Q. 1:Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out.
1. Much has been recently discovered about the development of songs in birds.
2. Some species are restricted to a single song learned by all individuals, others have a range of songs.
3. The most important auditory stimuli for the birds are the sounds of other birds.
4. For all bird species there is a prescribed path to development of the final song,
5. A bird begins with the subsong, passes through plastic song, until it achieves the species song.
Statement should start the paragraph as it opens the idea by talking about the development of songs in birds. Statement 4 and 5 form a pair because statement 4 speaks of a prescribed path, and statement 5 describes that path (beginning, passing and achieving). So the odd sentence has to be either 3 or 2. Statement 2 is more likely to be a part of the paragraph because it talks about the bird species having a single song or a range of songs.
The right sequence could be 1245. 3 does not fit into the sequence, and is the odd one out.
This is a relatively easy question. There are a few clues that we must notice in order to get the sequence correct in shorter time.
The pronoun ‘such activities’ in statement 2 must refer to some activities. The only noun it could refer to is phoenixing, which has been introduced in sentence 3. Since statement 3 opens the idea of phoenixing, it should start the paragraph. After statement 3 we can have either 4 or 2. 2 makes more sense because it further adds more information about the idea of phoenixing. Thus 3 and 2 form a pair, and 4 and 1 form another pair because ‘his taxpayers’ in statement 1 should refer to a noun, which can be found in statement 4 in the Australian minister for Revenue and Services.
Thus 3241 form a logical sequence.
Q. 3 : The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the author’s position.
The early optimism about sport’s deterrent effects on delinquency was premature as researchers failed to find any consistent relationships between sports participation and deviance. As the initial studies were based upon cross-sectional data and the effects captured were short-term, it was problematic to test and verify the temporal sequencing of events suggested by the deterrence theory. The correlation between sport and delinquency could not be disentangled from class and cultural variables known. Choosing individuals to play sports in the first place was problematic, which became more acute in the subsequent decades as researchers began to document just how closely sports participation was linked to social class indicators.
1. Sports participation is linked to class and cultural variables such as education, income, and social capital.
2. Contradicting the previous optimism, latter researchers have proved that there is no consistent relationship between sports participation and deviance.
3. Statistical and empirical weaknesses stand in the way of inferring any relationship between sports participation and deviance.
4. There is a direct relationship between sport participation and delinquency but it needs more empirical evidence.
This is an easy question and the right answer should be 3. We can arrive at the right quickly by way of elimination. The passage focuses on delinquency and sports participation, suggesting that
deviation from delinquency and sports participation is not yet confirmed, as there are many hindrances to arriving at the right conclusion.
Option 1 goes out because it says that there is a link, but the link is not yet established
Option 2 is close but the later researches haven’t proved anything yet. They have gathered enough evidence that doubts the earlier optimism, without proving that there is no relationship
Option 3 aptly sums up the main position of the paragraph, which is statistical data not being enough to infer anything about relationship between sports participation and deviance.
Option 4 the direct relationship idea is being doubted in the paragraph, while the option states exactly the opposite.
Q. 4: 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. They would rather do virtuous side projects assiduously as long as these would not compel them into doing their day jobs more honourably or reduce the profit margins.
2. They would fund a million of the buzzwordy programs rather than fundamentally question the rules of their game or alter their own behavior to reduce the harm of the existing distorted, inefficient and unfair rules.
3. Like the dieter who would rather do anything to lose weight than actually eat less, the business elite would save the world through social-impact-investing and philanthro- capitalism.
4. Doing the right thing — and moving away from their win-win mentality — would involve real sacrifice; instead, it’s easier to focus on their pet projects and initiatives.
Statements 1 and 2 have the pronoun ‘they’, which is likely to refer to a noun. That noun is ‘business elite’ in statement 3. Thus statement 3 would come before statement 1 and 2.
Statement 3 opens the paragraph by comparing a dieter with the business elite. The idea of social-impact-investing and philanthro-capitalism in statement 3 connects with ‘they would fund a million of the buzzwordy programs…’ in statement 2. Thus 32 form a pair.
4 and 1 form a pair because in statement 4 ‘doing the right thing would demand real sacrifice’ and ‘they would rather do virtuous side project assiduously’. The ideas connect. Thus 3241 form a coherent paragraph.
Q. 5: Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful and coherent short paragraph. Identify the odd one out.
1. As India looks to increase the number of cities, our urban planning must factor in potential natural disasters and work out contingencies in advance.
2. Authorities must revise data and upgrade infrastructure and mitigation plans even if their local area hasn’t been visited by a natural calamity yet.
3. Extreme temperatures, droughts, and forest fires have more than doubled since 1980.
4. There is no denying the fact that our baseline normal weather is changing.
5. It is no longer a question of whether we will be hit by nature’s fury but rather when.
This question too is a little dubious because all the statements seem to go together. 1 and 2 form a pair. They speak of the same thing- things we must do to avoid disaster. Option 4 will start the paragraph because it introduces the idea. So the right answer boils down to 3 and 5. Either could be the right choice. The official answer, however, is 3