the required number is 240.


Question 3
Question:

Diagonals of a rhombus are in the ratio 3 : 4. What is the ratio of its side to the smaller diagonal?

Solution:

Let the diagonals are 30 & 40. Then its side will be
The required ratio = 25 / 30 = 5 / 6


Question 4
Question:

Two parallel sides of a quadrilateral are 10 am & 20 am. if the other two sides are 13 cm each, what is its area?

Solution:

The quadrilateral is a trapezium since one pair of sides is parallel.

Draw BE II AD as shown.
Now, height of the triangle BEC is
Area of trapezium


Question 5
Question:

Sides of a triangle are 6 cm, 8 cm & 10 cm. what is the area of triangle formed by joining the mid points of sides of the above triangle?

Solution:




Question 6
Question:

F(x) = ax4 – bx2 + x + 5, f(–3) = 2. Find f (3).

Solution:

f(–3) = a (–3)4 – b (–3)2 – 3 + 5 = 2
therefore 81 a – 9b = 0
f(3) = 81 a – 9b + 3 + 5 = 8


Question 7
Question:

Three positive integers a, b & c are in G.P. and a + b + c = 70. If 3a, 4b & 4c are in A.P, find the value of b.

Solution:

Let numbers are a, ar, ar2.
a + ar + ar2 = 70 ––––––––(1)
3a, 4b & 4c are in A.P
then, 8b = 3a + 4c
8 (ar) = 3(a) + 4 (ar2) ––––(2)
On solving,
therefore b = 20


Question 8
Question:

If roots of the quadratic equation x2 + px + 24 = 0 are integers, how many values of P are possible?

Solution:

Product of roots = 24
Sum of roots = – p
24 can be expressed as a product of two numbers as 1 x 24, 2 x 12, 3 x 8, 4 x 6, – 1 x – 24, –2 x – 12, –3 x –8 and – 4 x 6. i.e.. total 8 values of P are possible.


Question 9
Question:

If x belongs to R such that |6 – x^2 | < | x |, then which of the following is correct?
(a) 3 < | x | < 4
(b) 2 < | x | < 3
(c) 1 < | x | < 4
(d) 1 < | x | < 3

Solution:

Check from the options
Option (b)
|x| < 3 => – 3 < x < 3
|x| > 2 => x < – 2 or x > 2
Check for x = 2.5, |6 – (2.5)2| = 0.25
|2.5| = 0.5
Here, 0.25 < 2.5


Question 10
Question:

If a1 = 7 and an + 1 = for all n greater than or equal to 1 & n is a positive integer, then a79 =

Solution:




Question 11
Question:

Out of total of 99 students who fail in at least one of the three subjects, 55 jail in economics, so fail in statistics and 40 in mathematics. If 42 students failed in exactly 2 subjects, how many failed in all the three subjects.

Solution:




Question 12
Question:

If it will be 6 pm after t minutes. Fifty minutes back it was 4t minutes past 3 pm. What is the value of t.
(a) 5 : 26 pm
(b) 5 : 34 pm
(c) 4 : 26 pm
(d) 4 : 34 pm

Solution:




Question 13
Question:

A = 2B = 3C. where A, B and C are positive integers. What is the minimum average of the three numbers?
(a) 11 / 6
(b) 11 / 3
(c) 2 / 3
(d) 5 / 7

Solution:




Question 14
Question:

Out of a group of people, 28% are nonvegetarian. Of these nonvegetarians 25% are female. If total males were 66%, what % of vegetarians are females?
(a) 25%
(b) 37.5%
(c) 30%
(d) 20%

Solution:

Total

100

V

72

NV

28

 

M

F

M

F

 

27

 

7

 

% of males = 66%  females = 34%
The required% = (27/72) x 100 = 37.5%


Question 15
Question:

Out of total votes, 10% of the voters did not vote. 10% of the votes were in valid. If the winner got 54% of the valid votes and wins by a margin of 1620, find total voters?

Solution:

Let the total no. of votes be T.
10% of T did not vote, therefore 90% people vote, out of which 10% were invalid. therefore 90% of votes were valid. And the winner wins by 8% of the valid votes which is 1620 votes.
Therefore
T x (0.9) x (0.9) x (0.08) = 1620
T = 25,00 votes.


Question 16
Question:

A dealer sells an item to a middleman at a discount of 25% whose list price is 3200 the middleman sold it to the retailer at a loss of 15% who sold it to a customer at a profit of 20% after giving a discount of 10%. Find the marked price of the retailer.

Solution:




Question 17
Question:

Two containers A & B contain 6 & each of alcohol and water respectively. Some alcohol from A is transferred in to C (which is empty). This alcohol from C is then transferred to B and then the mixture from B is transferred to C. which is transferred to A thereafter. The ratio of alcohol to water in A is now 4 : 1. Find the capacity of C.

Solution:

The final ratio of Alcohol & water in container A is 4 : 1.
The process followed is
Certain amount of Alcohol is transferred from A & B and then same amount of mixture transferred from B to A.
In such case the ratio of Alcohol & water in container A is always same as the ratio of water and Alcohol in container B. Now as container B had 6 litres of water initially, to make the ratio of water and Alcohol 4 : 1 we have to mix 6 x 1/4 = 1.5 litres of Alcohol


Question 18
Question:

where a is a positive number, then
(a)
(b) O < a <= 1
(c) O < a
(d) 2 < a < 3

Solution:




Question 19
Question:

2xP < 3xq then for all x, which of the following is true? (x > 0)
(a) p >= q
(b) p <= q
(c) p = q
(d) p not equal to q

Solution:

At p = q,
2x < 3x
or 2 < 3


Question 20
Question:

The angle of depression of the top and bottom of a pole seen from the top of a 15 m high TV tower are respectively 30-degree & 60-degree. Find the height of the pole.

Solution:

Let CD = h & BC = x

=> h=20



Question 21
Question:

In how many ways can one more from (O, 0) to (6, 4) if the path can be either parallel to x – axis or to y – axis ? (each segment is of length one unit)

Solution:

The required ways is 10C4 (or 10C6) = 210


Question 22
Question:

What is area of the region bounded by |x| + |y| = ?

Solution:




Question 23
Question:

Pipes A & B can fill a tank in 3 & 2 hrs respectively while C can empty it in 4 hrs. Pipe A is opened at 12 pm, C at 1 pm & then B at 2 pm. At what time the tank will be full?
(a) 3 pm
(b) 3 : 30 pm
(c) 4 : 00 pm
(d) 4 : 30 pm

Solution:

 

 

 

 

at 3 pm

 

 

A

B

C

A

B

C

Total

n

3

2

4

3

1

2

 

r

4

6

–3

4

6

–3

 

v

12

 

 

12

6

–6

12 + 6 – 6 =12

 


Question 24
Question:

Amit & Sumit are moving along a circular track in opposite direction take 12 & 15 min respectively to complete one round. After what time will they be diametrically opposite?
(a) 3 min
(b) 3 min 20 sec
(c) 3 min 30 sec
(d) 3 min 40 sec

Solution:

 

 

 

 

 

A

 

B

n

5

 

4

 

4

:

5

r

12

 

15

v

60

:

60

 

Time after which they are diametrically opposite (distance = 30) = 30 / (4 + 5) = 30 / 9 = 10 / 3 sec = 3 min 26 sec.


Question 25
Question:

Average marks of three sections A, B & C are 37, 23 & 41 respectively. If the average of section A & B is 29 & that of B & C is 33, what is the average of all the three sections.

Solution:




Question 26
Question:

If x & y are integers, number of solutions of 9x – 33y = 19 are.

Solution:

The given equation is 9x – 33y = 19.
We see that the coefficients of x & y are multiples of 3. But, RHS (19) is not a multiple of 3.
Hence, no solution is possible.


Question 27
Question:

ABCD is a square where B is to the east of A & C is to the south of B. P & Q are mid points of AB & AD respectively. R is a point to the north of P at a distance of 16 m & S to the west of Q at a distance of 25 m. the line joining the points S & R passes through A. Find the side of the square.

Solution:




Question 28
Question:

Length & breadth of a hall one in the ratio 2 : 1. Cost of painting the floor is Rs. 3600 at the rate of Rs 50 / m2. The cost of painting its four walls excluding doors and windows is Rs. 17200 at the rate of Rs. 100 / m2. If the area of doors and windows is 8 m2, find the height of the hall.

Solution:




Question 29
Question:

The amount with A on a particular day is thrice with that of B. Everyday now, the amount with A gets reduced by a fixed amount & the amount with B gets added by the half of that amount. After five days. The amount with A & B are in the ratio 4 : 3. After how many days, will the amount with B gets double the amount with A?

Solution:




Question 30
Question:

An aeroplane departs from Bangalore at4 : 15. And reaches Dubai at 3 : 30 & reaches Bangalore at 9 : 00. If the speed of the plane is 800 kmph, find the distance between Dubai & Bangalore.

Solution:

Total time required to depart from Bengalor & V to arrive at the destination is 16hrs 45 min (9:00 pm – 4:15am) and it halted 8 hrs 45 min (3:30 pm – 6:45 am) at Dubai. Hence it travelled for 16hrs 45 min – 8 hrs 45 min = 8 hrs.
Total distance covered = 8 x 800 = 6400 km.
therefore Distance from Bengalore to Dubai = 6400 / 2 = 3200 km


Question 31
Question:

7 prizes of different values to be distributed among 3 students of different rank such that each students should get at least one prize. In how many ways this can be done if a student having a lower rank does not get a prize of higher value than a student with a better rank?

Solution:

Using the formula n – 1Cr – 1,
7 – 1C3-1 = 6C2 = 15.


Question 32
Question:

The shopkeeper purchases articles A, B, C He purchased 1200 articles of A each priced at Rs 1000, 1600 of type B each at Rs 750 and 2400 of type C each at Rs 500. He sold A & B at a profit of 30% & 40% respectively & C at a loss of 10% .what is his overall profit?

Solution:

 

A

B

C

n

1200

1600

2400

r

1000

750

500

V

120000

120000

120000

 

1      :

1

:     1

 

30%

40%

–10%

 

0.3

0.4

–0.1

 

The required profit % = (0.3 + 0.4 – 0.1)/3 x 100
= 20%


Question 33
Question:

There is a chord of length 6 cm inside a circle of diameter 12 cm. find the area of the smaller portion of the circle made by the chord.

Solution:




Question 34
Question:

xy = yx and x2 = y3, then what is the value of x?
(a) 4/9
(b) 3/2
(c) 27/8
(d) 9/4

Solution:




DI and LR
Question 1
The following table gives installed capacities and percentage of utilization of the capacities of 10 plants from A to J of a Cell phone company. This constitutes 60% of the total installed capacities.

Plant

Installed Capacity

Percentage Utilization

A

650

70

B

250

40

C

500

60

D

600

100

E

1000

50

 

The following information is known about the installed capacities and Utilization of the other plants (F,G,H,I,J)
1. F has the highest installed capacity.
2. G has the lowest installed capacity.
3. I and J have same installed capacities. No set of other two have the same installed capacities.
4. The Installed capacities of H and I is at least equal to installed capacity of A.
5. The average utilization of G, H and I is 80%.

Question:

What is the Installed capacity of F?
(a) 1050
(b) 1100
(c)1200
(d) Cannot be determined

Solution:

The sum of Installed capacities of A to E is 3000 which is 60% of total installed capacity.
So the sum of installed capacities of A to J is 5000. So the total of F to J is 2000.
Now according to the given condition G has least and F has highest installed capacities. Also the capacities of I and J are same. By hit and trial let us assume that the installed capacity of G is 100. (because none of them have installed capacities as less than 100).
So G = 100
Now let us assume that I and J are 150 each.
As sum of H and I is at least equal to A (=650) so H will be 500.
This is not possible as 500 is already given in the table.
So H can be 550.
The total of these 4 values is 100 + 150 + 150 + 550 = 950
Therefore the installed capacities of F is 2000 – 950 =1050
No other value will satisfy all the conditions.

1050


Question 2
The following table gives installed capacities and percentage of utilization of the capacities of 10 plants from A to J of a Cell phone company. This constitutes 60% of the total installed capacities.

Plant

Installed Capacity

Percentage Utilization

A

650

70

B

250

40

C

500

60

D

600

100

E

1000

50

 

The following information is known about the installed capacities and Utilization of the other plants (F,G,H,I,J)
1. F has the highest installed capacity.
2. G has the lowest installed capacity.
3. I and J have same installed capacities. No set of other two have the same installed capacities.
4. The Installed capacities of H and I is at least equal to installed capacity of A.
5. The average utilization of G, H and I is 80%.

Question:

What is the Installed capacity of G?
(a) 200
(b) 150
(c)100
(d) 250

Solution:

The sum of Installed capacities of A to E is 3000 which is 60% of total installed capacity.
So the sum of installed capacities of A to J is 5000. So the total of F to J is 2000.
Now according to the given condition G has least and F has highest installed capacities. Also the capacities of I and J are same. By hit and trial let us assume that the installed capacity of G is 100. (because none of them have installed capacities as less than 100).
So G = 100
Now let us assume that I and J are 150 each.
As sum of H and I is at least equal to A (=650) so H will be 500.
This is not possible as 500 is already given in the table.
So H can be 550.
The total of these 4 values is 100 + 150 + 150 + 550 = 950
Therefore the installed capacities of F is 2000 – 950 =1050
No other value will satisfy all the conditions.

100


Question 3
The following table gives installed capacities and percentage of utilization of the capacities of 10 plants from A to J of a Cell phone company. This constitutes 60% of the total installed capacities.

Plant

Installed Capacity

Percentage Utilization

A

650

70

B

250

40

C

500

60

D

600

100

E

1000

50

 

The following information is known about the installed capacities and Utilization of the other plants (F,G,H,I,J)
1. F has the highest installed capacity.
2. G has the lowest installed capacity.
3. I and J have same installed capacities. No set of other two have the same installed capacities.
4. The Installed capacities of H and I is at least equal to installed capacity of A.
5. The average utilization of G, H and I is 80%.

Question:

The combined production of G and H is what percent of the total production for 2014?
(a) 37
(b) 27%
(c) 23%
(d) 17%

Solution:

The sum of Installed capacities of A to E is 3000 which is 60% of total installed capacity.
So the sum of installed capacities of A to J is 5000. So the total of F to J is 2000.
Now according to the given condition G has least and F has highest installed capacities. Also the capacities of I and J are same. By hit and trial let us assume that the installed capacity of G is 100. (because none of them have installed capacities as less than 100).
So G = 100
Now let us assume that I and J are 150 each.
As sum of H and I is at least equal to A (=650) so H will be 500.
This is not possible as 500 is already given in the table.
So H can be 550.
The total of these 4 values is 100 + 150 + 150 + 550 = 950
Therefore the installed capacities of F is 2000 – 950 =1050
No other value will satisfy all the conditions.

Total Capacities of F and G is 1050 + 100 = 1150 which is 1150/5000 x 100 = 23%


Question 4
The following table gives installed capacities and percentage of utilization of the capacities of 10 plants from A to J of a Cell phone company. This constitutes 60% of the total installed capacities.

Plant

Installed Capacity

Percentage Utilization

A

650

70

B

250

40

C

500

60

D

600

100

E

1000

50

 

The following information is known about the installed capacities and Utilization of the other plants (F,G,H,I,J)
1. F has the highest installed capacity.
2. G has the lowest installed capacity.
3. I and J have same installed capacities. No set of other two have the same installed capacities.
4. The Installed capacities of H and I is at least equal to installed capacity of A.
5. The average utilization of G, H and I is 80%.

Question:

If in 2015 G and F utilized 100% of their capacities and H, I and J utilized 90% of their capacities and all the other had same utilization as 2014, then what is the increase in the production of 2015 over 2015?
(a) 37
(b) 27%
(c) 23%
(d) 17%

Solution:


Question 5
There are 343 small cubes of side 1 cm each. These cubes have serial numbers 1 to 343 written on them. They are arranged in the form a larger cube of side 7 cm each. They are arranged in the form of cube keeping the following conditions.
1. It starts by creating a bottom layer which has the front row left most cube equals to 1 and then upto 7 to compete the row. The 2nd row behind it will have 8 to 14, 15 to 21 and so on.
2. The second layer will start again in the same manner such that the last number in the topmost corner at the back is 343.

Question:

What is the sum of all the cubes in the column of the cube with cubes in the second row from the front and third from column from the left?

Solution:

The first cube (third from the left, bottom layer 2nd row from the front) is 10.
The next cube is definitely 10 + 49 = 59
So the sum of all the cubes is

= 1099


Question 6
There are 343 small cubes of side 1 cm each. These cubes have serial numbers 1 to 343 written on them. They are arranged in the form a larger cube of side 7 cm each. They are arranged in the form of cube keeping the following conditions.
1. It starts by creating a bottom layer which has the front row left most cube equals to 1 and then upto 7 to compete the row. The 2nd row behind it will have 8 to 14, 15 to 21 and so on.
2. The second layer will start again in the same manner such that the last number in the topmost corner at the back is 343.

Question:

What is the sum of all the cubes in the diagonal starting from right most bottom cube and right most top cube at the back?

Solution:

The first cube (right most bottom layer) is 7.
The last cube is 343 which is diagonally in the rightmost layer.
So the sum of all the cubes is

= 1225


Question 7
There are 343 small cubes of side 1 cm each. These cubes have serial numbers 1 to 343 written on them. They are arranged in the form a larger cube of side 7 cm each. They are arranged in the form of cube keeping the following conditions.
1. It starts by creating a bottom layer which has the front row left most cube equals to 1 and then upto 7 to compete the row. The 2nd row behind it will have 8 to 14, 15 to 21 and so on.
2. The second layer will start again in the same manner such that the last number in the topmost corner at the back is 343.

Question:

What is the sum of all the cubes in the diagonal starting from right most bottom cube and left most top cube at the back?

Solution:

The first cube (right most bottom layer) is 7.
The last cube is 337 which is diagonally in the leftmost back layer.
So the sum of all the cubes is


= 1204


Question 8
There are 343 small cubes of side 1 cm each. These cubes have serial numbers 1 to 343 written on them. They are arranged in the form a larger cube of side 7 cm each. They are arranged in the form of cube keeping the following conditions.
1. It starts by creating a bottom layer which has the front row left most cube equals to 1 and then upto 7 to compete the row. The 2nd row behind it will have 8 to 14, 15 to 21 and so on.
2. The second layer will start again in the same manner such that the last number in the topmost corner at the back is 343.

Question:

What is the sum of all the cubes in the bottom most layer in the diagonal?

Solution:

The first cube (left most bottom layer) is 1.
The last cube is 49 which is diagonally in the right most bottom layer.
So the sum of all the cubes is

= 175


Question 9
There were 10 tests taken among the 5 girls named K, L , M, N and O. The top three rankers were given 30, 20 and 10 points respectively. The Fourth and fifth Rank students had 0 points each.
There is no tie in any of the tests.

 

K

L

M

N

O

Total After 5 tests

110

80

60

20

30

Total After 10 Tests

180

140

130

90

60

 

(The numbers may vary)
Some of these conditions are as follows:
For Test 1 to 5.
1. None of the students had positive score in all the 5 tests and everyone of them has at least one positive score.
2. Only 1 student achieved Rank 1 in more than 1 test.
3. The number of positive scores of K is less than number of positive score of L.
For Tests 6 to 10
1. Only 1 student achieved positive score in all the tests but it was neither K or M.
2. Only 1 student achieved positive score in only one of the tests.
3. The other three have positive scores in three of the tests.

Question:

The highest number of second ranks in tests 5 to 10 was/were achieved by:
1. K and M
2. M and O
3. K and N
4. Only N

Solution:


Question 10
There were 10 tests taken among the 5 girls named K, L , M, N and O. The top three rankers were given 30, 20 and 10 points respectively. The Fourth and fifth Rank students had 0 points each.
There is no tie in any of the tests.

 

K

L

M

N

O

Total After 5 tests

110

80

60

20

30

Total After 10 Tests

180

140

130

90

60

 

(The numbers may vary)
Some of these conditions are as follows:
For Test 1 to 5.
1. None of the students had positive score in all the 5 tests and everyone of them has at least one positive score.
2. Only 1 student achieved Rank 1 in more than 1 test.
3. The number of positive scores of K is less than number of positive score of L.
For Tests 6 to 10
1. Only 1 student achieved positive score in all the tests but it was neither K or M.
2. Only 1 student achieved positive score in only one of the tests.
3. The other three have positive scores in three of the tests.

Question:

Which of the following is not true?
1. Everyone achieved rank one at least once.
2.
3.
4.

Solution:


Question 11
There were 10 tests taken among the 5 girls named K, L , M, N and O. The top three rankers were given 30, 20 and 10 points respectively. The Fourth and fifth Rank students had 0 points each.
There is no tie in any of the tests.

 

K

L

M

N

O

Total After 5 tests

110

80

60

20

30

Total After 10 Tests

180

140

130

90

60

 

(The numbers may vary)
Some of these conditions are as follows:
For Test 1 to 5.
1. None of the students had positive score in all the 5 tests and everyone of them has at least one positive score.
2. Only 1 student achieved Rank 1 in more than 1 test.
3. The number of positive scores of K is less than number of positive score of L.
For Tests 6 to 10
1. Only 1 student achieved positive score in all the tests but it was neither K or M.
2. Only 1 student achieved positive score in only one of the tests.
3. The other three have positive scores in three of the tests.

Question:

How many times L achieved 0 points in the tests 5 to 10?

Solution:


Question 12
There were 10 tests taken among the 5 girls named K, L , M, N and O. The top three rankers were given 30, 20 and 10 points respectively. The Fourth and fifth Rank students had 0 points each.
There is no tie in any of the tests.

 

K

L

M

N

O

Total After 5 tests

110

80

60

20

30

Total After 10 Tests

180

140

130

90

60

 

(The numbers may vary)
Some of these conditions are as follows:
For Test 1 to 5.
1. None of the students had positive score in all the 5 tests and everyone of them has at least one positive score.
2. Only 1 student achieved Rank 1 in more than 1 test.
3. The number of positive scores of K is less than number of positive score of L.
For Tests 6 to 10
1. Only 1 student achieved positive score in all the tests but it was neither K or M.
2. Only 1 student achieved positive score in only one of the tests.
3. The other three have positive scores in three of the tests.

Question:

Who scored maximum number of first ranks?
1. K
2. L
3. M
4. N

Solution:


Question 13
The number of tourist visiting a country from year 2009 to 2013 is given in the following line graph. The data is given in four quarters (Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4)

There is a table which gives the percentage change in the number of tourists in the particular quarter over the previous year of the same quarter.

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2009

-11.9

5.6

-0.2

7.6

2010

3.4

3.7

2.5

2.3

2011

1.6

-3.4

6.5

6.3

2012

8.7

4.6

3.8

9.1

2013

4.9

4.8

2.2

1.3

2014

3.6

7.2

1.7

7.1

 

Question:

What is the Number of Tourists visited in 2008 Quarter 1?

Solution:


Question 14
The number of tourist visiting a country from year 2009 to 2013 is given in the following line graph. The data is given in four quarters (Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4)

There is a table which gives the percentage change in the number of tourists in the particular quarter over the previous year of the same quarter.

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2009

-11.9

5.6

-0.2

7.6

2010

3.4

3.7

2.5

2.3

2011

1.6

-3.4

6.5

6.3

2012

8.7

4.6

3.8

9.1

2013

4.9

4.8

2.2

1.3

2014

3.6

7.2

1.7

7.1

 

Question:

What is the number of tourists visited the year 2014 Quarter 4?

Solution:


Question 15
The number of tourist visiting a country from year 2009 to 2013 is given in the following line graph. The data is given in four quarters (Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4)

There is a table which gives the percentage change in the number of tourists in the particular quarter over the previous year of the same quarter.

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2009

-11.9

5.6

-0.2

7.6

2010

3.4

3.7

2.5

2.3

2011

1.6

-3.4

6.5

6.3

2012

8.7

4.6

3.8

9.1

2013

4.9

4.8

2.2

1.3

2014

3.6

7.2

1.7

7.1

 

Question:

Which quarter saw a constant rise in the number of tourists all through the period 2009 to 2014?
(a) Q1
(b) Q2
(c) Q3
(d) Q4

Solution:


Question 16
The number of tourist visiting a country from year 2009 to 2013 is given in the following line graph. The data is given in four quarters (Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4)

There is a table which gives the percentage change in the number of tourists in the particular quarter over the previous year of the same quarter.

 

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

2009

-11.9

5.6

-0.2

7.6

2010

3.4

3.7

2.5

2.3

2011

1.6

-3.4

6.5

6.3

2012

8.7

4.6

3.8

9.1

2013

4.9

4.8

2.2

1.3

2014

3.6

7.2

1.7

7.1

 

Question:

What is the difference in the number of tourists in 2010 and 2012 Quarter 3?

Solution:


Question 17
In a hotel there are 60 guests. They stayed there for 4 days from Wednesday to Saturday. They got the following newspapers, Daily News, Daily Planet, Daily Observer.
The number of these news papers on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 101, 100, 90, 103.
Daily News is same on all the four days. On Wednesday and Thursday Daily news are 20 each.
Number of Daily Planet and Daily Observer ordered on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 16, 15, 14, and 13 respectively.
The number of guests ordering all the three newspapers on the all the days is 10.

Question:

The number of newspapers of Daily news only on Wednesday is

Solution:


Question 18
In a hotel there are 60 guests. They stayed there for 4 days from Wednesday to Saturday. They got the following newspapers, Daily News, Daily Planet, Daily Observer.
The number of these news papers on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 101, 100, 90, 103.
Daily News is same on all the four days. On Wednesday and Thursday Daily news are 20 each.
Number of Daily Planet and Daily Observer ordered on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 16, 15, 14, and 13 respectively.
The number of guests ordering all the three newspapers on the all the days is 10.

Question:

Three similar questions

Solution:


Question 19
In a hotel there are 60 guests. They stayed there for 4 days from Wednesday to Saturday. They got the following newspapers, Daily News, Daily Planet, Daily Observer.
The number of these news papers on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 101, 100, 90, 103.
Daily News is same on all the four days. On Wednesday and Thursday Daily news are 20 each.
Number of Daily Planet and Daily Observer ordered on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 16, 15, 14, and 13 respectively.
The number of guests ordering all the three newspapers on the all the days is 10.

Question:

Three similar questions

Solution:


Question 20
In a hotel there are 60 guests. They stayed there for 4 days from Wednesday to Saturday. They got the following newspapers, Daily News, Daily Planet, Daily Observer.
The number of these news papers on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 101, 100, 90, 103.
Daily News is same on all the four days. On Wednesday and Thursday Daily news are 20 each.
Number of Daily Planet and Daily Observer ordered on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are 16, 15, 14, and 13 respectively.
The number of guests ordering all the three newspapers on the all the days is 10.

Question:

Three similar questions

Solution:


Question 21
The following table gives the number of days taken by Abdul, Bikram, Chetan, Deepak for completing Job A, B and C are as follows:

 

Abdul

Bikram

Chetan

Deepak

A

12

10

15

14

B

16

15

8

5

C

8

5

12

9

 

1. They get a contract from the company to complete 2 tasks.
2. Task 1 involved completing Job A followed by Job B.
3. Task 2 involved completing Job B followed by Job C.
4. They switched to Second job as soon as they finished the first task.
5. Abdul and Chetan worked on Task 1.
6. On first day Abdul and Chetan work together. On day 2 Chetan took rest and on day 3 Abdul took rest. They continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
7. Bikram and Deepak worked on Task 2.
8. On first and Second day both Bikram and Deepak work together. On day 3 both of them took the rest. They also continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
9. Both the tasks started simultaneously.

Question:

On which day was Job A of Task 1was completed?

Solution:


Question 22
The following table gives the number of days taken by Abdul, Bikram, Chetan, Deepak for completing Job A, B and C are as follows:

 

Abdul

Bikram

Chetan

Deepak

A

12

10

15

14

B

16

15

8

5

C

8

5

12

9

 

1. They get a contract from the company to complete 2 tasks.
2. Task 1 involved completing Job A followed by Job B.
3. Task 2 involved completing Job B followed by Job C.
4. They switched to Second job as soon as they finished the first task.
5. Abdul and Chetan worked on Task 1.
6. On first day Abdul and Chetan work together. On day 2 Chetan took rest and on day 3 Abdul took rest. They continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
7. Bikram and Deepak worked on Task 2.
8. On first and Second day both Bikram and Deepak work together. On day 3 both of them took the rest. They also continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
9. Both the tasks started simultaneously.

Question:

On which day Job B of Task 1 was completed?

Solution:


Question 23
The following table gives the number of days taken by Abdul, Bikram, Chetan, Deepak for completing Job A, B and C are as follows:

 

Abdul

Bikram

Chetan

Deepak

A

12

10

15

14

B

16

15

8

5

C

8

5

12

9

 

1. They get a contract from the company to complete 2 tasks.
2. Task 1 involved completing Job A followed by Job B.
3. Task 2 involved completing Job B followed by Job C.
4. They switched to Second job as soon as they finished the first task.
5. Abdul and Chetan worked on Task 1.
6. On first day Abdul and Chetan work together. On day 2 Chetan took rest and on day 3 Abdul took rest. They continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
7. Bikram and Deepak worked on Task 2.
8. On first and Second day both Bikram and Deepak work together. On day 3 both of them took the rest. They also continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
9. Both the tasks started simultaneously.

Question:

On which day Job B of Task 2 was completed?

Solution:


Question 24
The following table gives the number of days taken by Abdul, Bikram, Chetan, Deepak for completing Job A, B and C are as follows:

 

Abdul

Bikram

Chetan

Deepak

A

12

10

15

14

B

16

15

8

5

C

8

5

12

9

 

1. They get a contract from the company to complete 2 tasks.
2. Task 1 involved completing Job A followed by Job B.
3. Task 2 involved completing Job B followed by Job C.
4. They switched to Second job as soon as they finished the first task.
5. Abdul and Chetan worked on Task 1.
6. On first day Abdul and Chetan work together. On day 2 Chetan took rest and on day 3 Abdul took rest. They continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
7. Bikram and Deepak worked on Task 2.
8. On first and Second day both Bikram and Deepak work together. On day 3 both of them took the rest. They also continued this 3 day cycle till the completion of task.
9. Both the tasks started simultaneously.

Question:

On which day Job C of Task 2 was completed ?

Solution:


Question 25
Question:
Solution:


Question 26
Question:
Solution:


Question 27
Question:
Solution:


Question 28
Question:
Solution:


Question 29
Question:
Solution:


Question 30
Question:
Solution:


Question 31
Question:
Solution:


Question 32
Question:
Solution:


VA and RC

Question 1
Passage 1
Not long ago I published an open letter to my grandson, encouraging him to develop his memory by (among other things) resisting the urge to get all of his information from the Internet. In response, I was accused in the blogosphere of being anti-Internet. But this is a bit like saying that anyone who criticizes people who speed on the highway or drive while intoxicated is against automobiles.
Conversely, in response to my recent column about young quiz show contestants who betrayed their generation’s ignorance by guessing that Hitler and Mussolini were still alive in the ’60s and ’70s, the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari (affectionately) criticized me in L’Espresso magazine for the opposite excess, saying that I trust the Internet too much as a source of information.
Scalfari, the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica, observed that the Web, with the homogenizing effects of its artificial collective memory, has given younger generations little incentive to exercise their own memories. After all, why bother committing a fact to memory when it will always be available with the click of a button? Scalfari also remarked that although using the Internet gives the impression of connecting us to the rest of the world, it is ultimately a self-imposed sentence of solitude.
I agree with Scalfari that the laziness and isolation that the Web fosters are two of the great afflictions of our time. But consider the passage from Plato’s “Phaedrus” in which the pharaoh chides the god Theuth, the inventor of writing, for having created a technology that would enable men to commit facts to paper instead of to memory. As it happens, the act of writing actually stimulates people to remember what they have read. Moreover, it is thanks to the advent of writing that Marcel Proust was able to produce his celebration of memory, “In Search of Lost Time.” And if we are perfectly capable of cultivating our memories while writing, surely we can do so while using the Internet, internalizing what we learn from the Web.
The fact is that the Web is not something we can discard; like the power loom, automobile and television before it, the Web is here to stay. Nothing, not even dictatorships, will ever eliminate it. So the question is not how to recognize the Internet’s inherent risks, but how to make the best use of it.
Let’s imagine a teacher who assigns her class a research topic. She knows, of course, that she can’t prevent her students from finding predigested answers online. But she can discourage the students from simply copying those answers and never digging any deeper. She might instruct them to look for information on at least 10 websites, compare the “facts,” point out any differences or contradictions among them, and try to assess which source is the most reliable – perhaps by consulting old-fashioned history books or even encyclopedias.
That way, the students would be free to dip into the information that’s available online – which it would be silly to avoid altogether – but at the same time they would evaluate and synthesize that information, exercising their judgment and their memories in the process. Moreover, if the students are called on to compare and contrast what they have found with their classmates, they will elude the sentence of solitude and perhaps even cultivate a taste for face-to-face interaction.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to save all the damned souls on the Web; some young people may already be too deeply involved in their exclusive relationships with their computer screens. If parents and schools can’t pull them out of that infernal circle, they’ll end up as outcasts, along with addicts, bigots and all the others whom society has swept to the side and grudgingly puts up with.
Throughout history, this process has taken place again and again. This particular group of new “sick” people may seem especially vast or difficult to contain, but that’s only because in the past 50 years the world’s population has increased from roughly 2 billion to more than 7 billion. And that, by the way, is one development that isn’t the fault of the Web and the solitude it imposes; if anything, it is the result of an excess of human contact.
(Umberto Eco is the author of the international best-sellers “Baudolino,” “The Name of the Rose,” and “Foucault’s Pendulum,” among others. Translated from the Italian by Alastair McEwen.)

Question:

What is the point of the author in the first paragraph?

Solution:


Question 2
Passage 1
Not long ago I published an open letter to my grandson, encouraging him to develop his memory by (among other things) resisting the urge to get all of his information from the Internet. In response, I was accused in the blogosphere of being anti-Internet. But this is a bit like saying that anyone who criticizes people who speed on the highway or drive while intoxicated is against automobiles.
Conversely, in response to my recent column about young quiz show contestants who betrayed their generation’s ignorance by guessing that Hitler and Mussolini were still alive in the ’60s and ’70s, the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari (affectionately) criticized me in L’Espresso magazine for the opposite excess, saying that I trust the Internet too much as a source of information.
Scalfari, the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica, observed that the Web, with the homogenizing effects of its artificial collective memory, has given younger generations little incentive to exercise their own memories. After all, why bother committing a fact to memory when it will always be available with the click of a button? Scalfari also remarked that although using the Internet gives the impression of connecting us to the rest of the world, it is ultimately a self-imposed sentence of solitude.
I agree with Scalfari that the laziness and isolation that the Web fosters are two of the great afflictions of our time. But consider the passage from Plato’s “Phaedrus” in which the pharaoh chides the god Theuth, the inventor of writing, for having created a technology that would enable men to commit facts to paper instead of to memory. As it happens, the act of writing actually stimulates people to remember what they have read. Moreover, it is thanks to the advent of writing that Marcel Proust was able to produce his celebration of memory, “In Search of Lost Time.” And if we are perfectly capable of cultivating our memories while writing, surely we can do so while using the Internet, internalizing what we learn from the Web.
The fact is that the Web is not something we can discard; like the power loom, automobile and television before it, the Web is here to stay. Nothing, not even dictatorships, will ever eliminate it. So the question is not how to recognize the Internet’s inherent risks, but how to make the best use of it.
Let’s imagine a teacher who assigns her class a research topic. She knows, of course, that she can’t prevent her students from finding predigested answers online. But she can discourage the students from simply copying those answers and never digging any deeper. She might instruct them to look for information on at least 10 websites, compare the “facts,” point out any differences or contradictions among them, and try to assess which source is the most reliable – perhaps by consulting old-fashioned history books or even encyclopedias.
That way, the students would be free to dip into the information that’s available online – which it would be silly to avoid altogether – but at the same time they would evaluate and synthesize that information, exercising their judgment and their memories in the process. Moreover, if the students are called on to compare and contrast what they have found with their classmates, they will elude the sentence of solitude and perhaps even cultivate a taste for face-to-face interaction.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to save all the damned souls on the Web; some young people may already be too deeply involved in their exclusive relationships with their computer screens. If parents and schools can’t pull them out of that infernal circle, they’ll end up as outcasts, along with addicts, bigots and all the others whom society has swept to the side and grudgingly puts up with.
Throughout history, this process has taken place again and again. This particular group of new “sick” people may seem especially vast or difficult to contain, but that’s only because in the past 50 years the world’s population has increased from roughly 2 billion to more than 7 billion. And that, by the way, is one development that isn’t the fault of the Web and the solitude it imposes; if anything, it is the result of an excess of human contact.
(Umberto Eco is the author of the international best-sellers “Baudolino,” “The Name of the Rose,” and “Foucault’s Pendulum,” among others. Translated from the Italian by Alastair McEwen.)

Question:

Which of the following was the authors’ views about young quiz contestants except.

Solution:


Question 3
Passage 1
Not long ago I published an open letter to my grandson, encouraging him to develop his memory by (among other things) resisting the urge to get all of his information from the Internet. In response, I was accused in the blogosphere of being anti-Internet. But this is a bit like saying that anyone who criticizes people who speed on the highway or drive while intoxicated is against automobiles.
Conversely, in response to my recent column about young quiz show contestants who betrayed their generation’s ignorance by guessing that Hitler and Mussolini were still alive in the ’60s and ’70s, the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari (affectionately) criticized me in L’Espresso magazine for the opposite excess, saying that I trust the Internet too much as a source of information.
Scalfari, the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica, observed that the Web, with the homogenizing effects of its artificial collective memory, has given younger generations little incentive to exercise their own memories. After all, why bother committing a fact to memory when it will always be available with the click of a button? Scalfari also remarked that although using the Internet gives the impression of connecting us to the rest of the world, it is ultimately a self-imposed sentence of solitude.
I agree with Scalfari that the laziness and isolation that the Web fosters are two of the great afflictions of our time. But consider the passage from Plato’s “Phaedrus” in which the pharaoh chides the god Theuth, the inventor of writing, for having created a technology that would enable men to commit facts to paper instead of to memory. As it happens, the act of writing actually stimulates people to remember what they have read. Moreover, it is thanks to the advent of writing that Marcel Proust was able to produce his celebration of memory, “In Search of Lost Time.” And if we are perfectly capable of cultivating our memories while writing, surely we can do so while using the Internet, internalizing what we learn from the Web.
The fact is that the Web is not something we can discard; like the power loom, automobile and television before it, the Web is here to stay. Nothing, not even dictatorships, will ever eliminate it. So the question is not how to recognize the Internet’s inherent risks, but how to make the best use of it.
Let’s imagine a teacher who assigns her class a research topic. She knows, of course, that she can’t prevent her students from finding predigested answers online. But she can discourage the students from simply copying those answers and never digging any deeper. She might instruct them to look for information on at least 10 websites, compare the “facts,” point out any differences or contradictions among them, and try to assess which source is the most reliable – perhaps by consulting old-fashioned history books or even encyclopedias.
That way, the students would be free to dip into the information that’s available online – which it would be silly to avoid altogether – but at the same time they would evaluate and synthesize that information, exercising their judgment and their memories in the process. Moreover, if the students are called on to compare and contrast what they have found with their classmates, they will elude the sentence of solitude and perhaps even cultivate a taste for face-to-face interaction.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to save all the damned souls on the Web; some young people may already be too deeply involved in their exclusive relationships with their computer screens. If parents and schools can’t pull them out of that infernal circle, they’ll end up as outcasts, along with addicts, bigots and all the others whom society has swept to the side and grudgingly puts up with.
Throughout history, this process has taken place again and again. This particular group of new “sick” people may seem especially vast or difficult to contain, but that’s only because in the past 50 years the world’s population has increased from roughly 2 billion to more than 7 billion. And that, by the way, is one development that isn’t the fault of the Web and the solitude it imposes; if anything, it is the result of an excess of human contact.
(Umberto Eco is the author of the international best-sellers “Baudolino,” “The Name of the Rose,” and “Foucault’s Pendulum,” among others. Translated from the Italian by Alastair McEwen.)

Question:

With which of the following will the author agree?

Solution:


Question 4
Passage 1
Not long ago I published an open letter to my grandson, encouraging him to develop his memory by (among other things) resisting the urge to get all of his information from the Internet. In response, I was accused in the blogosphere of being anti-Internet. But this is a bit like saying that anyone who criticizes people who speed on the highway or drive while intoxicated is against automobiles.
Conversely, in response to my recent column about young quiz show contestants who betrayed their generation’s ignorance by guessing that Hitler and Mussolini were still alive in the ’60s and ’70s, the Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari (affectionately) criticized me in L’Espresso magazine for the opposite excess, saying that I trust the Internet too much as a source of information.
Scalfari, the founder of the newspaper La Repubblica, observed that the Web, with the homogenizing effects of its artificial collective memory, has given younger generations little incentive to exercise their own memories. After all, why bother committing a fact to memory when it will always be available with the click of a button? Scalfari also remarked that although using the Internet gives the impression of connecting us to the rest of the world, it is ultimately a self-imposed sentence of solitude.
I agree with Scalfari that the laziness and isolation that the Web fosters are two of the great afflictions of our time. But consider the passage from Plato’s “Phaedrus” in which the pharaoh chides the god Theuth, the inventor of writing, for having created a technology that would enable men to commit facts to paper instead of to memory. As it happens, the act of writing actually stimulates people to remember what they have read. Moreover, it is thanks to the advent of writing that Marcel Proust was able to produce his celebration of memory, “In Search of Lost Time.” And if we are perfectly capable of cultivating our memories while writing, surely we can do so while using the Internet, internalizing what we learn from the Web.
The fact is that the Web is not something we can discard; like the power loom, automobile and television before it, the Web is here to stay. Nothing, not even dictatorships, will ever eliminate it. So the question is not how to recognize the Internet’s inherent risks, but how to make the best use of it.
Let’s imagine a teacher who assigns her class a research topic. She knows, of course, that she can’t prevent her students from finding predigested answers online. But she can discourage the students from simply copying those answers and never digging any deeper. She might instruct them to look for information on at least 10 websites, compare the “facts,” point out any differences or contradictions among them, and try to assess which source is the most reliable – perhaps by consulting old-fashioned history books or even encyclopedias.
That way, the students would be free to dip into the information that’s available online – which it would be silly to avoid altogether – but at the same time they would evaluate and synthesize that information, exercising their judgment and their memories in the process. Moreover, if the students are called on to compare and contrast what they have found with their classmates, they will elude the sentence of solitude and perhaps even cultivate a taste for face-to-face interaction.
Unfortunately, it may not be possible to save all the damned souls on the Web; some young people may already be too deeply involved in their exclusive relationships with their computer screens. If parents and schools can’t pull them out of that infernal circle, they’ll end up as outcasts, along with addicts, bigots and all the others whom society has swept to the side and grudgingly puts up with.
Throughout history, this process has taken place again and again. This particular group of new “sick” people may seem especially vast or difficult to contain, but that’s only because in the past 50 years the world’s population has increased from roughly 2 billion to more than 7 billion. And that, by the way, is one development that isn’t the fault of the Web and the solitude it imposes; if anything, it is the result of an excess of human contact.
(Umberto Eco is the author of the international best-sellers “Baudolino,” “The Name of the Rose,” and “Foucault’s Pendulum,” among others. Translated from the Italian by Alastair McEwen.)

Question:

The author refer to the example of automobile, power loom and Television to

Solution:

The internet is here to stay.


Question 5
This year the World Bank approved a big grant for the latest phase of the world’s largest hydroelectric scheme. The Inga 3 dam is part of a megaproject on the Congo river in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The World Bank regards the $37 million grant as money well spent on a landmark scheme that will help bring grid electricity to the 90 per cent of Congolese who lack it. Most environmentalists and many in the aid community disagree. They say the dam is a white elephant and that its power will mainly benefit urban elites, mining companies and the export market. What the DRC’s poor need, they say, is decentralised, low-carbon energy sources such as solar panels.
The disagreement over Inga 3 is a microcosm of a wider debate about how best to bring electricity to people who lack it. And the argument is not just pitting the likes of the World Bank against environmentalists.
The Breakthrough Institute, a California environmental think tank known for its iconoclastic stance, recently published a report called Our High-Energy Planet. In it, co-author Alex Trembath argues that promoting solar panels and other low-carbon energy technologies is “neo-colonialist, morally unacceptable and increasingly irrelevant”. The charge is that solar enthusiasts are sacrificing economic development for the poor on the altar of their environmental concerns.
The same debate surfaced at a recent meeting on low-carbon energy, organised by the University of Sussex’s Sussex Energy Group at the Royal Society in London, where researchers presented an analysis of the spread of domestic solar power in Kenya. Over 300,000 homes are now fitted with panels, an achievement that the university’s David Ockwell praised as an example of “pro-poor, low-carbon development”.
Or is it? As Ockwell himself remarked later in conversation, a couple of panels on the roof can charge phones and run a few lights and a radio but would be no good for anything more demanding, like boiling a kettle. Most Kenyans would probably prefer to be hooked up to centralised power, but the grid only reaches one-fifth of the country.
In other words, it is not obvious that low-carbon is necessarily pro-poor. And its widespread adoption might lock poor communities into a low-carbon future that is also low-energy and low-income.“Low-carbon technologies may lock poor communities into a future that’s also low-energy and low-income”
That is especially troubling if the main argument for solar power is to tackle climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that reducing poverty is vital to helping poor communities become more resilient. So it would be criminal if green technologies were imposed on poor people to help hold back carbon emissions – only to leave them even more vulnerable.
Which brings us back to the Breakthrough Institute’s report. It slams environment groups and aid agencies who make a fetish of off-grid, low-energy power while giving “big” low-carbon energy like nuclear and hydroelectric the thumbs down. The institute says this is both unethical and counterproductive. It argues that the world’s poor need a “massive expansion of energy systems” or they will be condemned to a future of continued poverty.
Large hydroelectric projects are not the answer either. Earlier this year, Bent Flyvbjerg at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School published an analysis of 245 such schemes built between 1934 and 2007. It concluded that dams are mostly financial millstones: completed years late, almost 100 per cent over budget, and delivering less economic return than they cost to build. Recent dams are no better than older ones, and the bigger they are, the worse they perform. This doesn’t augur well for Inga.
There are no easy answers. We need more than rhetoric to be sure that low-carbon technologies are not developed at the expense of the poor. We need more voices from the people of Africa saying what they want.
What must be avoided at all costs is Africa stumbling into a future of cheap coal to power its cities and cheap solar panels for rural areas.

Question:

Environmentalists oppose the Inga 3 Project for all the reason except.

Solution:


Question 6
This year the World Bank approved a big grant for the latest phase of the world’s largest hydroelectric scheme. The Inga 3 dam is part of a megaproject on the Congo river in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The World Bank regards the $37 million grant as money well spent on a landmark scheme that will help bring grid electricity to the 90 per cent of Congolese who lack it. Most environmentalists and many in the aid community disagree. They say the dam is a white elephant and that its power will mainly benefit urban elites, mining companies and the export market. What the DRC’s poor need, they say, is decentralised, low-carbon energy sources such as solar panels.
The disagreement over Inga 3 is a microcosm of a wider debate about how best to bring electricity to people who lack it. And the argument is not just pitting the likes of the World Bank against environmentalists.
The Breakthrough Institute, a California environmental think tank known for its iconoclastic stance, recently published a report called Our High-Energy Planet. In it, co-author Alex Trembath argues that promoting solar panels and other low-carbon energy technologies is “neo-colonialist, morally unacceptable and increasingly irrelevant”. The charge is that solar enthusiasts are sacrificing economic development for the poor on the altar of their environmental concerns.
The same debate surfaced at a recent meeting on low-carbon energy, organised by the University of Sussex’s Sussex Energy Group at the Royal Society in London, where researchers presented an analysis of the spread of domestic solar power in Kenya. Over 300,000 homes are now fitted with panels, an achievement that the university’s David Ockwell praised as an example of “pro-poor, low-carbon development”.
Or is it? As Ockwell himself remarked later in conversation, a couple of panels on the roof can charge phones and run a few lights and a radio but would be no good for anything more demanding, like boiling a kettle. Most Kenyans would probably prefer to be hooked up to centralised power, but the grid only reaches one-fifth of the country.
In other words, it is not obvious that low-carbon is necessarily pro-poor. And its widespread adoption might lock poor communities into a low-carbon future that is also low-energy and low-income.“Low-carbon technologies may lock poor communities into a future that’s also low-energy and low-income”
That is especially troubling if the main argument for solar power is to tackle climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that reducing poverty is vital to helping poor communities become more resilient. So it would be criminal if green technologies were imposed on poor people to help hold back carbon emissions – only to leave them even more vulnerable.
Which brings us back to the Breakthrough Institute’s report. It slams environment groups and aid agencies who make a fetish of off-grid, low-energy power while giving “big” low-carbon energy like nuclear and hydroelectric the thumbs down. The institute says this is both unethical and counterproductive. It argues that the world’s poor need a “massive expansion of energy systems” or they will be condemned to a future of continued poverty.
Large hydroelectric projects are not the answer either. Earlier this year, Bent Flyvbjerg at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School published an analysis of 245 such schemes built between 1934 and 2007. It concluded that dams are mostly financial millstones: completed years late, almost 100 per cent over budget, and delivering less economic return than they cost to build. Recent dams are no better than older ones, and the bigger they are, the worse they perform. This doesn’t augur well for Inga.
There are no easy answers. We need more than rhetoric to be sure that low-carbon technologies are not developed at the expense of the poor. We need more voices from the people of Africa saying what they want.
What must be avoided at all costs is Africa stumbling into a future of cheap coal to power its cities and cheap solar panels for rural areas.

Question:

What is the purpose of the passage?

Solution:


Question 7
This year the World Bank approved a big grant for the latest phase of the world’s largest hydroelectric scheme. The Inga 3 dam is part of a megaproject on the Congo river in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The World Bank regards the $37 million grant as money well spent on a landmark scheme that will help bring grid electricity to the 90 per cent of Congolese who lack it. Most environmentalists and many in the aid community disagree. They say the dam is a white elephant and that its power will mainly benefit urban elites, mining companies and the export market. What the DRC’s poor need, they say, is decentralised, low-carbon energy sources such as solar panels.
The disagreement over Inga 3 is a microcosm of a wider debate about how best to bring electricity to people who lack it. And the argument is not just pitting the likes of the World Bank against environmentalists.
The Breakthrough Institute, a California environmental think tank known for its iconoclastic stance, recently published a report called Our High-Energy Planet. In it, co-author Alex Trembath argues that promoting solar panels and other low-carbon energy technologies is “neo-colonialist, morally unacceptable and increasingly irrelevant”. The charge is that solar enthusiasts are sacrificing economic development for the poor on the altar of their environmental concerns.
The same debate surfaced at a recent meeting on low-carbon energy, organised by the University of Sussex’s Sussex Energy Group at the Royal Society in London, where researchers presented an analysis of the spread of domestic solar power in Kenya. Over 300,000 homes are now fitted with panels, an achievement that the university’s David Ockwell praised as an example of “pro-poor, low-carbon development”.
Or is it? As Ockwell himself remarked later in conversation, a couple of panels on the roof can charge phones and run a few lights and a radio but would be no good for anything more demanding, like boiling a kettle. Most Kenyans would probably prefer to be hooked up to centralised power, but the grid only reaches one-fifth of the country.
In other words, it is not obvious that low-carbon is necessarily pro-poor. And its widespread adoption might lock poor communities into a low-carbon future that is also low-energy and low-income.“Low-carbon technologies may lock poor communities into a future that’s also low-energy and low-income”
That is especially troubling if the main argument for solar power is to tackle climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that reducing poverty is vital to helping poor communities become more resilient. So it would be criminal if green technologies were imposed on poor people to help hold back carbon emissions – only to leave them even more vulnerable.
Which brings us back to the Breakthrough Institute’s report. It slams environment groups and aid agencies who make a fetish of off-grid, low-energy power while giving “big” low-carbon energy like nuclear and hydroelectric the thumbs down. The institute says this is both unethical and counterproductive. It argues that the world’s poor need a “massive expansion of energy systems” or they will be condemned to a future of continued poverty.
Large hydroelectric projects are not the answer either. Earlier this year, Bent Flyvbjerg at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School published an analysis of 245 such schemes built between 1934 and 2007. It concluded that dams are mostly financial millstones: completed years late, almost 100 per cent over budget, and delivering less economic return than they cost to build. Recent dams are no better than older ones, and the bigger they are, the worse they perform. This doesn’t augur well for Inga.
There are no easy answers. We need more than rhetoric to be sure that low-carbon technologies are not developed at the expense of the poor. We need more voices from the people of Africa saying what they want.
What must be avoided at all costs is Africa stumbling into a future of cheap coal to power its cities and cheap solar panels for rural areas.

Question:

If all houses in the rural areas had solar panels, installed on the roof, then it is most likely that

Solution:


Question 8
Passage 2
This year the World Bank approved a big grant for the latest phase of the world’s largest hydroelectric scheme. The Inga 3 dam is part of a megaproject on the Congo river in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The World Bank regards the $37 million grant as money well spent on a landmark scheme that will help bring grid electricity to the 90 per cent of Congolese who lack it. Most environmentalists and many in the aid community disagree. They say the dam is a white elephant and that its power will mainly benefit urban elites, mining companies and the export market. What the DRC’s poor need, they say, is decentralised, low-carbon energy sources such as solar panels.
The disagreement over Inga 3 is a microcosm of a wider debate about how best to bring electricity to people who lack it. And the argument is not just pitting the likes of the World Bank against environmentalists.
The Breakthrough Institute, a California environmental think tank known for its iconoclastic stance, recently published a report called Our High-Energy Planet. In it, co-author Alex Trembath argues that promoting solar panels and other low-carbon energy technologies is “neo-colonialist, morally unacceptable and increasingly irrelevant”. The charge is that solar enthusiasts are sacrificing economic development for the poor on the altar of their environmental concerns.
The same debate surfaced at a recent meeting on low-carbon energy, organised by the University of Sussex’s Sussex Energy Group at the Royal Society in London, where researchers presented an analysis of the spread of domestic solar power in Kenya. Over 300,000 homes are now fitted with panels, an achievement that the university’s David Ockwell praised as an example of “pro-poor, low-carbon development”.
Or is it? As Ockwell himself remarked later in conversation, a couple of panels on the roof can charge phones and run a few lights and a radio but would be no good for anything more demanding, like boiling a kettle. Most Kenyans would probably prefer to be hooked up to centralised power, but the grid only reaches one-fifth of the country.
In other words, it is not obvious that low-carbon is necessarily pro-poor. And its widespread adoption might lock poor communities into a low-carbon future that is also low-energy and low-income.“Low-carbon technologies may lock poor communities into a future that’s also low-energy and low-income”
That is especially troubling if the main argument for solar power is to tackle climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues that reducing poverty is vital to helping poor communities become more resilient. So it would be criminal if green technologies were imposed on poor people to help hold back carbon emissions – only to leave them even more vulnerable.
Which brings us back to the Breakthrough Institute’s report. It slams environment groups and aid agencies who make a fetish of off-grid, low-energy power while giving “big” low-carbon energy like nuclear and hydroelectric the thumbs down. The institute says this is both unethical and counterproductive. It argues that the world’s poor need a “massive expansion of energy systems” or they will be condemned to a future of continued poverty.
Large hydroelectric projects are not the answer either. Earlier this year, Bent Flyvbjerg at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School published an analysis of 245 such schemes built between 1934 and 2007. It concluded that dams are mostly financial millstones: completed years late, almost 100 per cent over budget, and delivering less economic return than they cost to build. Recent dams are no better than older ones, and the bigger they are, the worse they perform. This doesn’t augur well for Inga.
There are no easy answers. We need more than rhetoric to be sure that low-carbon technologies are not developed at the expense of the poor. We need more voices from the people of Africa saying what they want.
What must be avoided at all costs is Africa stumbling into a future of cheap coal to power its cities and cheap solar panels for rural areas.

Question:

Breakthrough Institute’s report considers off-grid low energy power as unethical because.

Solution:


Question 9
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ¬most ¬settled fact in economics. Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls.
It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified.
Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most.
So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.

Question:

What is the point of the author in the first line

Solution:


Question 10
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ¬most ¬settled fact in economics. Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls.
It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified.
Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most.
So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.

Question:

Which of the following sentences cannot be inferred

Solution:


Question 11
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ¬most ¬settled fact in economics. Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls.
It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified.
Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most.
So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.

Question:

The Assumption of the author is

Solution:

…. .. that most of the immigrants do low level jobs.


Question 12
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ¬most ¬settled fact in economics. Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls.
It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified.
Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most.
So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.

Question:

Why does the author promote the idea of open borders–

Solution:

It will lead to knowledge sharing between native and host countries.


Question 13
Passage 3
And yet the economic benefits of immigration may be the ¬most ¬settled fact in economics. Rationally speaking, we should take in far more immigrants than we currently do.
So why don’t we open up? The chief logical mistake we make is something called the Lump of Labor Fallacy: the erroneous notion that there is only so much work to be done and that no one can get a job without taking one from someone else. It’s an understandable assumption. After all, with other types of market transactions, when the supply goes up, the price falls.
It might seem intuitive that when there is an increase in the supply of workers, the ones who were here already will make less money or lose their jobs. Immigrants don’t just increase the supply of labor, though; they simultaneously increase demand for it, using the wages they earn to rent apartments, eat food, get haircuts, buy cellphones. That means there are more jobs building apartments, selling food, giving haircuts and dispatching the trucks that move those phones. Immigrants increase the size of the overall population, which means they increase the size of the economy. Logically, if immigrants were “stealing” jobs, so would every young person leaving school and entering the job market; countries should become poorer as they get larger. In reality, of course, the opposite happens.
Most anti-immigration arguments I hear are variations on the Lump of Labor Fallacy. That immigrant has a job. If he didn’t have that job, somebody else, somebody born here, would have it. This argument is wrong, or at least wildly oversimplified.
Take a construction site: Typically, Peri has found, immigrants with limited education perform many support tasks (moving heavy things, pouring cement, sweeping, painting), while citizens with more education focus on skilled work like carpentry, plumbing and electrical installation, as well as customer relations. The skilled native is able to focus on the most valuable tasks, while the immigrants help bring the price down for the overall project (it costs a lot to pay a highly trained carpenter to sweep up a work site). Peri argues, with strong evidence, that there are more native-born skilled craftspeople working today, not fewer, because of all those undocumented construction workers. A similar dynamic is at play on Wall Street. Many technical-support tasks are dominated by recent immigrants, while sales, marketing, advising and trading, which require cultural and linguistic fluency, are typically the domain of the native-born. (Whether Wall Street’s technical wizards have, on balance, helped or hurt the economy is a question for another day.)
This paradox of immigration is bound up with the paradox of economic growth itself. Growth has acquired a bad reputation of late among some, especially on the left, who associate the term with environmental destruction and rising inequality. But growth through immigration is growth with remarkably little downside. Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer. For all our faults, the United States is still far better developed economically than most nations, certainly the ones that most of our immigrants have left. Our legal system and our financial and physical infrastructure are also far superior to most.
So when people leave developing economies and set foot on American soil, they typically become more productive, in economic terms. They earn more money, achieve a higher standard of living and add more economic value to the world than they would have if they stayed home. If largely open borders were to replace our expensive and restrictive lottery system, it’s likely that many of these immigrants would travel back and forth between the United States and their native countries, counteracting the potential brain drain by sharing knowledge and investment capital. Environmentally, immigration tends to be less damaging than other forms of growth, because it doesn’t add to the number of people on earth and often shifts people to more environmentally friendly jurisdictions.

Question:

Whenever an immigrant enters the United States, the world becomes a bit richer – why does the author say so.

Solution:

Because it leads to increased productivity of people who immigrate.


Question 14
Passage 4
There’s a lot of interest in economic inequality these days, and research conducted over the past 15 years by Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, is a big reason why. Capital (which by Piketty’s definition is pretty much the same thing as wealth) has tended over time to grow faster than the overall economy. Income from capital is invariably much less evenly distributed than labor income. Together these amount to a powerful force for increasing inequality. Over the two-plus centuries for which good records exist, the only major decline in capital’s economic share and in economic inequality was the result of World Wars I and II, which destroyed lots of capital and brought much higher taxes in the U.S. and Europe. This period of capital destruction was followed by a spectacular run of economic growth. Now, after decades of peace, slowing growth, and declining tax rates, capital and inequality are on the rise all over the developed world, and it’s not clear what if anything will alter that trajectory in the decades to come.
Piketty’s main worry seems to be that growing wealth in Europe will bring a return to 19th century circumstances in which most affluent people get that way through inheritance. That’s why he spends so much time describing characters from the novels of Honoré de Balzac and Jane Austen who see inheriting money or marrying into it as the only path to a comfortable life. But the basic message from Piketty’s data, that the ravages of the World Wars and the high taxes that followed put a big damper on wealth and inheritance that has now been lifted, seems irrefutable. His assumption that most of these heirs and heiresses won’t squander their fortunes can of course be questioned, but he does offer evidence for his contention that the bigger the fortune, the faster it will grow in the future: the performance of university endowments in the U.S., where the largest endowments have earned dramatically higher percentage returns than the rest.

Question:

What in the opinion of author would be a measure to reduce economic inequality?

Solution:

Increased taxation on accumulated wealth due to inheritance.


Question 15
Passage 4
There’s a lot of interest in economic inequality these days, and research conducted over the past 15 years by Piketty, a professor at the Paris School of Economics, is a big reason why. Capital (which by Piketty’s definition is pretty much the same thing as wealth) has tended over time to grow faster than the overall economy. Income from capital is invariably much less evenly distributed than labor income. Together these amount to a powerful force for increasing inequality. Over the two-plus centuries for which good records exist, the only major decline in capital’s economic share and in economic inequality was the result of World Wars I and II, which destroyed lots of capital and brought much higher taxes in the U.S. and Europe. This period of capital destruction was followed by a spectacular run of economic growth. Now, after decades of peace, slowing growth, and declining tax rates, capital and inequality are on the rise all over the developed world, and it’s not clear what if anything will alter that trajectory in the decades to come.
Piketty’s main worry seems to be that growing wealth in Europe will bring a return to 19th century circumstances in which most affluent people get that way through inheritance. That’s why he spends so much time describing characters from the novels of Honoré de Balzac and Jane Austen who see inheriting money or marrying into it as the only path to a comfortable life. But the basic message from Piketty’s data, that the ravages of the World Wars and the high taxes that followed put a big damper on wealth and inheritance that has now been lifted, seems irrefutable. His assumption that most of these heirs and heiresses won’t squander their fortunes can of course be questioned, but he does offer evidence for his contention that the bigger the fortune, the faster it will grow in the future: the performance of university endowments in the U.S., where the largest endowments have earned dramatically higher percentage returns than the rest.

Question:

What was the reason of decline in equality after World War I and II?

Solution:

Because the World Wars lead to the destruction of Capital.


Question 16
Question:
Solution:


Question 17
Question:
Solution:


Question 18
Question:
Solution:


Question 19
Question:
Solution:


Question 20
Question:
Solution:


Question 21
Question:
Solution:


Question 22
Question:
Solution:


Question 23
Question:
Solution:


Question 24
Question:
Solution:


Question 25
Question:
Solution:


Question 26
Question:
Solution:


Question 27
Question:
Solution:


Question 28
Question:
Solution:


Question 29
Question:
Solution:


Question 30
Question:
Solution:


Question 31
Question:
Solution:


Question 32
Question:
Solution:


Question 33
Question:
Solution:


Question 34
Question:
Solution: