Test Paper Solution

Test Name : VARC Super Sectional 13

Section: VARC Super Sectional 13

Question Number : 1
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions:
How and why did the modern world and its unprecedented prosperity begin? Learned tomes by historians, economists, political scientists
and other scholars fill many bookshelves with explanations of how and why the process of modern economic growth or ‘the Great
Enrichment’ exploded in western Europe in the 18th century. One of the oldest and most persuasive explanations is the long political
fragmentation of Europe. For centuries, no ruler had ever been able to unite Europe the way the Mongols and the Mings had united China. It
should be emphasised that Europe’s success was not the result of any inherent superiority of European (much less Christian) culture. It was
rather what is known as a classical emergent property, a complex and unintended outcome of simpler interactions on the whole. The modern
European economic miracle was the result of contingent institutional outcomes. It was neither designed nor planned. But it happened, and
once it began, it generated a self-reinforcing dynamic of economic progress that made knowledge-driven growth both possible and
sustainable. How did this work? In brief, Europe’s political fragmentation spurred productive competition. It meant that European rulers
found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans. The economic historian Eric L Jones called this ‘the
States system’. The costs of European political division into multiple competing states were substantial: they included almost incessant
warfare, protectionism, and other coordination failures. Many scholars now believe, however, that in the long run, the benefits of competing
states might have been larger than the costs. In particular, the existence of multiple competing states encouraged scientific and technological
innovation. The idea that European political fragmentation, despite its evident costs, also brought great benefits, enjoys a distinguished
lineage. In the closing chapter of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1789), Edward Gibbon wrote: ‘Europe is now
divided into 12 powerful, though unequal, kingdoms.’ Three of them he called ‘respectable commonwealths’, the rest ‘a variety of smaller,
though independent, states’. The ‘abuses of tyranny are restrained by the mutual influence of fear and shame’, Gibbon wrote, adding that
‘republics have acquired order and stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of moderation; and some sense
of honour and justice is introduced into the most defective constitutions by the general manners of the times.’
In other words, the rivalries between the states, and their examples to one another, also ameliorated some of the worst possibilities of
political authoritarianism. Gibbon added that ‘in peace, the progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many
active rivals’. Other Enlightenment writers, David Hume and Immanuel Kant for example, saw it the same way. From the early 18th-century
reforms of Russia’s Peter the Great, to the United States’ panicked technological mobilisation in response to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch
of Sputnik, interstate competition was a powerful economic mover. More important, perhaps, the ‘states system’ constrained the ability of
political and religious authorities to control intellectual innovation. If conservative rulers clamped down on heretical and subversive (that is,
original and creative) thought, their smartest citizens would just go elsewhere (as many of them, indeed, did).

Which of the following statements about the positive effects of ‘the states system’ is the author most likely to endorse?

( A ) The ‘states system’ constrained the ability of political and religious authorities to control new intellectual ideas.

( B ) The rivalries between the states lessened some of the worst possibilities of political authoritarianism.

( C ) Due to the ‘states system’, European rulers found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans.

( D ) Rivalries between the states induced some sense of honour and justice into most constitutions.

My Answer: C | Correct Answer: A

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Europe’s economic miracle and gives reasons for the same, the fundamental one being
political fragmentation that led to states competing for intellectuals and top artisans. The passage goes on to state that Europe’s
great rise was entirely accidental and based on a few simple interactions.
Refer to the following relevant extract: ‘More important, perhaps, the ‘states system’ constrained the ability of political and
religious authorities to control intellectual innovation.’ The phrase, ‘more important’ makes this the statement the author is most
likely to endorse. Thus, option A is the correct answer. Options B, C, and D have been endorsed by the author as well but option
A is the most important option that the author has endorsed. Hence, the correct answer is option A.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 1 of 19
:
 Question Number : 2
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions:
How and why did the modern world and its unprecedented prosperity begin? Learned tomes by historians, economists, political scientists
and other scholars fill many bookshelves with explanations of how and why the process of modern economic growth or ‘the Great
Enrichment’ exploded in western Europe in the 18th century. One of the oldest and most persuasive explanations is the long political
fragmentation of Europe. For centuries, no ruler had ever been able to unite Europe the way the Mongols and the Mings had united China. It
should be emphasised that Europe’s success was not the result of any inherent superiority of European (much less Christian) culture. It was
rather what is known as a classical emergent property, a complex and unintended outcome of simpler interactions on the whole. The modern
European economic miracle was the result of contingent institutional outcomes. It was neither designed nor planned. But it happened, and
once it began, it generated a self-reinforcing dynamic of economic progress that made knowledge-driven growth both possible and
sustainable. How did this work? In brief, Europe’s political fragmentation spurred productive competition. It meant that European rulers
found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans. The economic historian Eric L Jones called this ‘the
States system’. The costs of European political division into multiple competing states were substantial: they included almost incessant
warfare, protectionism, and other coordination failures. Many scholars now believe, however, that in the long run, the benefits of competing
states might have been larger than the costs. In particular, the existence of multiple competing states encouraged scientific and technological
innovation. The idea that European political fragmentation, despite its evident costs, also brought great benefits, enjoys a distinguished
lineage. In the closing chapter of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1789), Edward Gibbon wrote: ‘Europe is now
divided into 12 powerful, though unequal, kingdoms.’ Three of them he called ‘respectable commonwealths’, the rest ‘a variety of smaller,
though independent, states’. The ‘abuses of tyranny are restrained by the mutual influence of fear and shame’, Gibbon wrote, adding that
‘republics have acquired order and stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of moderation; and some sense
of honour and justice is introduced into the most defective constitutions by the general manners of the times.’
In other words, the rivalries between the states, and their examples to one another, also ameliorated some of the worst possibilities of
political authoritarianism. Gibbon added that ‘in peace, the progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many
active rivals’. Other Enlightenment writers, David Hume and Immanuel Kant for example, saw it the same way. From the early 18th-century
reforms of Russia’s Peter the Great, to the United States’ panicked technological mobilisation in response to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch
of Sputnik, interstate competition was a powerful economic mover. More important, perhaps, the ‘states system’ constrained the ability of
political and religious authorities to control intellectual innovation. If conservative rulers clamped down on heretical and subversive (that is,
original and creative) thought, their smartest citizens would just go elsewhere (as many of them, indeed, did).

What is the main purpose of the passage?

( A ) To describe modern Europe’s great rise and success story

( B ) To advocate fragmentation as an answer to economic enrichment

( C ) To give reasons for Europe’s economic success

( D ) To delineate the accidental nature of Europe’s rise

My Answer: C | Correct Answer: C

Solution:

Passage summary- The passage details Europe’s economic miracle and gives reasons for the same, the fundamental one being
political fragmentation that led to states competing for intellectuals and top artisans. The passage goes on to state that Europe’s
great rise was entirely accidental and based on a few simple interactions.
The passage has given reasons for Europe’s economic miracle. The bulk of the passage contains various reasons for Europe’s
economic enrichment. Thus, option C is the main idea of the passage.
Option A is limited to the first paragraph of the passage. The author has also given reasons for Europe’s economic miracle.
Option B is incorrect. Political fragmentation may have worked to Europe’s advantage but the author has not advocated this to
every other region.
Option D is contained only in the second paragraph. The bulk of the passage gives reasons for Europe’s economic miracle.
Hence, the correct answer is option C.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 3
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions:
How and why did the modern world and its unprecedented prosperity begin? Learned tomes by historians, economists, political scientists
and other scholars fill many bookshelves with explanations of how and why the process of modern economic growth or ‘the Great

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 2 of 19
:
 Enrichment’ exploded in western Europe in the 18th century. One of the oldest and most persuasive explanations is the long political
fragmentation of Europe. For centuries, no ruler had ever been able to unite Europe the way the Mongols and the Mings had united China. It
should be emphasised that Europe’s success was not the result of any inherent superiority of European (much less Christian) culture. It was
rather what is known as a classical emergent property, a complex and unintended outcome of simpler interactions on the whole. The modern
European economic miracle was the result of contingent institutional outcomes. It was neither designed nor planned. But it happened, and
once it began, it generated a self-reinforcing dynamic of economic progress that made knowledge-driven growth both possible and
sustainable. How did this work? In brief, Europe’s political fragmentation spurred productive competition. It meant that European rulers
found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans. The economic historian Eric L Jones called this ‘the
States system’. The costs of European political division into multiple competing states were substantial: they included almost incessant
warfare, protectionism, and other coordination failures. Many scholars now believe, however, that in the long run, the benefits of competing
states might have been larger than the costs. In particular, the existence of multiple competing states encouraged scientific and technological
innovation. The idea that European political fragmentation, despite its evident costs, also brought great benefits, enjoys a distinguished
lineage. In the closing chapter of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1789), Edward Gibbon wrote: ‘Europe is now
divided into 12 powerful, though unequal, kingdoms.’ Three of them he called ‘respectable commonwealths’, the rest ‘a variety of smaller,
though independent, states’. The ‘abuses of tyranny are restrained by the mutual influence of fear and shame’, Gibbon wrote, adding that
‘republics have acquired order and stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of moderation; and some sense
of honour and justice is introduced into the most defective constitutions by the general manners of the times.’
In other words, the rivalries between the states, and their examples to one another, also ameliorated some of the worst possibilities of
political authoritarianism. Gibbon added that ‘in peace, the progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many
active rivals’. Other Enlightenment writers, David Hume and Immanuel Kant for example, saw it the same way. From the early 18th-century
reforms of Russia’s Peter the Great, to the United States’ panicked technological mobilisation in response to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch
of Sputnik, interstate competition was a powerful economic mover. More important, perhaps, the ‘states system’ constrained the ability of
political and religious authorities to control intellectual innovation. If conservative rulers clamped down on heretical and subversive (that is,
original and creative) thought, their smartest citizens would just go elsewhere (as many of them, indeed, did).

The author claims that the underlying reason for Europe’s economic miracle was ____________.

( A ) a synergy between simple and emergent outcomes

( B ) the state system fostering competition amongst talented people

( C ) the constitutions limiting the control of religious and political authorities

( D ) an accidental outcome of simpler interchanges

My Answer: C | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Europe’s economic miracle and gives reasons for the same, the fundamental one being
political fragmentation that led to states competing for intellectuals and top artisans. The passage goes on to state that Europe’s
great rise was entirely accidental and based on a few simple interactions.
Refer to the following relevant extract: ‘It was rather what is known as a classical emergent property, a complex and unintended
outcome of simpler interactions on the whole. The modern European economic miracle was the result of contingent institutional
outcomes. It was neither designed nor planned. But it happened…’ Thus, Europe’s rise was an accidental or unintended outcome
of simpler interactions. This makes option D the correct answer. Option A is incorrect. No synergy is stated or can be inferred
from the passage. Options B and C are not underlying reasons for Europe’s enrichment but followed on after the underlying
reason was met. Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 4
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions:
How and why did the modern world and its unprecedented prosperity begin? Learned tomes by historians, economists, political scientists
and other scholars fill many bookshelves with explanations of how and why the process of modern economic growth or ‘the Great
Enrichment’ exploded in western Europe in the 18th century. One of the oldest and most persuasive explanations is the long political
fragmentation of Europe. For centuries, no ruler had ever been able to unite Europe the way the Mongols and the Mings had united China. It
should be emphasised that Europe’s success was not the result of any inherent superiority of European (much less Christian) culture. It was
rather what is known as a classical emergent property, a complex and unintended outcome of simpler interactions on the whole. The modern
European economic miracle was the result of contingent institutional outcomes. It was neither designed nor planned. But it happened, and

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 3 of 19
:
 once it began, it generated a self-reinforcing dynamic of economic progress that made knowledge-driven growth both possible and
sustainable. How did this work? In brief, Europe’s political fragmentation spurred productive competition. It meant that European rulers
found themselves competing for the best and most productive intellectuals and artisans. The economic historian Eric L Jones called this ‘the
States system’. The costs of European political division into multiple competing states were substantial: they included almost incessant
warfare, protectionism, and other coordination failures. Many scholars now believe, however, that in the long run, the benefits of competing
states might have been larger than the costs. In particular, the existence of multiple competing states encouraged scientific and technological
innovation. The idea that European political fragmentation, despite its evident costs, also brought great benefits, enjoys a distinguished
lineage. In the closing chapter of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1789), Edward Gibbon wrote: ‘Europe is now
divided into 12 powerful, though unequal, kingdoms.’ Three of them he called ‘respectable commonwealths’, the rest ‘a variety of smaller,
though independent, states’. The ‘abuses of tyranny are restrained by the mutual influence of fear and shame’, Gibbon wrote, adding that
‘republics have acquired order and stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of moderation; and some sense
of honour and justice is introduced into the most defective constitutions by the general manners of the times.’
In other words, the rivalries between the states, and their examples to one another, also ameliorated some of the worst possibilities of
political authoritarianism. Gibbon added that ‘in peace, the progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many
active rivals’. Other Enlightenment writers, David Hume and Immanuel Kant for example, saw it the same way. From the early 18th-century
reforms of Russia’s Peter the Great, to the United States’ panicked technological mobilisation in response to the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch
of Sputnik, interstate competition was a powerful economic mover. More important, perhaps, the ‘states system’ constrained the ability of
political and religious authorities to control intellectual innovation. If conservative rulers clamped down on heretical and subversive (that is,
original and creative) thought, their smartest citizens would just go elsewhere (as many of them, indeed, did).

The author is least likely to agree with the view that Europe’s economic enrichment was fuelled by the fact that:

( A ) Europe had an abundance of intellectuals and artisans.

( B ) Europe’s state system encouraged intellectual innovation.

( C ) Europe planned for economic enrichment

( D ) Europe had the means for reinforcing knowledge-based growth.

My Answer: B | Correct Answer: C

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Europe’s economic miracle and gives reasons for the same, the fundamental one being
political fragmentation that led to states competing for intellectuals and top artisans. The passage goes on to state that Europe’s
great rise was entirely accidental and based on a few simple interactions.
The passage mentions that European states competed for intellectuals and artisans. This means Europe had many intellectuals
and artisans. Eliminate option A. Option B is also true and is stated in the fifth paragraph. Option D is mentioned at the end of the
second paragraph.
Option C states that Europe conceived or planned for economic enrichment. This view contradicts the view mentioned in the
passage that Europe’s rise was unintended or accidental.
Hence, the correct answer is option C.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 5
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: AI challenges traditional liability. For example, how do we assign
liability when a “black box” algorithm—where the identity and weighting of variables changes dynamically so no one knows what goes into
the prediction—recommends a treatment that ultimately causes harm, or drives a car recklessly before its human driver can react? Is that
really the doctor or driver’s fault? Is it the company that created the AI’s fault? And what accountability should everyone else—health
systems, insurers, manufacturers, regulators—face if they encourage adoption? These are unanswered questions, and critical to establishing
the responsible use of AI in consumer products. Like all disruptive technologies, AI is powerful. AI algorithms, if properly created and
tested, can aid in diagnosis, market research, predictive analytics and any application that requires analysing large data sets. A recent
McKinsey global survey showed that already over half of companies worldwide reported using AI in their routine operations. Yet, liability
too often focuses on the easiest target: the end-user who uses the algorithm. Liability inquiries often start—and end —with the driver of the
car that crashed or the physician that gave a faulty treatment decision. Granted, if the end-user misuses an AI system or ignores its warnings,
he or she should be liable. But AI errors are often not the fault of the end-user. Who can fault an emergency room physician for an AI
algorithm that misses papilledema—a swelling of the retina? An AI’s failure to detect the condition could delay care and potentially cause a
patient to go blind. Yet, papilledema is challenging to diagnose without an ophthalmologist’s examination because more clinical data,

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 4 of 19
:
 including imaging of the brain and visual acuity, are often necessary as part of the workup. Despite AI’s revolutionary potential across
industries, end-users will avoid using AI if they bear sole liability for potentially fatal errors. Shifting the blame solely to AI designers or
adopters does not solve the issue either. Of course, the designers created the algorithm in question. But is every Tesla accident Tesla’s fault to
be solved by more testing before product launch? Indeed, some AI algorithms constantly self-learn, taking their inputs and dynamically
using them to change the outputs. The key is to ensure that all stakeholders—users, developers and everyone else along the chain from
product development to use—bear enough liability to ensure AI safety and effectiveness—but not so much that they give up on AI. To
protect people from faulty AI while still promoting innovation, we propose to revamp traditional liability frameworks. Insurers must protect
policyholders from the excessive costs of being sued over an AI injury by testing and validating new AI algorithms prior to use, just as car
insurers have been comparing and testing automobiles for years.
Hampering AI with an outdated liability system would be tragic: Self-driving cars will bring mobility to many people who lack
transportation access. In health care, AI will help physicians choose more effective treatments, improve patient outcomes and even cut costs
in an industry notorious for overspending. Industries ranging from finance to cybersecurity are on the cusp of AI revolutions that could
benefit billions worldwide.

According to the passage, what could be the primary reason for end-users to not use AI?

( A ) An obsolete legal system that punishes the designers of AI technologies.

( B ) If the chances for potentially fatal errors are high.

( C ) If AI designers overspend on building AI products and pass these costs to end users.

( D ) A legal system wherein the end user bears sole responsibility for AI errors.

My Answer: D | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage gives reasons as to why an overhaul of the current liability system with respect to AI is sorely
needed to advance the popularity and widespread use of AI products and technologies. Too often, the end user is blamed for AI
errors and this is hampering AI growth and popularity.
Refer to the following relevant extract: ‘Yet, liability too often focuses on the easiest target: the end-user who uses the
algorithm.’ If end users are targeted by the legal system for AI errors they may stop using AI technologies. Thus, option D is the
correct answer.
Option A is not about end users at all but is about designers.
Option B is incorrect. It is the legal liability that end users are afraid of.
Option C has not been mentioned in the passage at all.
Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 6
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: AI challenges traditional liability. For example, how do we assign
liability when a “black box” algorithm—where the identity and weighting of variables changes dynamically so no one knows what goes into
the prediction—recommends a treatment that ultimately causes harm, or drives a car recklessly before its human driver can react? Is that
really the doctor or driver’s fault? Is it the company that created the AI’s fault? And what accountability should everyone else—health
systems, insurers, manufacturers, regulators—face if they encourage adoption? These are unanswered questions, and critical to establishing
the responsible use of AI in consumer products. Like all disruptive technologies, AI is powerful. AI algorithms, if properly created and
tested, can aid in diagnosis, market research, predictive analytics and any application that requires analysing large data sets. A recent
McKinsey global survey showed that already over half of companies worldwide reported using AI in their routine operations. Yet, liability
too often focuses on the easiest target: the end-user who uses the algorithm. Liability inquiries often start—and end —with the driver of the
car that crashed or the physician that gave a faulty treatment decision. Granted, if the end-user misuses an AI system or ignores its warnings,
he or she should be liable. But AI errors are often not the fault of the end-user. Who can fault an emergency room physician for an AI
algorithm that misses papilledema—a swelling of the retina? An AI’s failure to detect the condition could delay care and potentially cause a
patient to go blind. Yet, papilledema is challenging to diagnose without an ophthalmologist’s examination because more clinical data,
including imaging of the brain and visual acuity, are often necessary as part of the workup. Despite AI’s revolutionary potential across
industries, end-users will avoid using AI if they bear sole liability for potentially fatal errors. Shifting the blame solely to AI designers or
adopters does not solve the issue either. Of course, the designers created the algorithm in question. But is every Tesla accident Tesla’s fault to
be solved by more testing before product launch? Indeed, some AI algorithms constantly self-learn, taking their inputs and dynamically
using them to change the outputs. The key is to ensure that all stakeholders—users, developers and everyone else along the chain from

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 5 of 19
:
 product development to use—bear enough liability to ensure AI safety and effectiveness—but not so much that they give up on AI. To
protect people from faulty AI while still promoting innovation, we propose to revamp traditional liability frameworks. Insurers must protect
policyholders from the excessive costs of being sued over an AI injury by testing and validating new AI algorithms prior to use, just as car
insurers have been comparing and testing automobiles for years.
Hampering AI with an outdated liability system would be tragic: Self-driving cars will bring mobility to many people who lack
transportation access. In health care, AI will help physicians choose more effective treatments, improve patient outcomes and even cut costs
in an industry notorious for overspending. Industries ranging from finance to cybersecurity are on the cusp of AI revolutions that could
benefit billions worldwide.

None of the following can be inferred from the passage except:

( A ) Fixing liability correctly when there are AI errors is crucial to ensure the widespread acceptance of AI products.

( B ) Blaming AI designers for AI errors is correct as the algorithms that run AI technologies have been created by them.

( C ) It is possible to create a comprehensive, just and contemporary liability system for AI errors.

( D ) Insurers, and not manufacturers, should test and validate AI technologies in order to protect their policyholders.

My Answer: A | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage gives reasons as to why an overhaul of the current liability system with respect to AI is sorely
needed to advance the popularity and widespread use of AI products and technologies. Too often, the end user is blamed for AI
errors and this is hampering AI growth and popularity.
The correct answer will give the correct inference. Option A is an incorrect inference. Refer to the following relevant extract:
‘These are unanswered questions, and critical to establishing the responsible use of AI in consumer products.’ Thus, fixing
liability correctly will ensure the responsible use of AI in consumer products and not ensure the widespread acceptance of AI
products.
Option B is also an incorrect inference. Refer to the following relevant extract: ‘Shifting the blame solely to AI designers or
adopters does not solve the issue either.’ This is because AI algorithms are self-learning and dynamic.
Option C cannot be determined to be true from the passage.
Option D is a correct inference. Refer to the extract, ‘Insurers must protect policyholders from the excessive costs of being sued
over an AI injury by testing and validating new AI algorithms prior to use, just as car insurers have been comparing and testing
automobiles for years.’
Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 7
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: AI challenges traditional liability. For example, how do we assign
liability when a “black box” algorithm—where the identity and weighting of variables changes dynamically so no one knows what goes into
the prediction—recommends a treatment that ultimately causes harm, or drives a car recklessly before its human driver can react? Is that
really the doctor or driver’s fault? Is it the company that created the AI’s fault? And what accountability should everyone else—health
systems, insurers, manufacturers, regulators—face if they encourage adoption? These are unanswered questions, and critical to establishing
the responsible use of AI in consumer products. Like all disruptive technologies, AI is powerful. AI algorithms, if properly created and
tested, can aid in diagnosis, market research, predictive analytics and any application that requires analysing large data sets. A recent
McKinsey global survey showed that already over half of companies worldwide reported using AI in their routine operations. Yet, liability
too often focuses on the easiest target: the end-user who uses the algorithm. Liability inquiries often start—and end —with the driver of the
car that crashed or the physician that gave a faulty treatment decision. Granted, if the end-user misuses an AI system or ignores its warnings,
he or she should be liable. But AI errors are often not the fault of the end-user. Who can fault an emergency room physician for an AI
algorithm that misses papilledema—a swelling of the retina? An AI’s failure to detect the condition could delay care and potentially cause a
patient to go blind. Yet, papilledema is challenging to diagnose without an ophthalmologist’s examination because more clinical data,
including imaging of the brain and visual acuity, are often necessary as part of the workup. Despite AI’s revolutionary potential across
industries, end-users will avoid using AI if they bear sole liability for potentially fatal errors. Shifting the blame solely to AI designers or
adopters does not solve the issue either. Of course, the designers created the algorithm in question. But is every Tesla accident Tesla’s fault to
be solved by more testing before product launch? Indeed, some AI algorithms constantly self-learn, taking their inputs and dynamically
using them to change the outputs. The key is to ensure that all stakeholders—users, developers and everyone else along the chain from
product development to use—bear enough liability to ensure AI safety and effectiveness—but not so much that they give up on AI. To

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 6 of 19
:
 protect people from faulty AI while still promoting innovation, we propose to revamp traditional liability frameworks. Insurers must protect
policyholders from the excessive costs of being sued over an AI injury by testing and validating new AI algorithms prior to use, just as car
insurers have been comparing and testing automobiles for years.
Hampering AI with an outdated liability system would be tragic: Self-driving cars will bring mobility to many people who lack
transportation access. In health care, AI will help physicians choose more effective treatments, improve patient outcomes and even cut costs
in an industry notorious for overspending. Industries ranging from finance to cybersecurity are on the cusp of AI revolutions that could
benefit billions worldwide.

All the following arguments can be implied by the passage except:

( A ) The author is in favour of the widespread use of AI technologies.

( B ) The author feels liability for AI errors should be distributed equally among all stakeholders.

( C ) AI technologies are potentially beneficial to billions of people.

( D ) The current legal system is hampering the widespread use of AI.

My Answer: D | Correct Answer: B

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage gives reasons as to why an overhaul of the current liability system with respect to AI is sorely
needed to advance the popularity and widespread use of AI products and technologies. Too often, the end user is blamed for AI
errors and this is hampering AI growth and popularity.
Option A is true and has been mentioned in the final paragraph. Option B cannot be implied. Refer to the following relevant
extract: ‘The key is to ensure that all stakeholders—users, developers and everyone else along the chain from product
development to use—bear enough liability to ensure AI safety and effectiveness.’ From the extract, we cannot infer that all
stakeholders should bear equal liability for AI errors.
Options C and D can be implied from the passage.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 8
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: AI challenges traditional liability. For example, how do we assign
liability when a “black box” algorithm—where the identity and weighting of variables changes dynamically so no one knows what goes into
the prediction—recommends a treatment that ultimately causes harm, or drives a car recklessly before its human driver can react? Is that
really the doctor or driver’s fault? Is it the company that created the AI’s fault? And what accountability should everyone else—health
systems, insurers, manufacturers, regulators—face if they encourage adoption? These are unanswered questions, and critical to establishing
the responsible use of AI in consumer products. Like all disruptive technologies, AI is powerful. AI algorithms, if properly created and
tested, can aid in diagnosis, market research, predictive analytics and any application that requires analysing large data sets. A recent
McKinsey global survey showed that already over half of companies worldwide reported using AI in their routine operations. Yet, liability
too often focuses on the easiest target: the end-user who uses the algorithm. Liability inquiries often start—and end —with the driver of the
car that crashed or the physician that gave a faulty treatment decision. Granted, if the end-user misuses an AI system or ignores its warnings,
he or she should be liable. But AI errors are often not the fault of the end-user. Who can fault an emergency room physician for an AI
algorithm that misses papilledema—a swelling of the retina? An AI’s failure to detect the condition could delay care and potentially cause a
patient to go blind. Yet, papilledema is challenging to diagnose without an ophthalmologist’s examination because more clinical data,
including imaging of the brain and visual acuity, are often necessary as part of the workup. Despite AI’s revolutionary potential across
industries, end-users will avoid using AI if they bear sole liability for potentially fatal errors. Shifting the blame solely to AI designers or
adopters does not solve the issue either. Of course, the designers created the algorithm in question. But is every Tesla accident Tesla’s fault to
be solved by more testing before product launch? Indeed, some AI algorithms constantly self-learn, taking their inputs and dynamically
using them to change the outputs. The key is to ensure that all stakeholders—users, developers and everyone else along the chain from
product development to use—bear enough liability to ensure AI safety and effectiveness—but not so much that they give up on AI. To
protect people from faulty AI while still promoting innovation, we propose to revamp traditional liability frameworks. Insurers must protect
policyholders from the excessive costs of being sued over an AI injury by testing and validating new AI algorithms prior to use, just as car
insurers have been comparing and testing automobiles for years.
Hampering AI with an outdated liability system would be tragic: Self-driving cars will bring mobility to many people who lack
transportation access. In health care, AI will help physicians choose more effective treatments, improve patient outcomes and even cut costs
in an industry notorious for overspending. Industries ranging from finance to cybersecurity are on the cusp of AI revolutions that could
benefit billions worldwide.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 7 of 19
:
 Which of the following fundamental points did the author make in the fourth paragraph by giving the example of papilledema?

( A ) AI technologies, despite being powerful, still have their limitations.

( B ) AI algorithms are frequently imperfect and can fail to detect anomalies in the eyes.

( C ) AI technologies could soon replace traditional clinical practices in eye treatment.

( D ) If end users bear sole responsibility for AI errors, then the potential for AI usage will be thwarted

My Answer: D | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage gives reasons as to why an overhaul of the current liability system with respect to AI is sorely
needed to advance the popularity and widespread use of AI products and technologies. Too often, the end user is blamed for AI
errors and this is hampering AI growth and popularity.
Refer to the following relevant extract: ‘Who can fault an emergency room physician for an AI algorithm that misses
papilledema… Despite AI’s revolutionary potential across industries, end-users will avoid using AI if they bear sole liability for
potentially fatal errors.’ Thus, the example has been cited by the author to highlight the fundamental point that if end users are
made liable for AI errors this will hamper AI development.
This makes option D the correct answer. Options A and B have been mentioned in the fourth paragraph in relation to the example
but are not the fundamental point that the author is seeking to make.
Option C cannot be determined from the passage.
Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 9
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: The Russian polymath arrived heroically, right on time like the
cavalry, to save Lévi-Strauss when he was struggling with his classification of kinship relations, unable to organise the relevant terms in
tribal languages he was barely acquainted with, and simply overwhelmed by the whole spectacular mess. Jakobson directed him not only
toward a streamlined method but, more important, to a novel understanding. Structural linguistics, he explained, had cleared up the
empiricist confusion of an earlier generation, which had identified the numerous phonetic possibilities of various languages according to
sound and physical articulation but then hadn’t known what to do with the information. The structuralist innovation focused on the “quanta
of language”: the smallest possible units that pointed toward meaning. Sounds that distinguished one meaning from another were called
phonemes; they are meaningless when considered without context, but their significance becomes apparent in their relation to one another,
like the ‘b’ in bat beside the ‘v’ in vat. “For Lévi-Strauss,” Wilcken writes, “the idea that thousands of languages were rooted in an essence
— small sets of opposed phonemes — was seductively reductionist.” His craving for high-end abstraction was piqued, and he proceeded to
apply structural principles to the study of kinship. Interesting binary oppositions abounded in kinship relations, such as male and female,
endogamous and exogamous marriage, and the division of the larger society into moieties or clans. The theorist’s yen for basic explanation
by a nice geometric diagram was aroused and satisfied. The ostensibly primitive but profoundly complex kinship systems, Wilcken declares,
functioned according to “unspoken rules, unconsciously observed, which allowed groups of people to communicate with almost
mathematical efficiency down the generations.” The Elementary Structures of Kinship, completed upon Lévi-Strauss’s return to France after
the war, established him as the impressive new man with an alluring new theory to reckon with. Thus, the groundwork was laid for Lévi-
Strauss’s grand project to redefine human nature. Anthropology, by its very name, assumes pre-eminence among the social sciences, and
Lévi-Strauss aspired to enthrone it as the queen of the sciences all told, outranking even biology, chemistry, and physics. He undertook to
transform the human sciences, which had traditionally suffered from a lack of methodological rigour, and to render them as hard-edged as
the natural sciences. Blaise Pascal’s famous distinction between esprit de finesse and esprit de géométrie separated, on the one hand, literary
and speculative intellectuals, including theologians and most philosophers, and, on the other hand, the mathematically inclined intellectuals.
(Pascal himself overflowed his own categories.)
By Lévi-Strauss’s day, reducing the welter of human surface phenomena to bedrock mathematical formulae demonstrated the unimpeachable
seriousness of one’s intellectual enterprise. Just as the physicist Richard Feynman would devise a system of diagrams, some monstrously
complicated, to chart the interactions of subatomic particles, so Lévi-Strauss would decipher primitive peoples’ kinship relations and mythic
transformations, many preposterously abstruse, which his dauntingly elaborate diagrams mapped more succinctly than words could. He even
went so far as to posit, or to conjure, what he called “the canonical formula,” which professed to explicate every mythic structure by a
standard algebraic equation.

According to the passage, Levi-Strauss’s chief contribution to anthropology was ________.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 8 of 19
:
 ( A ) structural linguistics, which enabled him to classify kinship relations

( B ) a common algebraic equation for understanding primitive people’s kinship relations and allegorical transformations

( C ) a methodological robustness that explains human surface occurrence through core mathematical formulae.

( D ) a mathematical theory, complete with diagrams, that would redefine human nature

My Answer: C | Correct Answer: C

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Levi Strauss’ encounter with the Russian polymath Jakobson, which enabled Strauss to
classify kinship relations and to create a certain methodological vigour to Anthropology through standard mathematical
formulae.
Option A is incorrect. Strauss used structural principles and structural linguistics. Option B is mentioned in the last paragraph of
the passage but that was not his main contribution.
Option D is correct, but is not his main contribution.
Option C is correct in that Strauss brought methodological rigour to anthropology using mathematical formulae. Refer to the
extract, ‘He undertook to transform the human sciences, which had traditionally suffered from a lack of methodological rigour,
and to render them as hard-edged as the natural sciences.’
Hence, the correct answer is option C.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 10
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: The Russian polymath arrived heroically, right on time like the
cavalry, to save Lévi-Strauss when he was struggling with his classification of kinship relations, unable to organise the relevant terms in
tribal languages he was barely acquainted with, and simply overwhelmed by the whole spectacular mess. Jakobson directed him not only
toward a streamlined method but, more important, to a novel understanding. Structural linguistics, he explained, had cleared up the
empiricist confusion of an earlier generation, which had identified the numerous phonetic possibilities of various languages according to
sound and physical articulation but then hadn’t known what to do with the information. The structuralist innovation focused on the “quanta
of language”: the smallest possible units that pointed toward meaning. Sounds that distinguished one meaning from another were called
phonemes; they are meaningless when considered without context, but their significance becomes apparent in their relation to one another,
like the ‘b’ in bat beside the ‘v’ in vat. “For Lévi-Strauss,” Wilcken writes, “the idea that thousands of languages were rooted in an essence
— small sets of opposed phonemes — was seductively reductionist.” His craving for high-end abstraction was piqued, and he proceeded to
apply structural principles to the study of kinship. Interesting binary oppositions abounded in kinship relations, such as male and female,
endogamous and exogamous marriage, and the division of the larger society into moieties or clans. The theorist’s yen for basic explanation
by a nice geometric diagram was aroused and satisfied. The ostensibly primitive but profoundly complex kinship systems, Wilcken declares,
functioned according to “unspoken rules, unconsciously observed, which allowed groups of people to communicate with almost
mathematical efficiency down the generations.” The Elementary Structures of Kinship, completed upon Lévi-Strauss’s return to France after
the war, established him as the impressive new man with an alluring new theory to reckon with. Thus, the groundwork was laid for Lévi-
Strauss’s grand project to redefine human nature. Anthropology, by its very name, assumes pre-eminence among the social sciences, and
Lévi-Strauss aspired to enthrone it as the queen of the sciences all told, outranking even biology, chemistry, and physics. He undertook to
transform the human sciences, which had traditionally suffered from a lack of methodological rigour, and to render them as hard-edged as
the natural sciences. Blaise Pascal’s famous distinction between esprit de finesse and esprit de géométrie separated, on the one hand, literary
and speculative intellectuals, including theologians and most philosophers, and, on the other hand, the mathematically inclined intellectuals.
(Pascal himself overflowed his own categories.)
By Lévi-Strauss’s day, reducing the welter of human surface phenomena to bedrock mathematical formulae demonstrated the unimpeachable
seriousness of one’s intellectual enterprise. Just as the physicist Richard Feynman would devise a system of diagrams, some monstrously
complicated, to chart the interactions of subatomic particles, so Lévi-Strauss would decipher primitive peoples’ kinship relations and mythic
transformations, many preposterously abstruse, which his dauntingly elaborate diagrams mapped more succinctly than words could. He even
went so far as to posit, or to conjure, what he called “the canonical formula,” which professed to explicate every mythic structure by a
standard algebraic equation.

The author ascribes the following contributions by Levi Strauss to anthropology except:

( A ) Strauss was able to decipher, through structural principles, the fact that complex kinship relations in primitive tribes followed no certain
rules.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 9 of 19
:
 ( B ) Strauss transformed the field of anthropology by giving it more mathematical emphasis.

( C ) Strauss successfully explained the methodology of kinship relations through complex diagrams.

( D ) Strauss successfully blurred the distinction between literary and speculative fields and those of mathematically inclined fields of study.

My Answer: A | Correct Answer: A

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Levi Strauss’ encounter with the Russian polymath Jakobson, which enabled Strauss to
classify kinship relations and to create a certain methodological vigour to anthropology through standard mathematical
formulae.
Option A contradicts the passage. The passage mentions that Strauss used structural principles to find out that kinship systems
followed certain rules.
Option B is correct and is mentioned in the first sentence of paragraph 4.
Option C is also correct and is mentioned in the fourth paragraph.
Option D is correct. By transforming a speculative field with methodological rigour involving mathematics, Strauss succeeded in
blurring the distinction between the literary and speculative fields and the mathematical fields.
Hence, the correct answer is option A.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 11
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: The Russian polymath arrived heroically, right on time like the
cavalry, to save Lévi-Strauss when he was struggling with his classification of kinship relations, unable to organise the relevant terms in
tribal languages he was barely acquainted with, and simply overwhelmed by the whole spectacular mess. Jakobson directed him not only
toward a streamlined method but, more important, to a novel understanding. Structural linguistics, he explained, had cleared up the
empiricist confusion of an earlier generation, which had identified the numerous phonetic possibilities of various languages according to
sound and physical articulation but then hadn’t known what to do with the information. The structuralist innovation focused on the “quanta
of language”: the smallest possible units that pointed toward meaning. Sounds that distinguished one meaning from another were called
phonemes; they are meaningless when considered without context, but their significance becomes apparent in their relation to one another,
like the ‘b’ in bat beside the ‘v’ in vat. “For Lévi-Strauss,” Wilcken writes, “the idea that thousands of languages were rooted in an essence
— small sets of opposed phonemes — was seductively reductionist.” His craving for high-end abstraction was piqued, and he proceeded to
apply structural principles to the study of kinship. Interesting binary oppositions abounded in kinship relations, such as male and female,
endogamous and exogamous marriage, and the division of the larger society into moieties or clans. The theorist’s yen for basic explanation
by a nice geometric diagram was aroused and satisfied. The ostensibly primitive but profoundly complex kinship systems, Wilcken declares,
functioned according to “unspoken rules, unconsciously observed, which allowed groups of people to communicate with almost
mathematical efficiency down the generations.” The Elementary Structures of Kinship, completed upon Lévi-Strauss’s return to France after
the war, established him as the impressive new man with an alluring new theory to reckon with. Thus, the groundwork was laid for Lévi-
Strauss’s grand project to redefine human nature. Anthropology, by its very name, assumes pre-eminence among the social sciences, and
Lévi-Strauss aspired to enthrone it as the queen of the sciences all told, outranking even biology, chemistry, and physics. He undertook to
transform the human sciences, which had traditionally suffered from a lack of methodological rigour, and to render them as hard-edged as
the natural sciences. Blaise Pascal’s famous distinction between esprit de finesse and esprit de géométrie separated, on the one hand, literary
and speculative intellectuals, including theologians and most philosophers, and, on the other hand, the mathematically inclined intellectuals.
(Pascal himself overflowed his own categories.)
By Lévi-Strauss’s day, reducing the welter of human surface phenomena to bedrock mathematical formulae demonstrated the unimpeachable
seriousness of one’s intellectual enterprise. Just as the physicist Richard Feynman would devise a system of diagrams, some monstrously
complicated, to chart the interactions of subatomic particles, so Lévi-Strauss would decipher primitive peoples’ kinship relations and mythic
transformations, many preposterously abstruse, which his dauntingly elaborate diagrams mapped more succinctly than words could. He even
went so far as to posit, or to conjure, what he called “the canonical formula,” which professed to explicate every mythic structure by a
standard algebraic equation.

‘For Lévi-Strauss, the idea that thousands of languages were rooted in an essence — small sets of opposed phonemes — was seductively
reductionist.’

( A ) Strauss applying structural linguistics to decipher kinship relations

( B ) Strauss applying systemic truths to the field of kinship relations

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 10 of 19
:
 ( C ) Strauss adopting geometric diagrams to explain complex kinship relations

( D ) Strauss being able to decipher thousands of primitive languages

My Answer: A | Correct Answer: B

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Levi Strauss’ encounter with the Russian polymath Jakobson, which enabled Strauss to
classify kinship relations and to create a certain methodological vigour to anthropology through standard mathematical
formulae.
Refer to the sentences immediately after the extract, ‘His craving for high-end abstraction was piqued, and he proceeded to
apply structural principles to the study of kinship.’ This extract is in conformity with option B. Systemic truth is nothing but
structural principles. Option A can be eliminated because Strauss used structural principles and not structural linguistics to
understand kinship systems.
Option C is true but the fundamental takeaway from the statement in quotes is that Strauss used structural principles to
understand kinship systems. Option C follows or comes after option B.
Option D cannot be determined from the passage. Hence, the correct answer is option B.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 12
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: The Russian polymath arrived heroically, right on time like the
cavalry, to save Lévi-Strauss when he was struggling with his classification of kinship relations, unable to organise the relevant terms in
tribal languages he was barely acquainted with, and simply overwhelmed by the whole spectacular mess. Jakobson directed him not only
toward a streamlined method but, more important, to a novel understanding. Structural linguistics, he explained, had cleared up the
empiricist confusion of an earlier generation, which had identified the numerous phonetic possibilities of various languages according to
sound and physical articulation but then hadn’t known what to do with the information. The structuralist innovation focused on the “quanta
of language”: the smallest possible units that pointed toward meaning. Sounds that distinguished one meaning from another were called
phonemes; they are meaningless when considered without context, but their significance becomes apparent in their relation to one another,
like the ‘b’ in bat beside the ‘v’ in vat. “For Lévi-Strauss,” Wilcken writes, “the idea that thousands of languages were rooted in an essence
— small sets of opposed phonemes — was seductively reductionist.” His craving for high-end abstraction was piqued, and he proceeded to
apply structural principles to the study of kinship. Interesting binary oppositions abounded in kinship relations, such as male and female,
endogamous and exogamous marriage, and the division of the larger society into moieties or clans. The theorist’s yen for basic explanation
by a nice geometric diagram was aroused and satisfied. The ostensibly primitive but profoundly complex kinship systems, Wilcken declares,
functioned according to “unspoken rules, unconsciously observed, which allowed groups of people to communicate with almost
mathematical efficiency down the generations.” The Elementary Structures of Kinship, completed upon Lévi-Strauss’s return to France after
the war, established him as the impressive new man with an alluring new theory to reckon with. Thus, the groundwork was laid for Lévi-
Strauss’s grand project to redefine human nature. Anthropology, by its very name, assumes pre-eminence among the social sciences, and
Lévi-Strauss aspired to enthrone it as the queen of the sciences all told, outranking even biology, chemistry, and physics. He undertook to
transform the human sciences, which had traditionally suffered from a lack of methodological rigour, and to render them as hard-edged as
the natural sciences. Blaise Pascal’s famous distinction between esprit de finesse and esprit de géométrie separated, on the one hand, literary
and speculative intellectuals, including theologians and most philosophers, and, on the other hand, the mathematically inclined intellectuals.
(Pascal himself overflowed his own categories.)
By Lévi-Strauss’s day, reducing the welter of human surface phenomena to bedrock mathematical formulae demonstrated the unimpeachable
seriousness of one’s intellectual enterprise. Just as the physicist Richard Feynman would devise a system of diagrams, some monstrously
complicated, to chart the interactions of subatomic particles, so Lévi-Strauss would decipher primitive peoples’ kinship relations and mythic
transformations, many preposterously abstruse, which his dauntingly elaborate diagrams mapped more succinctly than words could. He even
went so far as to posit, or to conjure, what he called “the canonical formula,” which professed to explicate every mythic structure by a
standard algebraic equation.

All of the following statements can be seen as logically implied by the arguments of the passage except:

( A ) Strauss helped transform the field of anthropology by introducing methodological rigour that was previously lacking.

( B ) Strauss’ successfully devised a new theory in anthropology.

( C ) Strauss’ structural principles involved the use of geometry.

( D ) Strauss did not find it alluring to explain complex concepts in simple terms.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 11 of 19
:
 My Answer: D | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Passage summary: The passage details Levi Strauss’ encounter with the Russian polymath Jakobson, which enabled Strauss to
classify kinship relations and to bring to anthropology a certain methodological vigour through standard mathematical formulae.
Option A is correct and can be logically implied. Refer to the extract, ‘He undertook to transform the human sciences, which had
traditionally suffered from a lack of methodological rigour, and to render them as hard-edged as the natural sciences.’ Option B,
too, can be implied. Refer to the extract, ‘The Elementary Structures of Kinship, completed upon Lévi-Strauss’s return to France
after the war, established him as the impressive new man with the alluring new theory to reckon with.’ Option C can be implied as
well. Refer to the extract, ‘His craving for high-end abstraction was piqued, and he proceeded to apply structural principles to
the study of kinship…The theorist’s yen for basic explanation by a nice geometric diagram was aroused and satisfied.’
Option D cannot be implied. In fact it contradicts the passage. Refer to the extract, ‘“For Lévi-Strauss,” Wilcken writes, “the idea
that thousands of languages were rooted in an essence — small sets of opposed phonemes — was seductively reductionist.”’ A
reductionist is someone who explains complex concepts in simple terms.
Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 13
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: Aristotle’s constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice,
which is expounded in Nicomachean Ethics book V. Aristotle distinguishes two different but related senses of ‘justice’ — universal and
particular — both of which play an important role in his constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense ‘justice’ means ‘lawfulness’ and
is concerned with the common advantage and happiness of the political community. The conception of universal justice undergirds the
distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what exactly the ‘common advantage’ entails is a matter of scholarly
controversy. Some passages imply that justice involves the advantage of all the citizens; for example, every citizen of the best constitution
has a just claim to private property and to an education. But Aristotle also allows that it might be “in a way” just to ostracise powerful
citizens even when they have not been convicted of any crimes. Whether Aristotle understands the common advantage as safeguarding the
interests of each and every citizen has a bearing on whether and to what extent he anticipates what moderns would understand as a theory of
individual rights. Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’, and this includes distributive justice, according to
which different individuals have just claims to shares of some common asset such as property. Aristotle analyses arguments for and against
the different constitutions as different applications of the principle of distributive justice. Everyone agrees, he says, that justice involves
treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are
deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean
Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think
that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free
birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle’s view, because they
assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business enterprise to maximise wealth (as the
oligarchs suppose) nor an association to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, “the good life is
the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions. Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political
rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom. This is
what Aristotle understands by an ‘aristocratic’ constitution: literally, the rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the
implications of this argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a supremely
virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal
constitution in which the citizens are fully virtuous.

Which one of the following conditions, if true, will invalidate Aristotle’s notion of particular justice?

( A ) A new constitution is created that calls for treating all people equally.

( B ) A new constitution is created that does not give democratic rights to citizens of a city-state.

( C ) A new constitution that gives benefits to citizens in proportion to them deserving it.

( D ) B and C

My Answer: A | Correct Answer: A

Solution:

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 12 of 19
:
 Passage summary: In the passage, Aristotle has distinguished between two forms of justice, universal and particular. He has
defined them with regard to the ultimate aims of the city state which is a life consisting of noble actions. The passage ends with
Aristotle’s views on what type of person is fit for governance.
In the notion of particular justice, the passage mentions to treat equal people equally and unequal people unequally. Thus, option
A, which calls for a constitution to treat all people equally, invalidates the passage. Aristotle was not for democracy. Option B is
validated.
Option C has been mentioned by Aristotle.
Hence, the correct answer is option A.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 14
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: Aristotle’s constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice,
which is expounded in Nicomachean Ethics book V. Aristotle distinguishes two different but related senses of ‘justice’ — universal and
particular — both of which play an important role in his constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense ‘justice’ means ‘lawfulness’ and
is concerned with the common advantage and happiness of the political community. The conception of universal justice undergirds the
distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what exactly the ‘common advantage’ entails is a matter of scholarly
controversy. Some passages imply that justice involves the advantage of all the citizens; for example, every citizen of the best constitution
has a just claim to private property and to an education. But Aristotle also allows that it might be “in a way” just to ostracise powerful
citizens even when they have not been convicted of any crimes. Whether Aristotle understands the common advantage as safeguarding the
interests of each and every citizen has a bearing on whether and to what extent he anticipates what moderns would understand as a theory of
individual rights. Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’, and this includes distributive justice, according to
which different individuals have just claims to shares of some common asset such as property. Aristotle analyses arguments for and against
the different constitutions as different applications of the principle of distributive justice. Everyone agrees, he says, that justice involves
treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are
deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean
Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think
that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free
birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle’s view, because they
assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business enterprise to maximise wealth (as the
oligarchs suppose) nor an association to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, “the good life is
the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions. Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political
rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom. This is
what Aristotle understands by an ‘aristocratic’ constitution: literally, the rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the
implications of this argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a supremely
virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal
constitution in which the citizens are fully virtuous.

All of the following can be inferred from Aristotle’s constitutional theory except that:

( A ) Democratic forms of governance are not suited for a citystate.

( B ) Universal and particular justices are clearly distinct from each other.

( C ) Political rights are not for the entire citizenry.

( D ) Not every citizen has the capability to govern.

My Answer: D | Correct Answer: B

Solution:

Passage summary: In the passage, Aristotle has distinguished between two forms of justice, universal and particular. He has
defined them with regard to the ultimate aims of the city state which is a life consisting of noble actions. The passage ends with
Aristotle’s views on what type of person is fit for governance.
Options A, C, and D have been mentioned in the passage with regard to Aristotle’s notion of justice.
Option B is incorrect. The passage mentions that universal and particular justices are related. They are not distinct from each
other.
Hence, the correct answer is option B.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 13 of 19
:
 Question Number : 15
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: Aristotle’s constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice,
which is expounded in Nicomachean Ethics book V. Aristotle distinguishes two different but related senses of ‘justice’ — universal and
particular — both of which play an important role in his constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense ‘justice’ means ‘lawfulness’ and
is concerned with the common advantage and happiness of the political community. The conception of universal justice undergirds the
distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what exactly the ‘common advantage’ entails is a matter of scholarly
controversy. Some passages imply that justice involves the advantage of all the citizens; for example, every citizen of the best constitution
has a just claim to private property and to an education. But Aristotle also allows that it might be “in a way” just to ostracise powerful
citizens even when they have not been convicted of any crimes. Whether Aristotle understands the common advantage as safeguarding the
interests of each and every citizen has a bearing on whether and to what extent he anticipates what moderns would understand as a theory of
individual rights. Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’, and this includes distributive justice, according to
which different individuals have just claims to shares of some common asset such as property. Aristotle analyses arguments for and against
the different constitutions as different applications of the principle of distributive justice. Everyone agrees, he says, that justice involves
treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are
deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean
Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think
that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free
birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle’s view, because they
assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business enterprise to maximise wealth (as the
oligarchs suppose) nor an association to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, “the good life is
the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions. Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political
rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom. This is
what Aristotle understands by an ‘aristocratic’ constitution: literally, the rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the
implications of this argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a supremely
virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal
constitution in which the citizens are fully virtuous.

Which one of the following best expresses the similarity between Aristotle’s notion of universal and particular justice as well as the
difference between the former and the latter?

( A ) Both universal and particular justice are about the ultimate end of the city state but while universal justice is about law and order,
particular justice is about individual rights.

( B ) Both universal and particular justice involve a constitution, but while universal justice is about the common advantage of all the
citizens, particular justice is about benefits being distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit.

( C ) Both universal and particular justice are about equality, but while universal justice is about distributive justice, particular justice is
about individual rights.

( D ) Both universal and particular justices are about equal rights, but while universal justice is about allocating benefits to individuals in
proportion to their merit, particular justice is about treating equal people equally and unequal people unequally.

My Answer: B | Correct Answer: B

Solution:

Passage summary: In the passage, Aristotle has distinguished between two forms of justice, universal and particular. He has
defined them with regard to the ultimate aims of the city state which is a life consisting of noble actions. The passage ends with
Aristotle’s views on what type of person is fit for governance.
The only commonality between universal justice and particular justice is that both involve a constitution. Universal justice is
about safeguarding the interests of every citizen while particular justice is about benefits being given in proportion to merit. Only
option B has both these segments mentioned.
Hence, the correct answer is option B.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 16
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the given questions: Aristotle’s constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice,
which is expounded in Nicomachean Ethics book V. Aristotle distinguishes two different but related senses of ‘justice’ — universal and
particular — both of which play an important role in his constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense ‘justice’ means ‘lawfulness’ and

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 14 of 19
:
 is concerned with the common advantage and happiness of the political community. The conception of universal justice undergirds the
distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what exactly the ‘common advantage’ entails is a matter of scholarly
controversy. Some passages imply that justice involves the advantage of all the citizens; for example, every citizen of the best constitution
has a just claim to private property and to an education. But Aristotle also allows that it might be “in a way” just to ostracise powerful
citizens even when they have not been convicted of any crimes. Whether Aristotle understands the common advantage as safeguarding the
interests of each and every citizen has a bearing on whether and to what extent he anticipates what moderns would understand as a theory of
individual rights. Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’, and this includes distributive justice, according to
which different individuals have just claims to shares of some common asset such as property. Aristotle analyses arguments for and against
the different constitutions as different applications of the principle of distributive justice. Everyone agrees, he says, that justice involves
treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are
deemed to be equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive justice set forth in Nicomachean
Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think
that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free
birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle’s view, because they
assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business enterprise to maximise wealth (as the
oligarchs suppose) nor an association to promote liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, “the good life is
the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions. Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political
rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom. This is
what Aristotle understands by an ‘aristocratic’ constitution: literally, the rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the
implications of this argument in the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a supremely
virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy. Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal
constitution in which the citizens are fully virtuous.

The author makes all of the following arguments in the passage except which one?

( A ) Universal justice is about the common advantage and happiness of the political community.

( B ) Universal justice of safeguarding the interests of every citizen is closely linked to the modern notion of individual rights.

( C ) Governance is not for everyone but only the most virtuous.

( D ) Justice involves treating equal persons equally and unequal persons unequally.

My Answer: C | Correct Answer: B

Solution:

Passage summary: In the passage, Aristotle has distinguished between two forms of justice, universal and particular. He has
defined them with regard to the ultimate aims of the city state which is a life consisting of noble actions. The passage ends with
Aristotle’s views on what type of person is fit for governance.
Options A, C, and D have been mentioned in the passage. Option B, modern notion of individual rights, is to do with particular
justice and not universal justice. Hence, the correct answer is option B.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 17
Direction: The paragraph given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the one which best carries the essence of the
passage.
The moral argument for a stronger UN Security Council response is undeniable. The five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the
UK, and the US, are responsible for almost half of the world’s annual emissions. The African continent, 54 countries, is responsible for just 3
per cent. Given the climate’s profound impact on security, this disparity can no longer be ignored by the Security Council.

( A ) The UN Security Council should be strengthened as the five permanent members generate most of the world’s emissions, while Africa
generates just 3%.

( B ) The UN Security Council should be strengthened as the five permanent members generate much of the world’s emissions, while Africa
generates just 3%, and this disparity needs to be addressed.

( C ) The UN Security Council should be strengthened with new members as they generate a lot of the world's emissions, while Africa
generates just 3%, and this disparity has extreme implications for security.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 15 of 19
:
 ( D ) The UN Security Council should be strengthened as the five permanent members generate most of the world’s emissions, while in
comparison Africa generates just 3%, and this disparity has strong implications for security.

My Answer: D | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Option A states ‘most of the world’s emissions’. The paragraph mentions that the five permanent members generate ‘almost half’
of the world’s emissions. Eliminate option A.
Option B mentions ‘much of the world’s emissions’ indicating a majority of the world’s emissions. Secondly, it does not mention
the implications for security due to the vast disparities between the five permanent nations and Africa. The paragraph does not
state that the UN Security Council is to be strengthened by adding new members. Secondly, the pronoun, ‘they’ refers to the
new members whose quantum of emissions we are not sure of. Eliminate option C. Option D states the salient points accurately
and concisely and also adds the security angle which is an important part of the paragraph.
Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 18
Direction: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence
is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper sequence of order of the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.
1) Insofar as a conflict of interest makes any of these (often unconscious) biases more likely, it’s not something to be proud of.
2) We also take steps to ensure that our conflicts don’t affect our research - we do double-blinding; we do replications; we post our data
online; we try to show the world that the results would’ve been the results, regardless of what we were being paid by Big Pharma.
3) We all know how biases can affect scientists: failing to publish studies that don’t go their way; running or reporting the stats in ways that
push the results in a favoured direction; harshly critiquing experiments they don’t like while letting equally-bad, but more sympathetic, ones
off the hook.
4) And that’s why we report conflicts of interest in scientific papers - both because it helps the reader understand where a particular study is
coming from, and because it would be embarrassing if someone found out after the fact if nothing had been said.

My Answer: | Correct Answer: 3142

Solution:

Although the sentences may be lengthy in this question, it is actually quite easy to sequence the sentences correctly. ‘Insofar’,
‘We also take’, and ‘And that’s why’ are all thought extenders, implying that some sentence will come before them. Therefore,
Sentence 3 is clearly the introductory sentence.
Sentences 3 and 1 form a pair, with both talking about biases in science.
Sentences 1 and 4 form a pair, with both talking about ‘conflicts of interest’
Sentence 2 concludes the paragraph by giving a solution to the ‘conflicts’ stated in sentences 1 and 4. Hence, the correct
answer is 3142.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 0Question Type : Numerical Answer Type
Question Number : 19
Direction: Five jumbled-up sentences, related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph.
Identify the odd one out and key in the number of the sentence as your answer.
1) First Marxist universalism failed; the Sino-Soviet split fractured the communist project before the USSR collapsed altogether and then,
after a brief period in the sun on the international stage, liberal universalism too began to falter in a declining arc from Iraq and the Global
Financial Crisis to Donald Trump’s victory on an ‘America First’ platform.
2) Trade wars, it seems, have come to enjoy bipartisan support, in the unlikeliest of places—the ostensible headquarters of neoliberal
globalisation.
3) Over the course of the Cold War, economic nationalism—the attempt to use the state to advance a country’s economic interests—was
crowded out of official discourse by two competing universalisms, communism on one side and liberalism on the other.
4) In or around 1939 debates about international political economy changed.
5) Over the last few decades, however, this opposition has been scrambled

My Answer: | Correct Answer: 2

Solution:

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 16 of 19
:
 Sentence 2 is the odd sentence out of the paragraph. The paragraph is about the different economic systems being used in
various ages while sentence 2 talks about another topic altogether, which is, trade wars.
Sentence 4 is the opening sentence since it mentions the earliest date, 1939. Sentences 4 and 3 form a pair, with 4 talking about
the change in economic systems and 3 stating what these economic systems were: communism and liberalism. Sentences 3 and
5 form a pair, with 3 giving two competing economic systems and 5 states the opposition to these two systems began to turn
topsy-turvy.
Sentence 1 concludes the paragraph by giving the results of these two economic systems; first Marxism failed, and then after
some brief success, liberalism too began to falter. Hence, the correct answer is sentence 2.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 0Question Type : Numerical Answer Type
Question Number : 20
Direction: The paragraph given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the one which best carries the essence of the
passage.
In coming years, humanity will face viruses deadlier and more infectious than Covid. Intensifying climate change will put tens of millions of
refugees in flight and require us to reimagine how we live our daily lives. Most dangerous of all, new technologies will reshape the
geopolitical order, disrupting our livelihoods and destabilising our societies faster than we can grasp and address their implications.

( A ) Humanity will face a myriad of challenges in future years which will disrupt our livelihoods and destabilise our societies faster than we
can understand.

( B ) Deadly viruses, climate change and new technologies will disrupt our lives faster than we can foresee.

( C ) In the coming years, humanity will face the challenges of deadly viruses, climate change, and more dangerously, new technologies that
will destabilise our societies faster than we can react to them.

( D ) In the near future, a host of challenges will disrupt our lives so quickly that we would not be able to tackle them.

My Answer: C | Correct Answer: C

Solution:

Options A and D do not state the actual challenges mentioned in the passage. Option B does not state that these challenges will
take place in the future.
Option C mentions all the challenges humanity will face in future and how they would occur so quickly that we would not be able
to react to them.
Hence, the correct answer is option C.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 21
Direction: The four sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4) given in this question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each sentence
is labelled with a number. Decide on the proper sequence of order of the sentences and key in this sequence of four numbers as your answer.
1) The answer, today, is to ramp up conventional power production, supplying the grid by burning fossil fuels but this is a 20th century
solution to a 21st century problem. 2) When the wind blows, the sun shines, and the waves roll, there is abundant green power to be
generated. 3) There is a riddle at the heart of the renewable energy revolution. 4) But when skies darken and conditions are calm, what do we
do?

My Answer: | Correct Answer: 3241

Solution:

Sentence 3 is the opening sentence, as the paragraph is about renewable energy Sentences 2 and 4 explain the riddle of
renewable energy. 2 states that when the wind blows, the sun shines and the waves roll, renewable or green energy is abundant
while 4 with ‘but’ states that when skies are dark and conditions are calm (no wind) renewable energy comes to a halt.
1 gives the answer to the problem stated in 4 but is an archaic 20th century solution. Hence, the correct answer is 3241.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 0Question Type : Numerical Answer Type
Question Number : 22
1) The art matters.
2) There are many who feel Pym is writing the hymns for those for whom marriage is not a happy ending, for whom settling for an imperfect
pairing is not better than a single life, in the face of her culture’s somewhat medieval attitude that a woman who has not been chosen by a
man has somehow failed in her earthly purpose.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 17 of 19
:
 3) From the person who can be inferred from the work, and the accounts of those who knew her, we know she was funny, brave, and kind, a
friend whose originality and loyalty were treasured.
4) It is possible to find fault with Pym’s craft here and there, but her voice is indelible and gives great and unfailing pleasure to those with a
taste for it

My Answer: | Correct Answer: 4132

Solution:

It is difficult to locate the opening sentence of the paragraph. Therefore, let us look for pairs.
Sentences 4 and 1 form a pair, with Sentence 4 talking about Pym’s craft and what great pleasure it gives to the author, and
Sentence 1 adds to this theme by stating that ‘the art matters’, thus reinforcing Pym’s artistic ability.
Sentences 3 and 2 form a pair, with Sentence 3 describing Pym the person while Sentence 2 describes the audience that Pym is
writing for.
Sentences 4 and 1 will come before Sentences 3 and 2 because if Sentences 3 and 2 came first, Sentence 2 will not link logically
with Sentence 4.
Hence, the correct answer is 4132.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 0Question Type : Numerical Answer Type
Question Number : 23
Direction: The paragraph given below is followed by four alternative summaries. Choose the one which best carries the essence of the
passage.
Panama's first indigenous people's radio station, Voces Originarias Panamá, is now broadcast across the country. Panama has almost half a
million indigenous people, who make up 12% of the population, and speak seven different languages. Dad Neba, the station's coordinator,
says it's time they had a voice. "Historically we've been bombarded with information from outside, and now we want to speak for ourselves,"
he says. "We want to show the needs of our peoples." Many Panamanians see the radio station as an important tool to defend the culture,
land, and social and economic rights of indigenous people.

( A ) Panama has almost half a million indigenous people, who make up 12% of the population, and speak seven different languages and
Panama’s first indigenous radio station has given them a collective voice.

( B ) Historically, Panamanians have received information from outside but an indigenous radio station is giving an opportunity to
indigenous Panamanians to defend their culture, land and human rights.

( C ) Indigenous Panamanians want to promote their cultures and an indigenous radio station has given them the opportunity to do just that.

( D ) Panama’s first indigenous people's radio station has given an opportunity to indigenous Panamanians to defend their culture, land, and
social and economic rights.

My Answer: A | Correct Answer: D

Solution:

Option A is incorrect because of the phrase, ‘a collective voice’. The passage does not mention this.
Option B mentions ‘human rights’. This has not been stated in the passage. Option C distorts the meaning of the paragraph by
stating that indigenous Panamanians want to promote their cultures. The paragraph has not mentioned this fact.
Option D summarises the paragraph succinctly by including the salient points of the paragraph.
Hence, the correct answer is option D.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 1Question Type : Single Choice Answer Type
Question Number : 24
Direction: Five jumbled-up sentences, related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph.
Identify the odd one out and key in the number of the sentence as your answer.
1) Foundation models could be used in lots of applications, from helping find new drugs to selecting charts from datasets and trawling huge
databases to open up new areas of inquiry.
2) In a sense, foundational AI is merely the descendant of the power looms and steam engines that hastened the Industrial Revolution.
3) They also stir up worries—of malevolent machines, bias and the capture of the most powerful tool ever invented by governments and tech
giants.

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 18 of 19
:
 4) But it is also a revolutionary new class of machine, because it grasps the symbols in language, music and programming and uses them in
ways that seem creative
5) A bit like a human

My Answer: | Correct Answer: 3

Solution:

The paragraph is about foundational AI, its applications and its uses. Therefore, Sentence 3, which is about the negative aspects
of AI, is the odd sentence.
Sentences 2 and 4 form a pair, with Sentence 2 introducing foundational AI and Sentence 4 mentioning its various human-like
applications. Sentences 4 and 5 form a pair, with Sentence 5 stating that AI is a bit like a human.
Sentence 1 concludes the paragraph by mentioning the many uses of AI.
Hence, the correct answer is Sentence 3.
Marks for correct answer : 3 ; Negative Marks : 0Question Type : Numerical Answer Type

[Link] 07/11/25, 6 59 AM
Page 19 of 19
: