CAT 2024 Slot 3

The given sentence focuses on the impact of these rising costs on employees - an idea that hasn’t yet been introduced here. Placing this in Blank 1 would prematurely shift the focus from a general economic observation to the employee-specific consequences, disrupting the logical flow. Similarly, Blank 2 would be a poor choice since it would interrupt the argument about wages not keeping pace with inflation. The broader context of inflation and wages needs to be fully established before narrowing the discussion to employee struggles.

Blank 3 could be a good fit. We observe that the preceding sentence sets up the problem: wages are lagging behind rising costs. The subsequent sentence emphasises the stark contrast between remote work savings and current financial stress; the anecdote from the London University lecturer is further linked to this. Therefore, Blank 4 is also unsuitable. By placing the given sentence in Blank 3, we bridge the two ideas presented above by specifying how these rising costs and stagnant wages directly impact employees. It introduces the tangible pressures employees face, which makes the subsequent sentence about savings during remote work even more impactful.

Hence, Option B is the correct choice. 

Let us evaluate the given choices - 

Option A: The creation of new culture and ideas is a central theme of the passage, highlighted as a potential outcome of AI's linguistic capabilities: [“...AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture…”]

Option B: The author hints that AI could surpass human creativity in areas like storytelling, composing music, and drafting laws or scriptures: [“...What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures?...”]

Option C: The threat to democracy through the mass production of fake news and political content is a major concern raised by the author: [“...Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of AI tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake-news stories…”]

Option D: The passage does discuss AI's ability to create emotional connections with individuals: [“...form intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews…”] However, it does not explicitly connect this capability to ‘exacerbating the polarization’ of political views. The focus is on fostering fake intimacy to influence opinions, not specifically on worsening political polarization.

Hence, Option D is the correct choice. 

The author emphasises that language is foundational to human culture and civilisation because it:

• articulates and spreads human values and culture (as noted in Option C).
• lays the groundwork for creating cultural artefacts through storytelling and laws (as noted in Option D).
• influences political views and fosters emotional ties (as noted in Option A).

Option B, however, does not align with the rationale behind the “operating system” metaphor: the author does not suggest that language is the "operating system" of civilisation because it underpins AI tools. Instead, the passage treats AI tools like ChatGPT as leveraging language's existing role in civilization.

Let us evaluate the choices based on the information in the passage -

Option A: The author does not dismiss fears about students using AI but instead deems such concerns possibly trivial compared to AI’s larger societal threats.

Option B: The author doesn’t argue that fears of AI harming humans physically are unfounded, but shifts focus to the linguistic and cultural dangers AI presents. It’s unclear whether he will explicitly support the view presented here.

Option C: Though the author briefly acknowledges that AI can be used for good, this idea is not a central focus of the passage; he also does not emphasise technological or industrial benefits. Therefore, it’s unclear whether the author will support his view.

Option D: The concern stated here has been clearly underlined in the passage. We are informed of the threat AI poses to democracy through its manipulation of language and ability to generate misinformation, fake intimacy, and propaganda. The author explicitly states that democracy relies on meaningful human conversations, which are undermined when AI becomes indistinguishable from humans. Therefore, this option aligns most closely with the author's argument.

Hence, Option D is the correct choice.

The passage clearly highlights the potential risks associated with AI's linguistic capabilities, urging action to regulate its use. While the passage does present hypothetical scenarios and employs rhetorical questions, its tone is primarily grounded in a warning, not sensationalism or mere speculation. This points us towards Option A. The author systematically explains the dangers of unregulated AI tools, particularly their capacity to manipulate language and influence human culture. The warnings are thoughtful and aim to provoke awareness and a sense of urgency without excessive dramatisation. The tone is serious and measured, which aligns with a cautionary style.

The remaining tones do not describe the discussion appropriately. For instance, consider Option B: though the passage discusses AI's future implications, the focus is less on prediction and more on warning about what could happen if action is not taken. "Prescient" implies a focus on foresight and vision, but the passage emphasises immediate concerns and actionable advice. Similarly, the passage is not “alarmist” (Option C), as it avoids overly exaggerated or emotional claims. It uses logical arguments and examples rather than fearmongering. Option D is also a poor fit: although the passage concludes with a rhetorical question, this is a stylistic device rather than a defining characteristic of the tone. The primary goal is to issue a warning, not to leave the reader in a state of curiosity or wonder, making “quizzical” an incorrect characterisation.

Hence, Option A is the best choice. 

A useful strategy for determining where the given sentence best fits is to look for places where the flow of ideas feels awkward or disconnected. When we examine the sentences around Blank 1, we see that they are well-linked, moving smoothly from the broader issue of the drought to its immediate consequence, food insecurity. The same logic applies to Blanks 2 and 3 - there are no noticeable disruptions in the flow of ideas here. The structure remains clear and coherent even without inserting the given sentence into these blanks.

However, when we look at Blank 4, we notice a discrepancy. The sentence before Blank 4 mentions farmers and pastoralists, and the sentence following it continues discussing pastoralists, but there’s a slight gap in the connection. If the sentences were closely linked, the author could have used pronouns or rephrased the second sentence to refer to pastoralists more naturally. Additionally, there’s a shift in focus: the paragraph moves from talking about "leaving them on the brink of famine" to "never being able to go back as their livelihoods have been irreversibly wiped out." This jump in ideas suggests the need for a transitional sentence to bridge the two concepts - enter the given sentence. Moreover, the "Many... Some..." structure works well here. First, the author mentions the larger group of farmers and pastoralists and how they were displaced. Then, the sentence narrows the focus to a smaller portion of this group, highlighting how, even for those who were not displaced, their livelihoods were so affected that they may never recover. This progression makes the insertion of the given sentence at Blank 4 both logical and necessary for maintaining coherence.

Hence, Option A is the correct choice. 

Here, Sentences 1, 4, and 5 discuss the general theme of how non-experts or forecasters without specialized expertise can make accurate predictions, often outperforming experts. Sentence 3 adds context by highlighting that this success occurs even when experts have access to classified information.

Contrarily, Sentence 2 shifts the focus to the “intelligence community's interest in forecasting models” rather than continuing the discussion on the accuracy and success of forecasters versus experts. This makes it unrelated to the main flow of the paragraph.

Let us examine the points presented in each sentence to further understand how the statements link. Sentence 1 introduces the main idea that forecasting is appealing because it works even without requiring specialized expertise. Building on this idea, Sentence 5 highlights that non-experts can often outperform experts in forecasting; this, in a way, relates to the appeal of forecasting introduced in the first sentence. Sentence 4 provides evidence to support the claim made in Sentence 5. It refers to a specific study where non-experts outperformed experts in predicting geopolitical events, solidifying the argument that non-expert forecasting can be more reliable. Sentence 3 strengthens the previous claim by highlighting that the experts, despite having access to classified intelligence, were still outperformed by non-experts. In this manner, the arrangement 1-5-4-3 renders a coherent paragraph.

Hence, Sentence 2 is the odd one out. 

The statement in the question draws a comparison between Moutai’s claimed hangover-proof quality and a groundbreaking historical invention (gunpowder). The use of "would make it" suggests a hypothetical scenario, and the comparison is meant to emphasise significance, not an actual invention. This indicates that the comparison is metaphorical/figurative (Option C), conveying the liquor’s potential impact on culture and society; hence, we can eliminate Option A.

Option B also implies that the comparison is based on actual substance or tangible qualities. Though the claim about being hangover-proof is substantive, the comparison to gunpowder is not grounded in tangible, measurable terms but rather in its significance. Similarly, Option D suggests that the phrase equates Moutai directly with gunpowder, which is incorrect: the phrase does not treat the two as synonyms but draws a symbolic comparison.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice. 

To identify the factor that is both a reason for Moutai’s success and a potential threat, we could consider aspects that currently drive demand while also holding the potential to hinder it in the future. Looking at the given choices, Option A may be a contributing factor to Moutai’s success, as cultural practices around drinking play a role in its popularity. However, the passage does not explicitly frame this as a threat, especially since it is deeply ingrained in Chinese society, making this option less fitting. Option C is also a significant reason for Moutai's success, as it targets the super-wealthy, but the passage does not indicate that this would become a threat in the future. Option B is presented more as a hurdle to Moutai’s success, while the explicit benefits remain to be discussed.

On the other hand, we can deduce that Option D is both a key reason for Moutai’s success - by tapping into the spending power of older consumers - and a potential threat, as the younger generations, with different health-conscious lifestyles, could move away from the heavy drinking culture that has driven Moutai's demand. The passage specifically highlights this generational shift as a risk to Moutai’s long-term success.

Hence, Option D is the best choice. 

The author uses the phrase “the unholy trinity” to describe Moutai’s marketing strategy, which relies on three factors: nationalism, elitism, and ageism. The word “unholy” implies that these factors may be unconventional or controversial, which could be why they are described as such. The author presents this idea in the context of Western marketing, suggesting that Moutai might have succeeded due to these factors, even though they seem to defy conventional Western norms. Thus, the phrase reflects how Moutai’s marketing strategy is in stark contrast to Western business practices (Option C).

Contrarily, Options A, B, and D either do not address the contrast with Western strategies or misinterpret the focus of the passage. For instance, Option A is not the best choice because the phrase “unholy trinity” isn’t a comment on the morality of marketing liquor itself but rather on the controversial nature of Moutai’s specific strategy. Options B and C focus on tangential aspects that are irrelevant to the question.

Let's evaluate the given choices and check if they are consistent with the information in the passage -

Option A: According to the passage, this is not true. The author emphasises that Moutai deliberately avoids targeting the middle class, as the competition in that market is intense, and instead focuses on the super-rich. This suggests that marketing to the middle class is not as lucrative or straightforward as it might appear.

Option B: The passage mentions that the Chinese government is Moutai's largest shareholder and potentially plays a role in controlling the prices of products, which is a key factor for any firm in this market to consider. Furthermore, the author discusses how the government might further interfere with the operations in this space: [“... in what some see as a travesty of corporate governance, its majority owner has plans to set up its own sales channel ...”]

Option C: The author highlights that the premium market in China is still growing and not overcrowded with luxury brands, indicating a potential opportunity for firms targeting high-end consumers.

Option D: The passage states that many firms have failed in their attempt to cater to the middle class due to fierce competition. This is a valid consideration for any firm looking to enter the market.

Hence, Option A is the correct choice.

To determine where the given sentence fits best, we must consider the logical flow of ideas between sentences. The sentence in question provides important historical and contextual information about the photograph. The author begins by describing the image and ends the paragraph by mentioning the official title of the photo. While sentences offering historical context are typically placed at the beginning, inserting the sentence in either Blank 1 or 2 would create a disruption in the flow of the image's description. This suggests that the sentence must fit in either Blank 3 or 4. Offering contextual information after mentioning the title at the end seems odd; thus, we can eliminate Blank 4. 

When we refocus on Blank 3, we see that by this point in the paragraph, the author has just described the soldiers from the South Vietnamese Army’s 25th Division following behind the children. This sets up a moment of helplessness that emphasises the chaos and brutality of the scene. The sentence about the trauma and violence of the war logically follows the description of the soldiers because it explains the broader implications of the photo’s content, providing a context for the violence and its far-reaching consequences. After discussing the soldiers, the sentence connects the personal and immediate suffering in the photograph with the larger scope of the Vietnam War’s impact, which then leads into the official title of the photograph. The official title, "The Terror of War," is directly linked to the broader theme of violence and destruction that the sentence describes. Thus, the given sentence naturally sets the stage for introducing the official title and the iconic nickname, "Napalm Girl," ensuring a smooth and coherent transition.

Hence, Option C is the correct choice. 

The question asks us to identify the hypothetical scenario that does not reflect the kind of loss described in the passage. The passage discusses cultural, ecological, and intellectual losses caused by language extinction, including the loss of:

• Unique cultural expressions (e.g., music, art, and emotions tied to language).
• Knowledge about the environment (e.g., relationships between plants and illness).
• Worldviews and philosophical insights.

We need to identify a scenario that doesn’t align with these themes. Let us examine the options based on this understanding -

Option A: This scenario reflects the loss of unique cultural knowledge - in this case, the ability to describe the “20 different moods of the ocean,” which likely represents detailed ecological and environmental understanding.

Option B: This scenario focuses on some form of administrative or statistical change in a government list; the focus is not on the cultural, ecological, or intellectual loss emphasised in the passage. Therefore, the option does not reflect the deeper, humanity-wide loss described in the passage.

Option C: This scenario aligns with the loss of unique cultural concepts and the emotional depth tied to a word or phrase. In the author’s perspective, losing this concept would diminish humanity's understanding of the complexity of human relationships.

Option D: This scenario reflects the loss of ecological knowledge about snow textures, which likely has practical implications for living in the Arctic environment. This aligns with the passage's discussion of losing environmental wisdom when languages die.

Hence, Option B is the correct choice. 

The central idea of the passage is that endangered languages, as carriers of unique cultural perspectives and human knowledge, must be preserved to benefit humanity. The author argues that liberal arts education plays a vital role in this preservation, both by fostering global citizenship and by encouraging some individuals to directly engage in preservation efforts. Liberal arts education, as framed in the passage, sensitises students to cultural diversity and equips them with the tools to support endangered languages and cultures.

We observe that Option B, however, directly undermines this central idea by redefining the focus of liberal arts education. Requiring fluency in two of the most widely spoken global languages (e.g., English, Spanish, Mandarin) would prioritise dominant languages rather than endangered ones. This hypothetical scenario shifts resources and attention away from the preservation of linguistic diversity, which is central to the passage's argument. Such a requirement would reinforce the dominance of already powerful languages, the very phenomenon identified as a major “language killer” in the passage. By institutionalizing the focus on dominant languages, it would erode the argument that liberal arts education fosters support for endangered languages and cultural preservation, ultimately weakening the role of liberal arts in addressing language extinction.

In contrast, the remaining choices either align with the discussion or do not serve as strong counterarguments to the points presented in the passage. For instance, Option A acknowledges that most liberal arts students will not directly engage in language preservation but does not challenge the broader idea that liberal arts education fosters empathy and support for endangered languages. Option C limits the long-term success of language preservation but does not negate its immediate benefits or the potential for renewal in subsequent generations. Similarly, Option D highlights a limitation of recording dying languages but does not undermine the broader argument that documentation is a valuable and necessary tool in preservation.

The passage highlights the widespread extinction of indigenous languages in North America due to colonisation, physical annihilation, and assimilation policies while noting slightly better survival rates in Central and South America. It implies that language survival may be influenced by factors such as social policies, cultural integration, and the extent of physical and cultural displacement.

Evaluating the choices, we note that Option A is plausible since allowing children to stay with families would help preserve native languages, unlike the North American policy of removing children to boarding schools, as discussed in the passage. Option B is also reasonable, as less effective assimilation efforts by colonial governments could lead to better language retention. Option C also aligns with the passage’s context, as it discusses physical annihilation as a significant driver of language extinction, but the survival rate being slightly better in South America could suggest marginally less physical annihilation.

However, Option D is problematic; while providing locals with jobs in the colonial administration might seem like a factor that supports language retention, this scenario is not consistent with the passage. The passage emphasises that dominant languages often replace indigenous ones through socio-economic pressures, and employment in colonial administration would likely reinforce the use of the dominant language rather than preserve native languages.

Hence, Option D is the best choice.

The author discusses how a liberal arts education, combined with participation in language preservation efforts, empowers students in several significant ways. He highlights that such an education broadens students' cultural understanding, helps them communicate across linguistic barriers (Option A), and enables them to gain insights into both their own and others' cultures (Option D). Option B is an implicit aspect of this discussion. The passage also suggests that some students may even become involved in active language preservation, though it emphasises that the majority might not pursue this path.  Contrarily, Option C is not explicitly mentioned or understood: while the passage provides examples of communities that have established such schools, it does not suggest that students themselves will take on this role.

Option C is the correct answer. This option best captures the essence of the passage. The tradwife’s embrace of traditional roles and vintage fashion naturally contrasts with and highlights the superficiality of modern life. The passage emphasizes that she is not overtly critiquing society but rather embodying a regressive ideal that challenges contemporary norms. This fits with how the passage describes her actions—her existence itself is a challenge to modern societal expectations.

Option A:The passage does not suggest that the tradwife is actively critiquing modern society. Instead, the tradwife embodies a lifestyle and set of ideals that are in contrast to contemporary values. The critique comes from others' reactions to her behavior, not from her intentions. 

Option B: The passage does not show her as actively trying to expose or mock anything. She simply lives in a way that contrasts with modern expectations. The "mockery" is a reaction from others, not her goal. Therefore, this option overstates her intentions.

Option D: This focuses on the tradwife's dress and adherence to traditional roles as the means of revealing modern life’s artificial nature. While the tradwife does embody these traditional values, the passage is more focused on how her actions highlight societal superficiality rather than "revealing" it. Additionally, the passage suggests that her behaviour is not an overt revelation but rather something that others react to—making this option somewhat distorted.

The passage contrasts the personal, introspective nature of lyric poetry with Marxism's outward focus on societal change. At first glance, the characteristics of lyric poetry - being personal, small-scale, and idiosyncratic - seem incompatible with Marxism's demand for a transformative critique of an unjust society. However, the passage introduces a nuanced perspective within Marxist thought, which recognises lyric poetry as having an implicit critical and utopian function. Through its imaginative and alternative modes of perception, lyric poetry can challenge dominant ideologies and suggest a vision of resistance to oppression. Thus, while lyric poetry does not directly engage with large-scale social concerns, it can still align with Marxist ideals by offering subtle forms of critique and hope for change. Option C most effectively captures this idea.

None of the other choices present a valid interpretation of the passage. For instance, Option A oversimplifies the issue by portraying lyric poetry as merely ‘utopian,” ignoring its critical and resistant potential as described in the passage. It misses the nuanced compatibility suggested between lyric poetry and Marxism. Option B inaccurately suggests that Marxism has “internal contradictions,” which is not the focus of the passage. Similarly, Option D frames Marxism as dismissive of lyric poetry, ignoring the strand of Marxist thought that finds value in poetry's alternative perspectives; this misrepresentation makes it a weaker summary.

A good starting point here would be to link sentences 5 and 3 based on the idea of “pruning.” Sentence 5 talks about the synaptic development that occurs during the early period described in sentences 4 and 2. It describes how synapses are initially overproduced, a concept that sets up the next part of the process: synaptic pruning. Sentence 3 continues this discussion by offering an explanation for why synapses are pruned: to reinforce the necessary connections and eliminate the weaker ones. This helps to fine-tune the brain’s wiring, ensuring that the important pathways are retained while the less useful ones are discarded. Together, 5-3 ties in with the broader purpose of neural wiring presented in Sentence 2: it emphasises that the creation of neural connections in the fetus is a preparatory stage and that these connections are essential for the future performance of the visual system. Sentence 4 sets the context of the paragraph: it mentions the formation of neural connections before birth, specifically focusing on the connections between the eyes and the brain.

While Sentence 1 provides a technical description of synapse creation and function, it doesn’t fit the broader context set by sentences 4, 2, 5, and 3. These sentences focus on brain development (especially related to vision) and the process of synapse formation and pruning in a developmental context. Sentence 1 focuses on the structural aspect of synapse formation (the “specialized structures” at the terminal end of an axon), which is more about how a synapse functions at a microscopic level rather than the larger developmental or functional role synapses play in early brain development, as discussed in the other sentences.

Therefore, Sentence 1 is the odd one out.

The passage discusses the challenges of regulating innovations in biotechnology. It highlights two key issues: (i) current regulations are outdated and insufficient for new biological advancements, and (ii) the unpredictable nature of living entities and rapid technological changes make it difficult to design a regulatory framework that anticipates all risks and contingencies. The core question is whether regulation can ever keep pace with the unpredictable and unique outcomes of biotechnology. Option C correctly touches upon these ideas.

The other options are either too narrow or miss the essence. Option A focuses on calibration and scientists' roles, which is not the central concern of the passage. Similarly, Option B highlights the urgency for new rules but omits the skepticism about achieving comprehensive regulation. Option D overemphasises the impossibility of imagining all risks without addressing the need for flexibility in regulations.

Hence, Option C is the best choice.

The phrase “unlikely to disagree + EXCEPT” can seem tricky to interpret. In simple terms, the question requires us to find a statement the author will disagree with. Let us inspect the choices -

Option A: The author supports the proposal for zonal segregation as a reasonable compromise, balancing scientific exploration with human settlement.

Option B: The author agrees that NASA’s earlier missions did not prioritise contamination but implies they caused no significant harm.

Option C: This viewpoint reflects a cautious approach to space exploration. The author dismisses concerns about hypothetical extraterrestrial life as speculative and prioritises human exploration and development over minimising contamination. Therefore, he’s likely to disagree with this position.

Option D: In the passage, the author argues that the costs of maintaining strict planetary protection measures are excessive and could undermine future exploration efforts. This is consistent with his stance.

Hence, Option C is the best choice. 

The passage discusses the debate surrounding planetary protection policies, particularly the concerns about contaminating Mars with Earth-based microbes. The author argues against these concerns, citing several reasons why the risk of contamination should not hinder human exploration and development of Mars. These reasons include:

• the lack of evidence for life on Mars (describes Mars as a “bleak, rusted landscape” with no confirmed life) [Option A]
• the disregard for such protocols by international competitors (China’s lenient approach to planetary protection) [Option B]
• the historical precedent of contamination from earlier human missions (Apollo missions left waste on the Moon) [Option D]

On the other hand, Option C is not presented as a valid reason. The author does not specifically argue that probes have had “little effect” on the Moon's environment but instead focuses on human waste and contamination from earlier human missions, not robotic probes.

The first paragraph critiques the stringent planetary protection policies advocated by a group of scientists who aim to prevent biological contamination of celestial bodies. The author portrays these efforts as excessive, particularly given the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, and highlights the significant financial burden these measures place on space agencies like NASA. Option A accurately reflects this scepticism, as the author questions the need to sterilize planets where life has not been proven to exist.

Option B is incorrect because the author is not equivocal (i.e., ambiguous or undecided); instead, he expresses a clear stance against these strict protocols. Option C is also inaccurate, as the author is not indifferent to elitism but rather critiques the scientists’ restrictive approach. Similarly, Option D can be eliminated because the author does not approve of NASA's spending on sterilization but views it as an unnecessary expense.

The passage highlights contrasting reactions to two instances of potential contamination of the lunar environment: China’s germination of a plant seed on the Moon, which elicited little controversy, and Israel’s accidental release of tardigrades aboard the Beresheet probe, which sparked significant backlash within the space community. This contrast underscores differences in how national or regional scientific communities respond to issues of planetary protection. Option C most closely reflects this idea.

The passage does not suggest that contamination from animals is inherently more harmful than from plants, as suggested in Option A. Similarly, Option B inaccurately implies that the passage endorses China’s approach as inherently “reasonable,” which it does not. Option D diverges a bit from the discussion by emphasising global biases against specific countries, but the passage provides no evidence of such biases, focusing instead on scientific reactions.