IIFT 2021 (5th Dec)

The Star TV agency has conducted a survey in Green view residency to see how many people like these three serials: "Anupama" "Kalayani", and "Imlie" which hold first three positions of TRP. In a group of 150 people 90, 70, and 50 people like "Kalayani", "Imlie" and "Anupama" respectively. The number of people who like all the three serials is half the number of people who like exactly two serials. The number of people who like exactly any two out of the three serials is the same as those who like exactly any other two of the three serials. The number of people who like all the three serials are:

Shanu and Ishu play a tossing game. They alternatively toss a coin. Whoever receives 'Head' first, wins the game. What is Ishu's chance of winning the game if Shanu gets a chance to toss coin first?

The angle of elevation of a glider from the deck of ship 25 meters above the sea surface is 30⁰ and the angle of depression of the reflection of glider in the sea is 75⁰. Find the approximate height of the glider from the sea surface. √3 = 19/11

A triangular park named ABC, is required to be protected by green fencing. The length of the side BC is 293. If the length of side AB is a perfect square, the length of the side AC is a power of two (2), and the length of side AC is twice the length of side AB. Determine how much fencing is required to cover the triangular park.

Care hospital has vaccination facility at different floors of the hospital i.e. Covishield at first floor, Covaxin at 2nd floor and Sputnik at 3rd floor. Daily quota of allotted vaccine is determined by the government. On a particular day, 35% of the patients got Covaxin, 45% of the patients got Covishield and 20% got Sputnik. After vaccination, the vaccinated people were instructed to take Paracetamol if they experienced fever. Among the vaccinated people, those who received Covaxin have 15% chance of getting fever, Covishield vaccinated people have 10% chance of getting fever, and Sputnik vaccinated people have 5% chance of getting fever. A vaccinated person was randomly picked up and it was found that he had a running temperature at 102F. What is the chance that he had been administered Covishield vaccine?

In the figure (not drawn to scale) given below, if AD = CD = BC and angle ACE = 81⁰, how much is the value of angle DBC?

Determine the number of positive integer 'n' where 1 ≤ n ≤ 100 and 'n' is not divisible by 2, 3 or 5.

A granite stone has been purchased to build the kitchen platform and dining area of Mr. Kumar's bungalow. The cost of the stone varies directly with square of its weight. The stone broke into four parts whose weights are in the ratio of 2:4:7:11. If the granite stone had broken into four equal parts of weight then it would have led to a loss of Rs. 73600. What is the actual cost of the original granite stone (unbroken)?

Sui-Dhaga Company has to prepare two special designer dresses for Garba event. Their unique dress designs are always in demand by the young couples who participate in Garba event competitions. The profit contribution of male dress is $75 per unit and the profit contribution of female dress is $80 per unit. Total 7 hours are required to stitch a male-dress and 3 hours are required to stitch a female-dress. Silk required to prepare a male dress and a female dress is 4 meters and 5 meters respectively. To produce the dresses, total available labour hours are 59 and total availability of silk is 60 meters. They would like to produce male and female dresses as per the available resources in such a way so that the total profit gets maximized for the company. What will be total maximum profit earned by the Sui-Dhaga Company?

Find the value of

In a figure, ΔABC is a right angled triangle at , semicircles are drawn on AC, BC and AB's diameter. Find the area of the shaded region.

Note: Figure not as per scale

If both the roots of the equation x² − 4ax + 3 − 3a + 4a² = 0 exceed 2, then the value of a:

Shankar Fertilizer Limited and Shah Fertilizer Limited purchased one packet of Phosphorus each at the same price. Later on GreenP Company purchased both the packets at equal price from Shankar Fertilizer Limited and Shah Fertilizer Limited. But the profit percentage of Shankar Fertilizer Limited was X while that of Shah Fertilizer Limited was Y. Shah Fertilizer Limited calculated his profit on the selling price. Thus Y = 45 9/20 %. If the GreenP 20 Company sells one of the packets to Mehrauli Nursery at profit, then what is the cost price for Mehrauli Nursery X%. while GreenP Company purchased each of the Phosphorus packets at Rs. 330?

ABCD is a rectangle in the clockwise direction. The coordinates of A are (1,3) and the coordinates of C are (5,1), the coordinates of vertices B and D satisfy the line y = 2x + c, then what will be the coordinates of the mid-point of BC.

ABC is a triangle, angle B is 60⁰ and angle C is 45⁰, BC is produced to / extended till D so that angle ADB = 30⁰, then given √3 = 19/11 and BC and CD = 3⁴ X 2³ X 11/19 , what will be the square of the altitude from A to BC?

How many 4 letter words can be formed from the word "CORONAVIRUS".

The mean of the 29 observations is 337. If the first term is increased by 1, second term by 2 and so on. The new mean will be:

If , log₃ 16^x-3+14 / 4^x-3+2 then what will be the value of x:

The goods train between Bhilai to Lucknow without rakes can go upto the speed of 72km/hour, and the speed gets diminished by the quantity that varies as the square root of the number of wagons attached. If it is known that with 4 wagons the speed is 56 km/hour, the greatest number of wagons with which the engine can just move is:

Mr. Shyam invested a sum of Rs. 2000 through Kitocoin trading app available on his mobile. The invested amount appreciated after 3 years by 10% at the compound rate of appreciation. This appreciated amount is equal to the amount that is the result of 3 years depreciation by a certain compound rate of depreciation from Rs.3917. Find the difference between the compound rate of appreciation and depreciation:

Find the sum of following series:

There is a shooting event organised by the SBT youth Club to select the best candidate who will qualify to participate in Eklavya championship. The shooting board is designed by using 4 concentric circles of radii 2 inch, 3 inch, 5 inch and 9 inch. What is the probability that the participant will shoot only in the second ring to qualify for Eklavya championship.

One can use three different modes of transportation to reach from Dwarka to Ghaziabad. These mode of transportation have varying speeds 20 km/hour, 30km/hour, and 50 km/hour respectively. To reach Ghaziabad from Dwarka, Samiksha took each mode of transportation 1/5th, 2/5th and 2/5th times of her total journey time, while Shrestha took each mode of transportation 1/6th, 1/6th, and 4/6th of the total distance. The percentage by which Samiksha's travel time exceeds Shrestha travel time is nearest to:

Find the value of following expression log sin 40^? log sin 41^? − − − log sin 99^? log sin 100^?

A mining work can be undertaken only between 9 AM to 6 PM. If A and B work entirely during these hours, they can complete the work alone in 18 days and 22 days respectively. If A and B both start together on 25th Nov at 12 noon, when should B stop doing the work so that the work will be completed exactly on 09th Dec at 12 noon?

For each of the sentences given below, identify which of the two underlined words/phrases is correct:

From the options given below, identify correct antonym for the word given in CAPS:
ARMISTICE

For each of the sentences given below, identify which of the two underlined words/phrases is correct:

Identify the options with all correct spellings:

There are four sentences A, B, C, D where the underlined word is used either correctly or incorrectly. Choose the option which lists all the sentences where the underlined word is used correctly in a sentence.
A. A woman could not forbear declaring openly that her faith had saved her.
B. Forbear to say more on a subject which is forbidden.
C. Forbear to judge, for we are sinners all.
D. He was a delicate child, in direct contrast to a strong race of forbears, and inherited from his mother a refined, retiring disposition and a love for books.

Identify the appropriate meaning for the given root word:
Root word: Quin (as in quintessence/ quintet)

Each of the sentence below is written twice using an inappropriate and an appropriate word highlighted in black and italicized.
For each pair of sentences, identify the sentence with the appropriate word usage from the options given below:
I. There was concern that his legal victory could set a dangerous precedence.
II. There was concern that his legal victory could set a dangerous precedent.
III. Her ideas were light-years ahead of her time.
IV. Her ideas were many years ahead of her time.
V. The screaming kids and blaring radio made for a noisy evening.
VI. The screaming kids and blaring radio made for a noisome evening.

There are four sentences A, B, C, D where the underlined word is used either correctly or incorrectly. Choose the option which lists all the sentences where the underlined word is used correctly in a sentence.
A. He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God.
B. Harry signed an insurance waver before surgery.
C. All these legends waver between the theory of creation, or rather of manufacture, and the theory of evolution.
D. Will this constitute a waver of such right?

In the sentences below are certain nouns/collective nouns that are used incorrectly as singular when they should be used as plural and vice-versa. Identify the correct sentence from the following:

In the sentences below are certain nouns/collective nouns that are used incorrectly as singular when they should be used as plural and vice-versa. Identify the correct sentence from the following:

Identify the appropriate meaning for the given root word:
Root word: Rhin/o (as in Rhinoceros)

There are four sentences A, B, C, D where the underlined word is used either correctly or incorrectly. Choose the option which lists all the sentences where the underlined word is used correctly in a sentence.
A. The teacher asked the students to not elude to any online sources in their research papers.
B. Reyna used a tricky turnaround move to elude the only defender before firing from 8 yards into the empty goal.
C. Nick tried to elude the security men by sneaking through a back door.
D. The mafia boss ordered his men to not elude to any criminal activity during their telephone conversations.

From the options given below, identify the sentences with correct usage of verbs underlined:
A. Drinking and driving is a crime.
B. One or the other of you have to compromise.
C. Neither the gloves nor the scarf need washing.
D. Each invoice and purchase order has to be approved by the manager.

Each of the sentence below is written twice using an inappropriate and an appropriate word highlighted in black and italicized.
For each pair of sentences, identify the sentence with the appropriate word usage from the options given below:
I. Temperatures this week are expected to be seasonal.
II. Temperatures this week are expected to be seasonable
III. The only route was along a narrow tortuous road.
IV. The only route was along a narrow torturous road.
V. The idea was greeted with strong censor.
VI. The idea was greeted with strong censure.

Find the most appropriate word from the given options, which best describes the meaning provided in the question. Meaning: The study of reptiles

Certain foreign words are frequently used in English language. Identify the origin of the given words:
I. faux pas
II. en masse
III. bandolero
IV. versus

Directions for questions (Q.42 to Q.46)

I am occasionally troubled by the disparate rumblings of dissatisfaction about the role of theory in management. As a profession, we seem to experience recurring bouts of doubt about what theory is, and is not, and whether we should have a single unifying theory or many.
While we agonize over the degree of theoretical abstraction needed to produce knowledge, arguing occasionally for a step back from highly abstract theorization to “middle-range” theories or the much less ambitious notion of “mechanisms”, it is apparent that, as a community of scholars, we are deeply engaged with and passionate about the role of theory in our profession. There is, perhaps surprisingly, considerable consensus on what theory is: theory is simply a way of imposing conceptual order on the empirical complexity of the phenomenal world. As Bacharach (1989) astutely observed, theory offers “a statement of relations between concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints”. Ultimately, theories reflect, in highly abstract terms, the organization of a discipline’s knowledge base.
However, theory does much more than simply abstract and organize knowledge. It also signals the values upon which that knowledge is built. And it is in this somewhat shadowy connection between and among theory, knowledge, and values that cracks in our consensus about theory begin to appear. Although we might agree, broadly, about the substantive elements that constitute theory, we appear to disagree as a profession about why we need theory and what role it should play in creating, maintaining, and shaping what type of knowledge we value in the field. Fundamentally, we disagree about the value of theory.
Some see theory as a means of knowledge accumulation. These are the empiricists, who clearly constitute the dominant contemporary view. Informed by positivism, empiricists view management as a science and theory as the cumulative product of the progressive acquisition of knowledge. Empiricists value theory for its ability to capture and summarize the phenomenal world. They have a Darwinian understanding of the relationship between theories, seeing an implicit competition between theories in their ability to capture reality. Over time, as theory progresses in its ability to proximate and predict reality, a single unified theory should emerge. When a single theory fails to emerge (as is inevitable), empiricists tend to reject the value of theory entirely and focus energy exclusively on the collection of data. Declaring a moratorium on theory—Alfred North Whitehead’s “dustbowl empiricism”—is a recurring phenomenon in the history of social science. Dustbowl empiricism is characterized by what Feyerabend (1975) described as the rhetorical bullying that is implicit in appeals to rationality and evidence.
Dustbowl empiricism is, of course, doomed to fail. Knowledge accumulation simply cannot occur without a conceptual framework. When explicit frameworks are pushed into the background, theory becomes implicit. Implicit theories are inherently dangerous because they discourage researchers from asking fundamental questions about the assumptions that underpin knowledge and the methods used to acquire knowledge. The random accumulation of evidence is also doomed because of the inherent tendency of humans to theorize. Theorization is an essential element of how we make sense of the world, and randomly accumulated data are, as Coase (1988) critically observed, nothing but “a mass of descriptive material, waiting for a theory, or a fire.”
Management researchers constituting an alternative subgroup value theory as a means of knowledge abstraction. These are the rationalists, and they serve as a useful and important counterbalance to the empiricists. Instead of seeing theory as the summation of empirical observation, rationalists see theory as occurring prior to empirical observation. That is, theory offers a perceptual lens that structures sensory experience. Without theoretically derived categories, rationalists argue, humans would be unable to cognitively
organize or even recognize sensory experience. Rationalists value theory for its logic. Because they favor deduction over induction, rationalists often prefer theories that offer internal coherence or elegant explanations of the world. For these scholars new theory is more likely to come from the interpretation of past masters, through parsing canonical texts (i.e., literature reviews), than from empirical observation.
The ultimate danger of an overemphasis on rationalism is theoretical “fetishism,” where theory becomes an exercise in writing and interpretation but is detached from the empirical world. Taken to its extreme, rational theories tend to become self absorbed—more attentive to naval-gazing efforts of deconstructing prior theory than to challenges from contradictory phenomena. Elsewhere I have written about the emergent fetishism in theory and the concomitant danger of increasing scientism in management theory. However, rationalists offer a critically important counterbalance to empiricists, and it is the effective union of induction and deduction, or empiricism and rationalism, that tends to produce new knowledge.
A growing number of management scholars see a powerful normative value in theory. The highest and best use of theory, for this constituency, is not to represent the phenomenal world as it is but, rather, to fashion theoretical lenses that allow us to see the world as it might be. In contrast to both empiricists and rationalists, who see virtue in assuming an objective distance between research and practice and who believe that their research is largely free of political and moral assumptions, normative theorists embrace the notion that no theory is value free. They adopt McKenzie’s (2006) argument that management theories are less a camera that captures reality and more an engine that produces it.
Normative scholars, thus, value theory for its ability to create new reality. They construct theories that contradict the (often dismal) view of the world given to us by both empiricists and rationalists and, instead, articulate new possibilities for organizational behavior and managerial action. Rather than attending to the deconstruction of the causes of action, normative theorists tend to focus on the motives and ethics of actors and the process by which they make choices for action.
The question “why theory?” thus has several potential answers. In fact it is the tension between these different value propositions for theory that generates a series of observable and somewhat predictable dynamics in management scholarship.

Based on the passage, which of the following provides gist of the 'theory':

Directions for questions (Q.42 to Q.46)

I am occasionally troubled by the disparate rumblings of dissatisfaction about the role of theory in management. As a profession, we seem to experience recurring bouts of doubt about what theory is, and is not, and whether we should have a single unifying theory or many.
While we agonize over the degree of theoretical abstraction needed to produce knowledge, arguing occasionally for a step back from highly abstract theorization to “middle-range” theories or the much less ambitious notion of “mechanisms”, it is apparent that, as a community of scholars, we are deeply engaged with and passionate about the role of theory in our profession. There is, perhaps surprisingly, considerable consensus on what theory is: theory is simply a way of imposing conceptual order on the empirical complexity of the phenomenal world. As Bacharach (1989) astutely observed, theory offers “a statement of relations between concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints”. Ultimately, theories reflect, in highly abstract terms, the organization of a discipline’s knowledge base.
However, theory does much more than simply abstract and organize knowledge. It also signals the values upon which that knowledge is built. And it is in this somewhat shadowy connection between and among theory, knowledge, and values that cracks in our consensus about theory begin to appear. Although we might agree, broadly, about the substantive elements that constitute theory, we appear to disagree as a profession about why we need theory and what role it should play in creating, maintaining, and shaping what type of knowledge we value in the field. Fundamentally, we disagree about the value of theory.
Some see theory as a means of knowledge accumulation. These are the empiricists, who clearly constitute the dominant contemporary view. Informed by positivism, empiricists view management as a science and theory as the cumulative product of the progressive acquisition of knowledge. Empiricists value theory for its ability to capture and summarize the phenomenal world. They have a Darwinian understanding of the relationship between theories, seeing an implicit competition between theories in their ability to capture reality. Over time, as theory progresses in its ability to proximate and predict reality, a single unified theory should emerge. When a single theory fails to emerge (as is inevitable), empiricists tend to reject the value of theory entirely and focus energy exclusively on the collection of data. Declaring a moratorium on theory—Alfred North Whitehead’s “dustbowl empiricism”—is a recurring phenomenon in the history of social science. Dustbowl empiricism is characterized by what Feyerabend (1975) described as the rhetorical bullying that is implicit in appeals to rationality and evidence.
Dustbowl empiricism is, of course, doomed to fail. Knowledge accumulation simply cannot occur without a conceptual framework. When explicit frameworks are pushed into the background, theory becomes implicit. Implicit theories are inherently dangerous because they discourage researchers from asking fundamental questions about the assumptions that underpin knowledge and the methods used to acquire knowledge. The random accumulation of evidence is also doomed because of the inherent tendency of humans to theorize. Theorization is an essential element of how we make sense of the world, and randomly accumulated data are, as Coase (1988) critically observed, nothing but “a mass of descriptive material, waiting for a theory, or a fire.”
Management researchers constituting an alternative subgroup value theory as a means of knowledge abstraction. These are the rationalists, and they serve as a useful and important counterbalance to the empiricists. Instead of seeing theory as the summation of empirical observation, rationalists see theory as occurring prior to empirical observation. That is, theory offers a perceptual lens that structures sensory experience. Without theoretically derived categories, rationalists argue, humans would be unable to cognitively
organize or even recognize sensory experience. Rationalists value theory for its logic. Because they favor deduction over induction, rationalists often prefer theories that offer internal coherence or elegant explanations of the world. For these scholars new theory is more likely to come from the interpretation of past masters, through parsing canonical texts (i.e., literature reviews), than from empirical observation.
The ultimate danger of an overemphasis on rationalism is theoretical “fetishism,” where theory becomes an exercise in writing and interpretation but is detached from the empirical world. Taken to its extreme, rational theories tend to become self absorbed—more attentive to naval-gazing efforts of deconstructing prior theory than to challenges from contradictory phenomena. Elsewhere I have written about the emergent fetishism in theory and the concomitant danger of increasing scientism in management theory. However, rationalists offer a critically important counterbalance to empiricists, and it is the effective union of induction and deduction, or empiricism and rationalism, that tends to produce new knowledge.
A growing number of management scholars see a powerful normative value in theory. The highest and best use of theory, for this constituency, is not to represent the phenomenal world as it is but, rather, to fashion theoretical lenses that allow us to see the world as it might be. In contrast to both empiricists and rationalists, who see virtue in assuming an objective distance between research and practice and who believe that their research is largely free of political and moral assumptions, normative theorists embrace the notion that no theory is value free. They adopt McKenzie’s (2006) argument that management theories are less a camera that captures reality and more an engine that produces it.
Normative scholars, thus, value theory for its ability to create new reality. They construct theories that contradict the (often dismal) view of the world given to us by both empiricists and rationalists and, instead, articulate new possibilities for organizational behavior and managerial action. Rather than attending to the deconstruction of the causes of action, normative theorists tend to focus on the motives and ethics of actors and the process by which they make choices for action.
The question “why theory?” thus has several potential answers. In fact it is the tension between these different value propositions for theory that generates a series of observable and somewhat predictable dynamics in management scholarship.

Based on the passage, which of the following HOLDS TRUE about 'empiricists/empiricism':

Directions for questions (Q.42 to Q.46)

I am occasionally troubled by the disparate rumblings of dissatisfaction about the role of theory in management. As a profession, we seem to experience recurring bouts of doubt about what theory is, and is not, and whether we should have a single unifying theory or many.
While we agonize over the degree of theoretical abstraction needed to produce knowledge, arguing occasionally for a step back from highly abstract theorization to “middle-range” theories or the much less ambitious notion of “mechanisms”, it is apparent that, as a community of scholars, we are deeply engaged with and passionate about the role of theory in our profession. There is, perhaps surprisingly, considerable consensus on what theory is: theory is simply a way of imposing conceptual order on the empirical complexity of the phenomenal world. As Bacharach (1989) astutely observed, theory offers “a statement of relations between concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints”. Ultimately, theories reflect, in highly abstract terms, the organization of a discipline’s knowledge base.
However, theory does much more than simply abstract and organize knowledge. It also signals the values upon which that knowledge is built. And it is in this somewhat shadowy connection between and among theory, knowledge, and values that cracks in our consensus about theory begin to appear. Although we might agree, broadly, about the substantive elements that constitute theory, we appear to disagree as a profession about why we need theory and what role it should play in creating, maintaining, and shaping what type of knowledge we value in the field. Fundamentally, we disagree about the value of theory.
Some see theory as a means of knowledge accumulation. These are the empiricists, who clearly constitute the dominant contemporary view. Informed by positivism, empiricists view management as a science and theory as the cumulative product of the progressive acquisition of knowledge. Empiricists value theory for its ability to capture and summarize the phenomenal world. They have a Darwinian understanding of the relationship between theories, seeing an implicit competition between theories in their ability to capture reality. Over time, as theory progresses in its ability to proximate and predict reality, a single unified theory should emerge. When a single theory fails to emerge (as is inevitable), empiricists tend to reject the value of theory entirely and focus energy exclusively on the collection of data. Declaring a moratorium on theory—Alfred North Whitehead’s “dustbowl empiricism”—is a recurring phenomenon in the history of social science. Dustbowl empiricism is characterized by what Feyerabend (1975) described as the rhetorical bullying that is implicit in appeals to rationality and evidence.
Dustbowl empiricism is, of course, doomed to fail. Knowledge accumulation simply cannot occur without a conceptual framework. When explicit frameworks are pushed into the background, theory becomes implicit. Implicit theories are inherently dangerous because they discourage researchers from asking fundamental questions about the assumptions that underpin knowledge and the methods used to acquire knowledge. The random accumulation of evidence is also doomed because of the inherent tendency of humans to theorize. Theorization is an essential element of how we make sense of the world, and randomly accumulated data are, as Coase (1988) critically observed, nothing but “a mass of descriptive material, waiting for a theory, or a fire.”
Management researchers constituting an alternative subgroup value theory as a means of knowledge abstraction. These are the rationalists, and they serve as a useful and important counterbalance to the empiricists. Instead of seeing theory as the summation of empirical observation, rationalists see theory as occurring prior to empirical observation. That is, theory offers a perceptual lens that structures sensory experience. Without theoretically derived categories, rationalists argue, humans would be unable to cognitively
organize or even recognize sensory experience. Rationalists value theory for its logic. Because they favor deduction over induction, rationalists often prefer theories that offer internal coherence or elegant explanations of the world. For these scholars new theory is more likely to come from the interpretation of past masters, through parsing canonical texts (i.e., literature reviews), than from empirical observation.
The ultimate danger of an overemphasis on rationalism is theoretical “fetishism,” where theory becomes an exercise in writing and interpretation but is detached from the empirical world. Taken to its extreme, rational theories tend to become self absorbed—more attentive to naval-gazing efforts of deconstructing prior theory than to challenges from contradictory phenomena. Elsewhere I have written about the emergent fetishism in theory and the concomitant danger of increasing scientism in management theory. However, rationalists offer a critically important counterbalance to empiricists, and it is the effective union of induction and deduction, or empiricism and rationalism, that tends to produce new knowledge.
A growing number of management scholars see a powerful normative value in theory. The highest and best use of theory, for this constituency, is not to represent the phenomenal world as it is but, rather, to fashion theoretical lenses that allow us to see the world as it might be. In contrast to both empiricists and rationalists, who see virtue in assuming an objective distance between research and practice and who believe that their research is largely free of political and moral assumptions, normative theorists embrace the notion that no theory is value free. They adopt McKenzie’s (2006) argument that management theories are less a camera that captures reality and more an engine that produces it.
Normative scholars, thus, value theory for its ability to create new reality. They construct theories that contradict the (often dismal) view of the world given to us by both empiricists and rationalists and, instead, articulate new possibilities for organizational behavior and managerial action. Rather than attending to the deconstruction of the causes of action, normative theorists tend to focus on the motives and ethics of actors and the process by which they make choices for action.
The question “why theory?” thus has several potential answers. In fact it is the tension between these different value propositions for theory that generates a series of observable and somewhat predictable dynamics in management scholarship.

Which of the following is NOT TRUE about 'dustbowl empiricism' as explained in the passage:

Directions for questions (Q.42 to Q.46)

I am occasionally troubled by the disparate rumblings of dissatisfaction about the role of theory in management. As a profession, we seem to experience recurring bouts of doubt about what theory is, and is not, and whether we should have a single unifying theory or many.
While we agonize over the degree of theoretical abstraction needed to produce knowledge, arguing occasionally for a step back from highly abstract theorization to “middle-range” theories or the much less ambitious notion of “mechanisms”, it is apparent that, as a community of scholars, we are deeply engaged with and passionate about the role of theory in our profession. There is, perhaps surprisingly, considerable consensus on what theory is: theory is simply a way of imposing conceptual order on the empirical complexity of the phenomenal world. As Bacharach (1989) astutely observed, theory offers “a statement of relations between concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints”. Ultimately, theories reflect, in highly abstract terms, the organization of a discipline’s knowledge base.
However, theory does much more than simply abstract and organize knowledge. It also signals the values upon which that knowledge is built. And it is in this somewhat shadowy connection between and among theory, knowledge, and values that cracks in our consensus about theory begin to appear. Although we might agree, broadly, about the substantive elements that constitute theory, we appear to disagree as a profession about why we need theory and what role it should play in creating, maintaining, and shaping what type of knowledge we value in the field. Fundamentally, we disagree about the value of theory.
Some see theory as a means of knowledge accumulation. These are the empiricists, who clearly constitute the dominant contemporary view. Informed by positivism, empiricists view management as a science and theory as the cumulative product of the progressive acquisition of knowledge. Empiricists value theory for its ability to capture and summarize the phenomenal world. They have a Darwinian understanding of the relationship between theories, seeing an implicit competition between theories in their ability to capture reality. Over time, as theory progresses in its ability to proximate and predict reality, a single unified theory should emerge. When a single theory fails to emerge (as is inevitable), empiricists tend to reject the value of theory entirely and focus energy exclusively on the collection of data. Declaring a moratorium on theory—Alfred North Whitehead’s “dustbowl empiricism”—is a recurring phenomenon in the history of social science. Dustbowl empiricism is characterized by what Feyerabend (1975) described as the rhetorical bullying that is implicit in appeals to rationality and evidence.
Dustbowl empiricism is, of course, doomed to fail. Knowledge accumulation simply cannot occur without a conceptual framework. When explicit frameworks are pushed into the background, theory becomes implicit. Implicit theories are inherently dangerous because they discourage researchers from asking fundamental questions about the assumptions that underpin knowledge and the methods used to acquire knowledge. The random accumulation of evidence is also doomed because of the inherent tendency of humans to theorize. Theorization is an essential element of how we make sense of the world, and randomly accumulated data are, as Coase (1988) critically observed, nothing but “a mass of descriptive material, waiting for a theory, or a fire.”
Management researchers constituting an alternative subgroup value theory as a means of knowledge abstraction. These are the rationalists, and they serve as a useful and important counterbalance to the empiricists. Instead of seeing theory as the summation of empirical observation, rationalists see theory as occurring prior to empirical observation. That is, theory offers a perceptual lens that structures sensory experience. Without theoretically derived categories, rationalists argue, humans would be unable to cognitively
organize or even recognize sensory experience. Rationalists value theory for its logic. Because they favor deduction over induction, rationalists often prefer theories that offer internal coherence or elegant explanations of the world. For these scholars new theory is more likely to come from the interpretation of past masters, through parsing canonical texts (i.e., literature reviews), than from empirical observation.
The ultimate danger of an overemphasis on rationalism is theoretical “fetishism,” where theory becomes an exercise in writing and interpretation but is detached from the empirical world. Taken to its extreme, rational theories tend to become self absorbed—more attentive to naval-gazing efforts of deconstructing prior theory than to challenges from contradictory phenomena. Elsewhere I have written about the emergent fetishism in theory and the concomitant danger of increasing scientism in management theory. However, rationalists offer a critically important counterbalance to empiricists, and it is the effective union of induction and deduction, or empiricism and rationalism, that tends to produce new knowledge.
A growing number of management scholars see a powerful normative value in theory. The highest and best use of theory, for this constituency, is not to represent the phenomenal world as it is but, rather, to fashion theoretical lenses that allow us to see the world as it might be. In contrast to both empiricists and rationalists, who see virtue in assuming an objective distance between research and practice and who believe that their research is largely free of political and moral assumptions, normative theorists embrace the notion that no theory is value free. They adopt McKenzie’s (2006) argument that management theories are less a camera that captures reality and more an engine that produces it.
Normative scholars, thus, value theory for its ability to create new reality. They construct theories that contradict the (often dismal) view of the world given to us by both empiricists and rationalists and, instead, articulate new possibilities for organizational behavior and managerial action. Rather than attending to the deconstruction of the causes of action, normative theorists tend to focus on the motives and ethics of actors and the process by which they make choices for action.
The question “why theory?” thus has several potential answers. In fact it is the tension between these different value propositions for theory that generates a series of observable and somewhat predictable dynamics in management scholarship.

Which of the following is NOT associated with rationalism or theoretical "fetishism" as described in the passage:

Directions for questions (Q.42 to Q.46)

I am occasionally troubled by the disparate rumblings of dissatisfaction about the role of theory in management. As a profession, we seem to experience recurring bouts of doubt about what theory is, and is not, and whether we should have a single unifying theory or many.
While we agonize over the degree of theoretical abstraction needed to produce knowledge, arguing occasionally for a step back from highly abstract theorization to “middle-range” theories or the much less ambitious notion of “mechanisms”, it is apparent that, as a community of scholars, we are deeply engaged with and passionate about the role of theory in our profession. There is, perhaps surprisingly, considerable consensus on what theory is: theory is simply a way of imposing conceptual order on the empirical complexity of the phenomenal world. As Bacharach (1989) astutely observed, theory offers “a statement of relations between concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and constraints”. Ultimately, theories reflect, in highly abstract terms, the organization of a discipline’s knowledge base.
However, theory does much more than simply abstract and organize knowledge. It also signals the values upon which that knowledge is built. And it is in this somewhat shadowy connection between and among theory, knowledge, and values that cracks in our consensus about theory begin to appear. Although we might agree, broadly, about the substantive elements that constitute theory, we appear to disagree as a profession about why we need theory and what role it should play in creating, maintaining, and shaping what type of knowledge we value in the field. Fundamentally, we disagree about the value of theory.
Some see theory as a means of knowledge accumulation. These are the empiricists, who clearly constitute the dominant contemporary view. Informed by positivism, empiricists view management as a science and theory as the cumulative product of the progressive acquisition of knowledge. Empiricists value theory for its ability to capture and summarize the phenomenal world. They have a Darwinian understanding of the relationship between theories, seeing an implicit competition between theories in their ability to capture reality. Over time, as theory progresses in its ability to proximate and predict reality, a single unified theory should emerge. When a single theory fails to emerge (as is inevitable), empiricists tend to reject the value of theory entirely and focus energy exclusively on the collection of data. Declaring a moratorium on theory—Alfred North Whitehead’s “dustbowl empiricism”—is a recurring phenomenon in the history of social science. Dustbowl empiricism is characterized by what Feyerabend (1975) described as the rhetorical bullying that is implicit in appeals to rationality and evidence.
Dustbowl empiricism is, of course, doomed to fail. Knowledge accumulation simply cannot occur without a conceptual framework. When explicit frameworks are pushed into the background, theory becomes implicit. Implicit theories are inherently dangerous because they discourage researchers from asking fundamental questions about the assumptions that underpin knowledge and the methods used to acquire knowledge. The random accumulation of evidence is also doomed because of the inherent tendency of humans to theorize. Theorization is an essential element of how we make sense of the world, and randomly accumulated data are, as Coase (1988) critically observed, nothing but “a mass of descriptive material, waiting for a theory, or a fire.”
Management researchers constituting an alternative subgroup value theory as a means of knowledge abstraction. These are the rationalists, and they serve as a useful and important counterbalance to the empiricists. Instead of seeing theory as the summation of empirical observation, rationalists see theory as occurring prior to empirical observation. That is, theory offers a perceptual lens that structures sensory experience. Without theoretically derived categories, rationalists argue, humans would be unable to cognitively
organize or even recognize sensory experience. Rationalists value theory for its logic. Because they favor deduction over induction, rationalists often prefer theories that offer internal coherence or elegant explanations of the world. For these scholars new theory is more likely to come from the interpretation of past masters, through parsing canonical texts (i.e., literature reviews), than from empirical observation.
The ultimate danger of an overemphasis on rationalism is theoretical “fetishism,” where theory becomes an exercise in writing and interpretation but is detached from the empirical world. Taken to its extreme, rational theories tend to become self absorbed—more attentive to naval-gazing efforts of deconstructing prior theory than to challenges from contradictory phenomena. Elsewhere I have written about the emergent fetishism in theory and the concomitant danger of increasing scientism in management theory. However, rationalists offer a critically important counterbalance to empiricists, and it is the effective union of induction and deduction, or empiricism and rationalism, that tends to produce new knowledge.
A growing number of management scholars see a powerful normative value in theory. The highest and best use of theory, for this constituency, is not to represent the phenomenal world as it is but, rather, to fashion theoretical lenses that allow us to see the world as it might be. In contrast to both empiricists and rationalists, who see virtue in assuming an objective distance between research and practice and who believe that their research is largely free of political and moral assumptions, normative theorists embrace the notion that no theory is value free. They adopt McKenzie’s (2006) argument that management theories are less a camera that captures reality and more an engine that produces it.
Normative scholars, thus, value theory for its ability to create new reality. They construct theories that contradict the (often dismal) view of the world given to us by both empiricists and rationalists and, instead, articulate new possibilities for organizational behavior and managerial action. Rather than attending to the deconstruction of the causes of action, normative theorists tend to focus on the motives and ethics of actors and the process by which they make choices for action.
The question “why theory?” thus has several potential answers. In fact it is the tension between these different value propositions for theory that generates a series of observable and somewhat predictable dynamics in management scholarship.

Based on the passage, which of the following about normative theory/theorists is TRUE:

Directions for Q.47 to Q.49

The contrasting styles of communication represented by the managers from Spain and say Japan are often referred to as low-context and high-context, respectively. In order to understand the implications, suppose you are having a discussion with Sally, a business colleague, and you both come from a culture that prefers low-context communication. People from such cultures are conditioned from childhood to assume a low level of shared context—that is, few shared reference points and comparatively little implicit knowledge linking speaker and listener.
Under these circumstances, it’s highly likely that, while speaking with Sally, you will explicitly spell out your ideas, providing all the background knowledge and details necessary to understand your message. The United States is the lowest-context culture in the world, followed by Canada and Australia, the Netherlands and Germany, and the United Kingdom. Though cultural norms are transmitted from one generation to the next through means that are generally indirect and subliminal, you may remember receiving some deliberate lessons concerning appropriate ways to communicate. I certainly received such lessons as a child growing up in the United States. My third-grade teacher, Mary Jane, a tall, thin woman with tightly curled hair, used to coach us during our Monday morning circle meetings using the motto, “Say what you mean and mean what you say.” When I was sixteen, I took an elective class at Minneapolis South High School on giving effective presentations. This is where I learned the traditional American rule for successfully transferring a powerful message to an audience: “Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you’ve told them.” This is the philosophy of low-context communication in a nutshell. The communication technique is designed to help people quickly identify and correct misunderstandings, thereby reducing (if not eliminating) one common cause of needless, pointless debate.
Childhood lessons like these imbued me with the assumption that being explicit is simply good communication. But, as Takaki explained, good communication in a high context culture like Japan is very different. In Japan as in India, China, and many other countries, people learn a very different style of communication as children—one that depends on unconscious assumptions about common reference points and shared knowledge.
For example, let’s say that you and a business colleague named Maryam both come from a high-context culture like Iran. Imagine that Maryam has travelled to your home for a visit and arrived via a late-evening train at 10:00 p.m. If you ask Maryam whether she would like to eat something before going to bed, when Maryam responds with a polite “No, thank you,” your response will be to ask her two more times. Only if she responds “No, thank you” three times will you accept “No” as her real answer.
In a high-context culture like Iran, it’s not necessary—indeed, it’s often inappropriate —to spell out certain messages too explicitly. If Maryam replied to your first offer of food, “Yes, please serve me a big portion of whatever you have, because I am dying of hunger!” this response would be considered inelegant and perhaps quite rude. Fortunately, shared assumptions learned from childhood make such bluntness unnecessary. You and Maryam both know that “No, thank you” likely means, “Please ask me again because I am famished.”
If you’re from a low-context culture, you may perceive a high-context communicator as secretive, lacking transparency, or unable to communicate effectively. On the other hand, if you’re from a high-context culture, you might perceive a low-context communicator as inappropriately stating the obvious, or even as condescending and patronizing.
When I had first arrived at my hotel in New Delhi, I was hot and, more important, hungry. Although I would have spent that week conducting classes for a group of Indian executives at the swank five-star Oberoi hotel, the Indian business school hosting me put me up in a more modest and much smaller residence several miles away. Staying in a simple hotel just steps from the bustle of workaday New Delhi, I thought, would make it that much easier for me to get the flavour of the city.
Lunch was at the top of my agenda. The very friendly young man behind the concierge desk jumped to attention when he saw me approaching. I asked about a good place to eat. “There is a great restaurant just to the left of the hotel. I recommend it highly,” he told me. “It is called Swagat. You can’t miss it.”
It sounded perfect. I walked out to the road and looked to the left. The street was a whirlwind of colors, smells, and activities. I saw a grocery store, a cloth vendor, a family of five all piled onto one motor scooter, and a bunch of brown- speckled chickens pecking in the dust next to the sidewalk. No restaurant.
“You didn’t find it?” the kind concierge asked in a puzzled tone as I re-entered the hotel. This time the young man explained, “Just walk out of the hotel, cross the street, and the restaurant will be on your left. It’s next to the market. There is a sign. You can’t miss it,” he said again.
Remembering my confusing encounter with the concierge in New Delhi, if I had been an Indian from Delhi with the shared cultural understanding of how to interpret implicit messages, I would have been better able to interpret the concierge’s directions. Lacking those assumptions left me bewildered and unable to find my way to the restaurant.

According to the author, low-context communication cultures:

Directions for Q.47 to Q.49

The contrasting styles of communication represented by the managers from Spain and say Japan are often referred to as low-context and high-context, respectively. In order to understand the implications, suppose you are having a discussion with Sally, a business colleague, and you both come from a culture that prefers low-context communication. People from such cultures are conditioned from childhood to assume a low level of shared context—that is, few shared reference points and comparatively little implicit knowledge linking speaker and listener.
Under these circumstances, it’s highly likely that, while speaking with Sally, you will explicitly spell out your ideas, providing all the background knowledge and details necessary to understand your message. The United States is the lowest-context culture in the world, followed by Canada and Australia, the Netherlands and Germany, and the United Kingdom. Though cultural norms are transmitted from one generation to the next through means that are generally indirect and subliminal, you may remember receiving some deliberate lessons concerning appropriate ways to communicate. I certainly received such lessons as a child growing up in the United States. My third-grade teacher, Mary Jane, a tall, thin woman with tightly curled hair, used to coach us during our Monday morning circle meetings using the motto, “Say what you mean and mean what you say.” When I was sixteen, I took an elective class at Minneapolis South High School on giving effective presentations. This is where I learned the traditional American rule for successfully transferring a powerful message to an audience: “Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you’ve told them.” This is the philosophy of low-context communication in a nutshell. The communication technique is designed to help people quickly identify and correct misunderstandings, thereby reducing (if not eliminating) one common cause of needless, pointless debate.
Childhood lessons like these imbued me with the assumption that being explicit is simply good communication. But, as Takaki explained, good communication in a high context culture like Japan is very different. In Japan as in India, China, and many other countries, people learn a very different style of communication as children—one that depends on unconscious assumptions about common reference points and shared knowledge.
For example, let’s say that you and a business colleague named Maryam both come from a high-context culture like Iran. Imagine that Maryam has travelled to your home for a visit and arrived via a late-evening train at 10:00 p.m. If you ask Maryam whether she would like to eat something before going to bed, when Maryam responds with a polite “No, thank you,” your response will be to ask her two more times. Only if she responds “No, thank you” three times will you accept “No” as her real answer.
In a high-context culture like Iran, it’s not necessary—indeed, it’s often inappropriate —to spell out certain messages too explicitly. If Maryam replied to your first offer of food, “Yes, please serve me a big portion of whatever you have, because I am dying of hunger!” this response would be considered inelegant and perhaps quite rude. Fortunately, shared assumptions learned from childhood make such bluntness unnecessary. You and Maryam both know that “No, thank you” likely means, “Please ask me again because I am famished.”
If you’re from a low-context culture, you may perceive a high-context communicator as secretive, lacking transparency, or unable to communicate effectively. On the other hand, if you’re from a high-context culture, you might perceive a low-context communicator as inappropriately stating the obvious, or even as condescending and patronizing.
When I had first arrived at my hotel in New Delhi, I was hot and, more important, hungry. Although I would have spent that week conducting classes for a group of Indian executives at the swank five-star Oberoi hotel, the Indian business school hosting me put me up in a more modest and much smaller residence several miles away. Staying in a simple hotel just steps from the bustle of workaday New Delhi, I thought, would make it that much easier for me to get the flavour of the city.
Lunch was at the top of my agenda. The very friendly young man behind the concierge desk jumped to attention when he saw me approaching. I asked about a good place to eat. “There is a great restaurant just to the left of the hotel. I recommend it highly,” he told me. “It is called Swagat. You can’t miss it.”
It sounded perfect. I walked out to the road and looked to the left. The street was a whirlwind of colors, smells, and activities. I saw a grocery store, a cloth vendor, a family of five all piled onto one motor scooter, and a bunch of brown- speckled chickens pecking in the dust next to the sidewalk. No restaurant.
“You didn’t find it?” the kind concierge asked in a puzzled tone as I re-entered the hotel. This time the young man explained, “Just walk out of the hotel, cross the street, and the restaurant will be on your left. It’s next to the market. There is a sign. You can’t miss it,” he said again.
Remembering my confusing encounter with the concierge in New Delhi, if I had been an Indian from Delhi with the shared cultural understanding of how to interpret implicit messages, I would have been better able to interpret the concierge’s directions. Lacking those assumptions left me bewildered and unable to find my way to the restaurant.

Which of the following can be inferred from passage:

Directions for Q.47 to Q.49

The contrasting styles of communication represented by the managers from Spain and say Japan are often referred to as low-context and high-context, respectively. In order to understand the implications, suppose you are having a discussion with Sally, a business colleague, and you both come from a culture that prefers low-context communication. People from such cultures are conditioned from childhood to assume a low level of shared context—that is, few shared reference points and comparatively little implicit knowledge linking speaker and listener.
Under these circumstances, it’s highly likely that, while speaking with Sally, you will explicitly spell out your ideas, providing all the background knowledge and details necessary to understand your message. The United States is the lowest-context culture in the world, followed by Canada and Australia, the Netherlands and Germany, and the United Kingdom. Though cultural norms are transmitted from one generation to the next through means that are generally indirect and subliminal, you may remember receiving some deliberate lessons concerning appropriate ways to communicate. I certainly received such lessons as a child growing up in the United States. My third-grade teacher, Mary Jane, a tall, thin woman with tightly curled hair, used to coach us during our Monday morning circle meetings using the motto, “Say what you mean and mean what you say.” When I was sixteen, I took an elective class at Minneapolis South High School on giving effective presentations. This is where I learned the traditional American rule for successfully transferring a powerful message to an audience: “Tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you’ve told them.” This is the philosophy of low-context communication in a nutshell. The communication technique is designed to help people quickly identify and correct misunderstandings, thereby reducing (if not eliminating) one common cause of needless, pointless debate.
Childhood lessons like these imbued me with the assumption that being explicit is simply good communication. But, as Takaki explained, good communication in a high context culture like Japan is very different. In Japan as in India, China, and many other countries, people learn a very different style of communication as children—one that depends on unconscious assumptions about common reference points and shared knowledge.
For example, let’s say that you and a business colleague named Maryam both come from a high-context culture like Iran. Imagine that Maryam has travelled to your home for a visit and arrived via a late-evening train at 10:00 p.m. If you ask Maryam whether she would like to eat something before going to bed, when Maryam responds with a polite “No, thank you,” your response will be to ask her two more times. Only if she responds “No, thank you” three times will you accept “No” as her real answer.
In a high-context culture like Iran, it’s not necessary—indeed, it’s often inappropriate —to spell out certain messages too explicitly. If Maryam replied to your first offer of food, “Yes, please serve me a big portion of whatever you have, because I am dying of hunger!” this response would be considered inelegant and perhaps quite rude. Fortunately, shared assumptions learned from childhood make such bluntness unnecessary. You and Maryam both know that “No, thank you” likely means, “Please ask me again because I am famished.”
If you’re from a low-context culture, you may perceive a high-context communicator as secretive, lacking transparency, or unable to communicate effectively. On the other hand, if you’re from a high-context culture, you might perceive a low-context communicator as inappropriately stating the obvious, or even as condescending and patronizing.
When I had first arrived at my hotel in New Delhi, I was hot and, more important, hungry. Although I would have spent that week conducting classes for a group of Indian executives at the swank five-star Oberoi hotel, the Indian business school hosting me put me up in a more modest and much smaller residence several miles away. Staying in a simple hotel just steps from the bustle of workaday New Delhi, I thought, would make it that much easier for me to get the flavour of the city.
Lunch was at the top of my agenda. The very friendly young man behind the concierge desk jumped to attention when he saw me approaching. I asked about a good place to eat. “There is a great restaurant just to the left of the hotel. I recommend it highly,” he told me. “It is called Swagat. You can’t miss it.”
It sounded perfect. I walked out to the road and looked to the left. The street was a whirlwind of colors, smells, and activities. I saw a grocery store, a cloth vendor, a family of five all piled onto one motor scooter, and a bunch of brown- speckled chickens pecking in the dust next to the sidewalk. No restaurant.
“You didn’t find it?” the kind concierge asked in a puzzled tone as I re-entered the hotel. This time the young man explained, “Just walk out of the hotel, cross the street, and the restaurant will be on your left. It’s next to the market. There is a sign. You can’t miss it,” he said again.
Remembering my confusing encounter with the concierge in New Delhi, if I had been an Indian from Delhi with the shared cultural understanding of how to interpret implicit messages, I would have been better able to interpret the concierge’s directions. Lacking those assumptions left me bewildered and unable to find my way to the restaurant.

Which of the following best explains 'you might perceive a low-context communicator as inappropriately "stating the obvious".

Directions for Q.50 to Q.51 Read the follwing passage:
Of course the cosmic mystery doesn’t help us at all in maintaining the social order. People often argue that we must believe in a god that gave some very concrete laws to humans, or else morality will disappear and society will collapse into primeval chaos. It is certainly true that belief in gods was vital for various social orders, and that it sometimes had positive consequences. Indeed, the very same religions that inspire hate and bigotry in some people inspire love and compassion in others. Yet though gods can inspire us to act compassionately, religious faith is not a necessary condition for moral behaviour. The idea that we need a supernatural being to make us act morally assumes that there is something unnatural about morality. But why? Morality of some kind is natural. All social mammals from chimpanzees to rats have ethical codes that limit things such as theft and murder.
Among humans, morality is present in all societies, even though not all of them believe in the same god, or in any god. Christians act with charity even without believing in the Hindu pantheon, Muslims value honesty despite rejecting the divinity of Christ, and secular countries such as Denmark and the Czech Republic aren’t more violent than some devout countries.
Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering. If you really understand how an action causes unnecessary suffering to yourself or to others, you will naturally abstain from it. People nevertheless murder, rape and steal because they have only a superficial appreciation of the misery this causes. They are fixated on satisfying their immediate lust or greed, without concern for the impact on others - or even for the long-term impact on themselves. Even inquisitors who deliberately inflict as much pain as possible on their victim, usually use various desensitising and dehumanising techniques in order to distance themselves from what they are doing.
Many thinkers have constructed elaborate social theories, explaining why in the long run such behaviour is counterproductive. You would not like to live in a society where strangers are routinely robbed and murdered. Not only would you be in constant danger, but you would lack the benefit of things like commerce, which depends on trust between strangers. Merchants don’t usually visit dens of thieves. That’s how secular theoreticians from ancient China to modern Europe have justified the golden rule of ‘don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you’.
Yet we do not really need such complex long-term theories to find a natural basis for universal compassion. Forget about commerce for a moment. On a much more immediate level, hurting others always hurts me too. Every violent act in the world begins with a violent desire in somebody’s mind, which disturbs that person’s own peace and happiness before it disturbs the peace and happiness of anyone else. Thus people seldom steal unless they first develop a lot of greed and envy in their minds. People don’t usually murder unless they first generate anger and hatred. Emotions such as greed, envy, anger and hatred are very unpleasant. You cannot experience joy and harmony when you are boiling with anger or envy. Hence long before you murder anyone, your anger has already killed your own peace of mind.
For some people, a strong belief in a compassionate god that commands us to turn the other cheek may help in curbing anger. That’s been an enormous contribution of religious belief to the peace and harmony of the world. Unfortunately, for other people religious belief actually stokes and justifies their anger, especially if someone dares to insult their god or ignore his wishes. So the value of the lawgiver god ultimately depends on the behaviour of his devotees. If they act well, they can believe anything they like. Similarly, the value of religious rites and sacred places depends on the type of feelings and behaviours they inspire. If visiting a temple makes people experience peace and harmony - that’s wonderful. But if a particular sacred place causes violence and conflicts, what do we need it for? It is clearly dysfunctional. Not visiting any place of worship and not believing in any god is also a viable option. As the last few centuries have proved, we don’t need to invoke God’s name in order to live a moral life. Secularism can provide us with all the values we need.

Which of the following is correct:

Directions for Q.50 to Q.51 Read the follwing passage:
Of course the cosmic mystery doesn’t help us at all in maintaining the social order. People often argue that we must believe in a god that gave some very concrete laws to humans, or else morality will disappear and society will collapse into primeval chaos. It is certainly true that belief in gods was vital for various social orders, and that it sometimes had positive consequences. Indeed, the very same religions that inspire hate and bigotry in some people inspire love and compassion in others. Yet though gods can inspire us to act compassionately, religious faith is not a necessary condition for moral behaviour. The idea that we need a supernatural being to make us act morally assumes that there is something unnatural about morality. But why? Morality of some kind is natural. All social mammals from chimpanzees to rats have ethical codes that limit things such as theft and murder.
Among humans, morality is present in all societies, even though not all of them believe in the same god, or in any god. Christians act with charity even without believing in the Hindu pantheon, Muslims value honesty despite rejecting the divinity of Christ, and secular countries such as Denmark and the Czech Republic aren’t more violent than some devout countries.
Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering. If you really understand how an action causes unnecessary suffering to yourself or to others, you will naturally abstain from it. People nevertheless murder, rape and steal because they have only a superficial appreciation of the misery this causes. They are fixated on satisfying their immediate lust or greed, without concern for the impact on others - or even for the long-term impact on themselves. Even inquisitors who deliberately inflict as much pain as possible on their victim, usually use various desensitising and dehumanising techniques in order to distance themselves from what they are doing.
Many thinkers have constructed elaborate social theories, explaining why in the long run such behaviour is counterproductive. You would not like to live in a society where strangers are routinely robbed and murdered. Not only would you be in constant danger, but you would lack the benefit of things like commerce, which depends on trust between strangers. Merchants don’t usually visit dens of thieves. That’s how secular theoreticians from ancient China to modern Europe have justified the golden rule of ‘don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you’.
Yet we do not really need such complex long-term theories to find a natural basis for universal compassion. Forget about commerce for a moment. On a much more immediate level, hurting others always hurts me too. Every violent act in the world begins with a violent desire in somebody’s mind, which disturbs that person’s own peace and happiness before it disturbs the peace and happiness of anyone else. Thus people seldom steal unless they first develop a lot of greed and envy in their minds. People don’t usually murder unless they first generate anger and hatred. Emotions such as greed, envy, anger and hatred are very unpleasant. You cannot experience joy and harmony when you are boiling with anger or envy. Hence long before you murder anyone, your anger has already killed your own peace of mind.
For some people, a strong belief in a compassionate god that commands us to turn the other cheek may help in curbing anger. That’s been an enormous contribution of religious belief to the peace and harmony of the world. Unfortunately, for other people religious belief actually stokes and justifies their anger, especially if someone dares to insult their god or ignore his wishes. So the value of the lawgiver god ultimately depends on the behaviour of his devotees. If they act well, they can believe anything they like. Similarly, the value of religious rites and sacred places depends on the type of feelings and behaviours they inspire. If visiting a temple makes people experience peace and harmony - that’s wonderful. But if a particular sacred place causes violence and conflicts, what do we need it for? It is clearly dysfunctional. Not visiting any place of worship and not believing in any god is also a viable option. As the last few centuries have proved, we don’t need to invoke God’s name in order to live a moral life. Secularism can provide us with all the values we need.

Which of the following is an incorrect statement:

Directions for Q.50 to Q.52 Read the follwing passage:
Of course the cosmic mystery doesn’t help us at all in maintaining the social order. People often argue that we must believe in a god that gave some very concrete laws to humans, or else morality will disappear and society will collapse into primeval chaos. It is certainly true that belief in gods was vital for various social orders, and that it sometimes had positive consequences. Indeed, the very same religions that inspire hate and bigotry in some people inspire love and compassion in others. Yet though gods can inspire us to act compassionately, religious faith is not a necessary condition for moral behaviour. The idea that we need a supernatural being to make us act morally assumes that there is something unnatural about morality. But why? Morality of some kind is natural. All social mammals from chimpanzees to rats have ethical codes that limit things such as theft and murder.
Among humans, morality is present in all societies, even though not all of them believe in the same god, or in any god. Christians act with charity even without believing in the Hindu pantheon, Muslims value honesty despite rejecting the divinity of Christ, and secular countries such as Denmark and the Czech Republic aren’t more violent than some devout countries.
Morality doesn’t mean ‘following divine commands’. It means ‘reducing suffering’. You just need to develop a deep appreciation of suffering. If you really understand how an action causes unnecessary suffering to yourself or to others, you will naturally abstain from it. People nevertheless murder, rape and steal because they have only a superficial appreciation of the misery this causes. They are fixated on satisfying their immediate lust or greed, without concern for the impact on others - or even for the long-term impact on themselves. Even inquisitors who deliberately inflict as much pain as possible on their victim, usually use various desensitising and dehumanising techniques in order to distance themselves from what they are doing.
Many thinkers have constructed elaborate social theories, explaining why in the long run such behaviour is counterproductive. You would not like to live in a society where strangers are routinely robbed and murdered. Not only would you be in constant danger, but you would lack the benefit of things like commerce, which depends on trust between strangers. Merchants don’t usually visit dens of thieves. That’s how secular theoreticians from ancient China to modern Europe have justified the golden rule of ‘don’t do to others what you would not like them to do to you’.
Yet we do not really need such complex long-term theories to find a natural basis for universal compassion. Forget about commerce for a moment. On a much more immediate level, hurting others always hurts me too. Every violent act in the world begins with a violent desire in somebody’s mind, which disturbs that person’s own peace and happiness before it disturbs the peace and happiness of anyone else. Thus people seldom steal unless they first develop a lot of greed and envy in their minds. People don’t usually murder unless they first generate anger and hatred. Emotions such as greed, envy, anger and hatred are very unpleasant. You cannot experience joy and harmony when you are boiling with anger or envy. Hence long before you murder anyone, your anger has already killed your own peace of mind.
For some people, a strong belief in a compassionate god that commands us to turn the other cheek may help in curbing anger. That’s been an enormous contribution of religious belief to the peace and harmony of the world. Unfortunately, for other people religious belief actually stokes and justifies their anger, especially if someone dares to insult their god or ignore his wishes. So the value of the lawgiver god ultimately depends on the behaviour of his devotees. If they act well, they can believe anything they like. Similarly, the value of religious rites and sacred places depends on the type of feelings and behaviours they inspire. If visiting a temple makes people experience peace and harmony - that’s wonderful. But if a particular sacred place causes violence and conflicts, what do we need it for? It is clearly dysfunctional. Not visiting any place of worship and not believing in any god is also a viable option. As the last few centuries have proved, we don’t need to invoke God’s name in order to live a moral life. Secularism can provide us with all the values we need.

Which of the following is the correct central theme of the passage?

Directions for Q.53 to Q.57: Read the following passage:
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points? I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this summer, describing what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own selfinterest without regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th century convention of “the commons”—a cattlegrazing pasture that villagers shared— to warn against the overexploitation of communal resources.
I’m hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the classroom exercise, Hardin’s ideas, and our planet’s most pressing problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two points or six points of extra credit—but there’s a catch. I stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin’s analysis), or any natural resource. According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the student’s rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the shepherd’s rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren’t greedy—they’re strategic.
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate change. A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their consumption, we’d have sustainability. As many of my students say, “If everyone chooses two points, we’ll all get the points.” And yet, for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class— of the dozens I taught—stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes failed.
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed too—and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with my peers who had chosen six. In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise—“WHAT KIND OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS”—and his lament went viral. People around the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish?
Actually most people aren’t. But it’s very tricky to get people to cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or choosing six points), why shouldn’t I? But if we all think this way, eventually we’ll all lose.
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference—that if we teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not. I’ve been skeptical about this idea. When my student’s tweet went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn’t be able to use the exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the extra-credit points.
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about 80 percent, choose two points—just as most people choose to cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what’s right. But that alone won’t solve our problems, so we need to think  creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions. In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose two points, six points—or zero points. That’s right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group context—and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from increased cooperation.
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a huge difference— that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the extra credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to increase cooperation.
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom, won’t we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it’s about collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started volunteering with Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend.
This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money raised back to American households (to protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive to use — so reducing consumption would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts—again, collective action—we gain allies in Congress and the public. By early this year the House’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across the country. The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from the Beatles: “All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

Central theme of the passage is about:

Directions for Q.53 to Q.57: Read the following passage:
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points? I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this summer, describing what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own selfinterest without regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th century convention of “the commons”—a cattlegrazing pasture that villagers shared— to warn against the overexploitation of communal resources.
I’m hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the classroom exercise, Hardin’s ideas, and our planet’s most pressing problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two points or six points of extra credit—but there’s a catch. I stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin’s analysis), or any natural resource. According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the student’s rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the shepherd’s rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren’t greedy—they’re strategic.
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate change. A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their consumption, we’d have sustainability. As many of my students say, “If everyone chooses two points, we’ll all get the points.” And yet, for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class— of the dozens I taught—stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes failed.
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed too—and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with my peers who had chosen six. In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise—“WHAT KIND OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS”—and his lament went viral. People around the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish?
Actually most people aren’t. But it’s very tricky to get people to cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or choosing six points), why shouldn’t I? But if we all think this way, eventually we’ll all lose.
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference—that if we teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not. I’ve been skeptical about this idea. When my student’s tweet went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn’t be able to use the exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the extra-credit points.
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about 80 percent, choose two points—just as most people choose to cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what’s right. But that alone won’t solve our problems, so we need to think  creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions. In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose two points, six points—or zero points. That’s right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group context—and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from increased cooperation.
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a huge difference— that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the extra credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to increase cooperation.
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom, won’t we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it’s about collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started volunteering with Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend.
This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money raised back to American households (to protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive to use — so reducing consumption would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts—again, collective action—we gain allies in Congress and the public. By early this year the House’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across the country. The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from the Beatles: “All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

Identify the CORRECT statement:

Directions for Q.53 to Q.57: Read the following passage:
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points? I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this summer, describing what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own selfinterest without regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th century convention of “the commons”—a cattlegrazing pasture that villagers shared— to warn against the overexploitation of communal resources.
I’m hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the classroom exercise, Hardin’s ideas, and our planet’s most pressing problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two points or six points of extra credit—but there’s a catch. I stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin’s analysis), or any natural resource. According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the student’s rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the shepherd’s rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren’t greedy—they’re strategic.
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate change. A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their consumption, we’d have sustainability. As many of my students say, “If everyone chooses two points, we’ll all get the points.” And yet, for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class— of the dozens I taught—stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes failed.
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed too—and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with my peers who had chosen six. In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise—“WHAT KIND OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS”—and his lament went viral. People around the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish?
Actually most people aren’t. But it’s very tricky to get people to cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or choosing six points), why shouldn’t I? But if we all think this way, eventually we’ll all lose.
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference—that if we teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not. I’ve been skeptical about this idea. When my student’s tweet went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn’t be able to use the exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the extra-credit points.
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about 80 percent, choose two points—just as most people choose to cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what’s right. But that alone won’t solve our problems, so we need to think  creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions. In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose two points, six points—or zero points. That’s right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group context—and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from increased cooperation.
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a huge difference— that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the extra credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to increase cooperation.
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom, won’t we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it’s about collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started volunteering with Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend.
This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money raised back to American households (to protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive to use — so reducing consumption would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts—again, collective action—we gain allies in Congress and the public. By early this year the House’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across the country. The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from the Beatles: “All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

Identify the INCORRECT statement(s):

A. Our survival depends on the choices that each one of us makes.
B. Beatles seem to be suggesting that "the world has enough for everyone's needs, but not everyone's greed."
C. Almost half of the students failed in the tests that were conducted by author in his classes.
D. When the tweet became viral, author's colleagues were convinced that the exercise will still generate the same result because its human nature to be greedy and selfish.

Directions for Q.53 to Q.57: Read the following passage:
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points? I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this summer, describing what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own selfinterest without regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th century convention of “the commons”—a cattlegrazing pasture that villagers shared— to warn against the overexploitation of communal resources.
I’m hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the classroom exercise, Hardin’s ideas, and our planet’s most pressing problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two points or six points of extra credit—but there’s a catch. I stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin’s analysis), or any natural resource. According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the student’s rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the shepherd’s rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren’t greedy—they’re strategic.
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate change. A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their consumption, we’d have sustainability. As many of my students say, “If everyone chooses two points, we’ll all get the points.” And yet, for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class— of the dozens I taught—stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes failed.
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed too—and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with my peers who had chosen six. In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise—“WHAT KIND OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS”—and his lament went viral. People around the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish?
Actually most people aren’t. But it’s very tricky to get people to cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or choosing six points), why shouldn’t I? But if we all think this way, eventually we’ll all lose.
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference—that if we teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not. I’ve been skeptical about this idea. When my student’s tweet went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn’t be able to use the exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the extra-credit points.
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about 80 percent, choose two points—just as most people choose to cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what’s right. But that alone won’t solve our problems, so we need to think  creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions. In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose two points, six points—or zero points. That’s right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group context—and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from increased cooperation.
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a huge difference— that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the extra credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to increase cooperation.
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom, won’t we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it’s about collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started volunteering with Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend.
This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money raised back to American households (to protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive to use — so reducing consumption would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts—again, collective action—we gain allies in Congress and the public. By early this year the House’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across the country. The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from the Beatles: “All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

Directions for Q.53 to Q.57: Read the following passage:
I teach undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Maryland, and my classes draw students with diverse interests. But every one of them perks up when I pose this question: Do you want two extra-credit points on your term paper, or six points? I tell my students that the extra-credit offer is part of an exercise illustrating the interconnectedness of choices individuals make in communities. I explain that the exercise was inspired by an ecologist named Garrett Hardin and an address that he delivered 50 years ago this summer, describing what he called “the tragedy of the commons.” Hardin said that when many individuals act in their own selfinterest without regard for society, the effects can be catastrophic. Hardin used the 19th century convention of “the commons”—a cattlegrazing pasture that villagers shared— to warn against the overexploitation of communal resources.
I’m hoping that my students will grasp the connections between the classroom exercise, Hardin’s ideas, and our planet’s most pressing problems (including climate change). I allow them to choose between two points or six points of extra credit—but there’s a catch. I stipulate that if more than 10 percent of the class members choose six points, no one gets any points. The extra-credit points are analogous to water, fuel, grazing pasture (from Hardin’s analysis), or any natural resource. According to some free market economic theories, if everyone strives for maximum personal benefit, then societies will thrive. By this logic the student’s rational choice would be to pick six points, just as the shepherd’s rational choice would be to use as much grazing pasture as possible. And those who maximize personal consumption aren’t greedy—they’re strategic.
But when everyone chooses this path, the common resource is overtaxed, and societies end up with overharvesting, water shortages, or climate change. A possible solution seems simple: If everyone just moderated their consumption, we’d have sustainability. As many of my students say, “If everyone chooses two points, we’ll all get the points.” And yet, for the first eight years I used this exercise, only one class— of the dozens I taught—stayed under the 10 percent threshold. All the other classes failed.
This exercise was developed more than 25 years ago. Professor Steve Drigotas of Johns Hopkins University had been using it for some time when he administered it to me and my classmates in 2005. My class failed too—and I, who had chosen two points, was incredibly frustrated with my peers who had chosen six. In 2015 one of my students tweeted about the exercise—“WHAT KIND OF PROFESSOR DOES THIS”—and his lament went viral. People around the globe weighed in: Does so many people choosing six points mean it’s human nature to be greedy and selfish?
Actually most people aren’t. But it’s very tricky to get people to cooperate, especially in large groups of complete strangers. After all, if someone else is taking more for themselves (running more water or choosing six points), why shouldn’t I? But if we all think this way, eventually we’ll all lose.
Hardin suggested that education might make a difference—that if we teach people about the consequences of taking too much, they might not. I’ve been skeptical about this idea. When my student’s tweet went viral, some colleagues said that I wouldn’t be able to use the exercise again (because students would already know how it works). I laughed. If it were only that easy! My suspicion was justified. Even after the exercise got wide exposure, my students still failed the challenge to get the extra-credit points.
Despite this I remain optimistic. After all, most of my students, about 80 percent, choose two points—just as most people choose to cooperate in real-world situations. Most of us want to do what’s right. But that alone won’t solve our problems, so we need to think  creatively and use behavioral science to find solutions. In 2016 I decided to change things up. In hopes of finding a way to increase cooperation, I drew from the scientific literature on social groups and introduced a third option: Students could choose two points, six points—or zero points. That’s right. Zero. Why would anyone do that? Well, for each student who chose zero points, one of the six-point choosers (selected randomly) would lose everything, reducing the total number of six-point choosers by one.
The zero-point option is self-sacrificial; students forgo points for themselves in order to help the group by restraining those who take too much. In behavioral experiments this type of action is called altruistic punishment, a term coined by economists Ernst Fehr and Simon Gächter. Their research documented people willingly giving up some of their own resources in order to punish those who behave selfishly in a group context—and doing so in the belief that every individual profits from increased cooperation.
Usually a few of my students each semester choose the zero-point option, and sometimes that’s all it takes. Just a handful of people can make a huge difference— that is, a few self-sacrificing students can bring down the total number of six-point choosers to below the 10 percent threshold. This additional element has dramatically increased cooperation in my courses. Now roughly half my classes receive the extra credit points. In my opinion this is a remarkable turnaround. And some of my classes have done this without anyone actually choosing the zero-point option; simply knowing it was available was enough to increase cooperation.
Though this type of solution may work on the small scale of a classroom, won’t we need much larger action to curb global problems like climate change? Yes, but the principle is the same-it’s about collective action and reducing overconsumption. For example, recently I started volunteering with Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), an organization that advocates for a policy known as carbon fee and dividend.
This plan would put a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels and distribute the money raised back to American households (to protect families against rising costs). Ultimately this would reduce fossil fuel consumption by making this type of energy more expensive to use — so reducing consumption would be better for both our wallets and the environment. At CCL, volunteers meet with lawmakers and conduct outreach to the community. Through our efforts—again, collective action—we gain allies in Congress and the public. By early this year the House’s bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus had 70 members (half Democrats and half Republicans) from states across the country. The challenge that Garrett Hardin described 50 years ago remains today: Our survival depends on each of us and all of us conserving the commons. I choose to remind myself of that with these wise and hopeful lines from the Beatles: “All the world is birthday cake / so take a piece / but not too much.”

"But every one of them perks up when I pose this question". The appropriate meaning of this sentence would be:

Complete the following Idioms by matching List I with List II

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

Certain foreign words are frequently used in English language. Identify the origin of the given words:
I. coup d'etat
II. fait accompli
III. tete-e-tete
IV. elite

Find the most appropriate word from the given options, which best describes the meaning provided in the question. Meaning: The study of inscriptions

Directions for Q.61 to Q.64

The pie charts given below depict the percentage productionbreakup of 4 crops viz maize, corn, soyabean and wheat in the world and USA respectively. Assume that the total world production of these crops in a given year is160 million tonnes.

In all the questions, 'ROW' means rest of the world other than USA.

Given that USA accounts for 20 percent of the total production of soyabean in the world then what percentage of the total food crops production of the world is accounted by USA?

Directions for Q.61 to Q.64

The pie charts given below depict the percentage productionbreakup of 4 crops viz maize, corn, soyabean and wheat in the world and USA respectively. Assume that the total world production of these crops in a given year is160 million tonnes.

In all the questions, 'ROW' means rest of the world other than USA.

Assume that the total production of maize in the USA is 3 million tonnes. Calculate the percentage (approximately) of the total production of food crops in the world accounted by the USA?

Directions for Q.61 to Q.64

The pie charts given below depict the percentage productionbreakup of 4 crops viz maize, corn, soyabean and wheat in the world and USA respectively. Assume that the total world production of these crops in a given year is160 million tonnes.

In all the questions, 'ROW' means rest of the world other than USA.

If the ratio of production of wheat in USA and ROW is 1:6, then(approximately) what percentage of total food crop production of the ROW is accounted by wheat?

Directions for Q.61 to Q.64

The pie charts given below depict the percentage productionbreakup of 4 crops viz maize, corn, soyabean and wheat in the world and USA respectively. Assume that the total world production of these crops in a given year is160 million tonnes.

In all the questions, 'ROW' means rest of the world other than USA.

USA produces 20 percent lesser corn than ROW, find the production ofsoyabean in USA?

Directions for Q.65 to Q.68: Refer to the following line charts and solve the questions based on them. The line charts given below give the expenditure and income of ABC Ltd. Which produces and sells only two variants of its rice - Basmati rice and Parmal rice.

The total profit of ABC Ltd. is highest in which of the following years?

Directions for Q.65 to Q.68: Refer to the following line charts and solve the questions based on them. The line charts given below give the expenditure and income of ABC Ltd. Which produces and sells only two variants of its rice - Basmati rice and Parmal rice.

Calculate the number of years during 2005 to 2013 for atleast one of thetwo rice when income and expenditure did not follow the same trend (i.e both incomeand expenditure did not increase or decrease simultaneously compared to theprevious year)?

Directions for Q.65 to Q.68: Refer to the following line charts and solve the questions based on them. The line charts given below give the expenditure and income of ABC Ltd. Which produces and sells only two variants of its rice - Basmati rice and Parmal rice.

The percentage annual increase in the income of Basmati rice is highest inwhich of the following years?

Directions for Q.65 to Q.68: Refer to the following line charts and solve the questions based on them. The line charts given below give the expenditure and income of ABC Ltd. Which produces and sells only two variants of its rice - Basmati rice and Parmal rice.

In which year the annual percentage decrease in the profit of parmal rice ismaximum as compared to that of the previous year?

Directions for Q.69 to Q.72: The graph below depicts the crime cases registered against foreigners in different countries in a given year. The crime cases are classified into three categories: Murder cases, theft cases and other cases. The data for nine countries are shown in the figure below. These nine countries belong to the top ten countries in terms of the total number of cases registered. The tenth country is Malaysia, where only 523 theft cases were registered.

The table below shows the rank of the ten countries in terms of the number of cases registered in each of the three categories of crimes. If two countries are assigned rank2nd, then for any given crime, 3rd rank cannot be assigned to any country.

The rank of China in the murder cases category is?

Directions for Q.69 to Q.72: The graph below depicts the crime cases registered against foreigners in different countries in a given year. The crime cases are classified into three categories: Murder cases, theft cases and other cases. The data for nine countries are shown in the figure below. These nine countries belong to the top ten countries in terms of the total number of cases registered. The tenth country is Malaysia, where only 523 theft cases were registered.

The table below shows the rank of the ten countries in terms of the number of cases registered in each of the three categories of crimes. If two countries are assigned rank2nd, then for any given crime, 3rd rank cannot be assigned to any country.

In the top two countries on the basis of total registered cases, the approximate ratio of total number of murder cases to total number of theft cases is

Directions for Q.69 to Q.72: The graph below depicts the crime cases registered against foreigners in different countries in a given year. The crime cases are classified into three categories: Murder cases, theft cases and other cases. The data for nine countries are shown in the figure below. These nine countries belong to the top ten countries in terms of the total number of cases registered. The tenth country is Malaysia, where only 523 theft cases were registered.

The table below shows the rank of the ten countries in terms of the number of cases registered in each of the three categories of crimes. If two countries are assigned rank2nd, then for any given crime, 3rd rank cannot be assigned to any country.

Which of the following is correct about the ranks of countries in the other crimes category?
i) USA: 7
ii) Russia: 3

Directions for Q.69 to Q.72: The graph below depicts the crime cases registered against foreigners in different countries in a given year. The crime cases are classified into three categories: Murder cases, theft cases and other cases. The data for nine countries are shown in the figure below. These nine countries belong to the top ten countries in terms of the total number of cases registered. The tenth country is Malaysia, where only 523 theft cases were registered.

The table below shows the rank of the ten countries in terms of the number of cases registered in each of the three categories of crimes. If two countries are assigned rank2nd, then for any given crime, 3rd rank cannot be assigned to any country.

The sum of the ranks of Pakistan in the three categories of crimes is?

Directions for Q.73 to Q.76: The following graph provides data about the refrigerators and television sets manufactured by XYZ company in 8 days - day1 to day8. However, on each day after quality check (QC) some products were found to be defective. The attached bar chart provides data about aggregate number of refrigerators and televisions manufactured by the company and the number of refrigerators found defective after QC on each day of the given eight days. All the televisions and refrigerators which cleared the QC were packed for selling.

The bar chart given below provides information about the fraction of the number of televisions found defective to number of televisions which cleared the QC.

If the number of televisions which cleared the quality check (QC) on each of the given eight days is same, then at least how many refrigerators cleared the QC on day 3?

Directions for Q.73 to Q.76: The following graph provides data about the refrigerators and television sets manufactured by XYZ company in 8 days - day1 to day8. However, on each day after quality check (QC) some products were found to be defective. The attached bar chart provides data about aggregate number of refrigerators and televisions manufactured by the company and the number of refrigerators found defective after QC on each day of the given eight days. All the televisions and refrigerators which cleared the QC were packed for selling.

The bar chart given below provides information about the fraction of the number of televisions found defective to number of televisions which cleared the QC.

On how many of the given 8 days the number of refrigerators which cleared the quality check can be zero?

Directions for Q.73 to Q.76: The following graph provides data about the refrigerators and television sets manufactured by XYZ company in 8 days - day1 to day8. However, on each day after quality check (QC) some products were found to be defective. The attached bar chart provides data about aggregate number of refrigerators and televisions manufactured by the company and the number of refrigerators found defective after QC on each day of the given eight days. All the televisions and refrigerators which cleared the QC were packed for selling.

The bar chart given below provides information about the fraction of the number of televisions found defective to number of televisions which cleared the QC.

Which of the following can be the ratio of number of televisions and refrigerators which cleared the quality check on day1?

Directions for Q.73 to Q.76: The following graph provides data about the refrigerators and television sets manufactured by XYZ company in 8 days - day1 to day8. However, on each day after quality check (QC) some products were found to be defective. The attached bar chart provides data about aggregate number of refrigerators and televisions manufactured by the company and the number of refrigerators found defective after QC on each day of the given eight days. All the televisions and refrigerators which cleared the QC were packed for selling.

The bar chart given below provides information about the fraction of the number of televisions found defective to number of televisions which cleared the QC.

Given that the number of televisions which cleared the quality check on each of the eight days is equal to 'X', then how many distinct values of X are possible?

Directions for Q.77 to Q.79: Read the following passage:
Ten teams have submitted their nominations for a reputed Hackathon. They were first divided in two groups of 5 teams each: Ghost Riders to The Capitalists (group 1); and Team Intelligence to Dr Bigbull (group 2). In the competition, each team from one group had to pitch their idea against the each team from another group. For example Ghost Riders will have to pitch their idea against each team in group 2. The following table gives partial information about the final scoresheet at the end of the competition:

Note: * To be read as “Tech Pirates” lost the idea presentation round against “Evil Masterminds”.
For group 1 - The total points earned by each teams have been given in the last column e.g. Ghost Rider has scored 7 points overall.
For group 2 - The total points earned by each teams have been given in the last row e.g. Team Intelligence has scored 12 points overall.
In addition to this, the golden Hawks did not lose the presentation round against The Think Tank.
Point rule:
(i) If a team Wins, the winning team will get 5 points;
(ii) If there is a tie, both teams will get 2 points each; and
(iii) If a team lost the match, the losing team will get 0 points.

What was the result of presentation round between The Think Tank and EvilMasterminds?

Directions for Q.77 to Q.79: Read the following passage:
Ten teams have submitted their nominations for a reputed Hackathon. They were first divided in two groups of 5 teams each: Ghost Riders to The Capitalists (group 1); and Team Intelligence to Dr Bigbull (group 2). In the competition, each team from one group had to pitch their idea against the each team from another group. For example Ghost Riders will have to pitch their idea against each team in group 2. The following table gives partial information about the final scoresheet at the end of the competition:

Note: * To be read as “Tech Pirates” lost the idea presentation round against “Evil Masterminds”.
For group 1 - The total points earned by each teams have been given in the last column e.g. Ghost Rider has scored 7 points overall.
For group 2 - The total points earned by each teams have been given in the last row e.g. Team Intelligence has scored 12 points overall.
In addition to this, the golden Hawks did not lose the presentation round against The Think Tank.
Point rule:
(i) If a team Wins, the winning team will get 5 points;
(ii) If there is a tie, both teams will get 2 points each; and
(iii) If a team lost the match, the losing team will get 0 points.

Tech Pirates had a tie against which of the following team(s)?
I. Team Intelligence
II. Screaming Eagles
III. Dr Bigbull
IV. Golden Hawks
Choose the correct option?

Directions for Q.77 to Q.79: Read the following passage:
Ten teams have submitted their nominations for a reputed Hackathon. They were first divided in two groups of 5 teams each: Ghost Riders to The Capitalists (group 1); and Team Intelligence to Dr Bigbull (group 2). In the competition, each team from one group had to pitch their idea against the each team from another group. For example Ghost Riders will have to pitch their idea against each team in group 2. The following table gives partial information about the final scoresheet at the end of the competition:

Note: * To be read as “Tech Pirates” lost the idea presentation round against “Evil Masterminds”.
For group 1 - The total points earned by each teams have been given in the last column e.g. Ghost Rider has scored 7 points overall.
For group 2 - The total points earned by each teams have been given in the last row e.g. Team Intelligence has scored 12 points overall.
In addition to this, the golden Hawks did not lose the presentation round against The Think Tank.
Point rule:
(i) If a team Wins, the winning team will get 5 points;
(ii) If there is a tie, both teams will get 2 points each; and
(iii) If a team lost the match, the losing team will get 0 points.

Following are four statements:
I. Golden Hawks won the presentation round against Super Sellers.
II. Evil Masterminds won the presentation round against Ghost Riders.
III. Screaming Eagles won the presentation round against The Think Tank.
IV. The presentation round between The Capitalist and Team Intelligence resulted in atie.
Choose the correct option:

Directions for Q.80 to Q.82: Read the following passage:
In 2021, IIFT has announced the “Student of the year” competition which has twosteps: - the preliminary stage and the final stage. The preliminary stage comprised of overall academic excellence in the five trimesters of the coursework. When the results of the preliminary stage were announced, it was found that only five students -Aavanya, Aarav, Saanvi, Vagisha, and Raghav qualified to compete in the final stage of “Student of the year 2021” competition. In the final stage there were five rounds of extra-curricular activities wherein the students could score from 1 to 10 points in each round. These five extra-curricular activity rounds were Debate, Extempore, Business quiz, B-plan competition, and Case Study analysis. The student with maximum points across these five rounds would be considered as winner and would take the prestigious trophy of “Student of the year 2021”.
So at the end of these five rounds of competitions, when the Jury asked for the scorecard to find out the final winner, the scorer informed them that due to some technical glitches several entries have been deleted and jury was presented with following table:

However, the scorer has made the following observations too:
(i) No two students have scored equal points in the same round.
(ii) Vagisha has scored an odd number point in case study analysis round.
(iii) Aarav’s total score point was in the multiple of 8, and it was the least among all.
(iv) There was no tie between any two students in the overall/total points.
(v) Vagisha has scored same points in the following rounds: Debate round, and Extempore round.
(vi) None of the missing scores were less than 4 in any round.
(vii) Aavanya won the competition and won the prestigious trophy of “Student of the year 2021”.

Choose the correct pair of possibilities:
Possibility I: Raghav scored 8 points in debate round.
Possibility II: Vagisha's score in extempore round is twice of Aarav in the same round.
Possibility III: Vagisha scored 6 points in the debate round.
Possibility IV: Vagisha scores more points than Aavanya in the business quiz round.

Directions for Q.80 to Q.82: Read the following passage:
In 2021, IIFT has announced the “Student of the year” competition which has twosteps: - the preliminary stage and the final stage. The preliminary stage comprised of overall academic excellence in the five trimesters of the coursework. When the results of the preliminary stage were announced, it was found that only five students -Aavanya, Aarav, Saanvi, Vagisha, and Raghav qualified to compete in the final stage of “Student of the year 2021” competition. In the final stage there were five rounds of extra-curricular activities wherein the students could score from 1 to 10 points in each round. These five extra-curricular activity rounds were Debate, Extempore, Business quiz, B-plan competition, and Case Study analysis. The student with maximum points across these five rounds would be considered as winner and would take the prestigious trophy of “Student of the year 2021”.
So at the end of these five rounds of competitions, when the Jury asked for the scorecard to find out the final winner, the scorer informed them that due to some technical glitches several entries have been deleted and jury was presented with following table:

However, the scorer has made the following observations too:
(i) No two students have scored equal points in the same round.
(ii) Vagisha has scored an odd number point in case study analysis round.
(iii) Aarav’s total score point was in the multiple of 8, and it was the least among all.
(iv) There was no tie between any two students in the overall/total points.
(v) Vagisha has scored same points in the following rounds: Debate round, and Extempore round.
(vi) None of the missing scores were less than 4 in any round.
(vii) Aavanya won the competition and won the prestigious trophy of “Student of the year 2021”.

If Aavanya scores 5 points in the B-plan competition round, and sum of twoof the three missing values for Raghav is a prime number, then which possibility iscorrect?
Possibility I: Raghav has scored 5 points in Case-study analysis round.
Possibility II: Raghav has scored 5 points in Debate round.
Possibility III: Raghav has scored 4 points in Debate round.

Directions for Q.80 to Q.82: Read the following passage:
In 2021, IIFT has announced the “Student of the year” competition which has twosteps: - the preliminary stage and the final stage. The preliminary stage comprised of overall academic excellence in the five trimesters of the coursework. When the results of the preliminary stage were announced, it was found that only five students -Aavanya, Aarav, Saanvi, Vagisha, and Raghav qualified to compete in the final stage of “Student of the year 2021” competition. In the final stage there were five rounds of extra-curricular activities wherein the students could score from 1 to 10 points in each round. These five extra-curricular activity rounds were Debate, Extempore, Business quiz, B-plan competition, and Case Study analysis. The student with maximum points across these five rounds would be considered as winner and would take the prestigious trophy of “Student of the year 2021”.
So at the end of these five rounds of competitions, when the Jury asked for the scorecard to find out the final winner, the scorer informed them that due to some technical glitches several entries have been deleted and jury was presented with following table:

However, the scorer has made the following observations too:
(i) No two students have scored equal points in the same round.
(ii) Vagisha has scored an odd number point in case study analysis round.
(iii) Aarav’s total score point was in the multiple of 8, and it was the least among all.
(iv) There was no tie between any two students in the overall/total points.
(v) Vagisha has scored same points in the following rounds: Debate round, and Extempore round.
(vi) None of the missing scores were less than 4 in any round.
(vii) Aavanya won the competition and won the prestigious trophy of “Student of the year 2021”.

Suppose, if Saanvi scores 5 points in Debate round, still wins the "Studentof the Year" trophy by scoring one more point than "Aavanya" in total score; andRaghav has been given opportunity to re-appear for any two rounds, how many combinations Raghav can choose to win prestigious "Student of the Year" trophy:

Directions for Q.83 to Q.86: Read the following passage:
In an intra B-school competition, five students have participated. To facilitate a fairand blind evaluation, each student has been assigned a secret project name (i.e., Redwings, Green forest, Purple umbrella, Blue ocean, and Orange candy) randomly; andwere given two awards: one for being the best in the particular management discipline(i.e., Marketing, Finance, Operations, Human Resources, and Information Technology);and one for being ranked from 1st to 5th. Only one student can be declared as winnerunder each category. The secret project name, management discipline, and rankinginformation provided above need not to be in the same order. Determine who hasbeen assigned which secret project name, and which two awards, they received.Following set of information are also available:

(i) The winner under marketing category was ranked just above Babita’s project(which was not Purple umbrella).
(ii) The project coded as Blue Ocean was ranked just above Babita’s project (whichwas not winner under information technology discipline).
(iii) The Green forest project ranked just above the winner of project under humanresource discipline, and just below Chandan’s project.
(iv) The Red wings project was placed just higher than the winner of InformationTechnology discipline, and just below the Amar’s project.
(v) The Orange candy project ranked just above Dolly’s (which wasn’t the Purpleumbrella) and just below the winner of project under Finance discipline.
(vi) The winner under information technology was neither coded as Green forest, norwas it won by Eshan.

Dolly won the best project under which category?

Directions for Q.83 to Q.86: Read the following passage:
In an intra B-school competition, five students have participated. To facilitate a fairand blind evaluation, each student has been assigned a secret project name (i.e., Redwings, Green forest, Purple umbrella, Blue ocean, and Orange candy) randomly; andwere given two awards: one for being the best in the particular management discipline(i.e., Marketing, Finance, Operations, Human Resources, and Information Technology);and one for being ranked from 1st to 5th. Only one student can be declared as winnerunder each category. The secret project name, management discipline, and rankinginformation provided above need not to be in the same order. Determine who hasbeen assigned which secret project name, and which two awards, they received.Following set of information are also available:

(i) The winner under marketing category was ranked just above Babita’s project(which was not Purple umbrella).
(ii) The project coded as Blue Ocean was ranked just above Babita’s project (whichwas not winner under information technology discipline).
(iii) The Green forest project ranked just above the winner of project under humanresource discipline, and just below Chandan’s project.
(iv) The Red wings project was placed just higher than the winner of InformationTechnology discipline, and just below the Amar’s project.
(v) The Orange candy project ranked just above Dolly’s (which wasn’t the Purpleumbrella) and just below the winner of project under Finance discipline.
(vi) The winner under information technology was neither coded as Green forest, norwas it won by Eshan.

Who among the following got the award of the best project under Information Technology discipline?

Directions for Q.83 to Q.86: Read the following passage:
In an intra B-school competition, five students have participated. To facilitate a fairand blind evaluation, each student has been assigned a secret project name (i.e., Redwings, Green forest, Purple umbrella, Blue ocean, and Orange candy) randomly; andwere given two awards: one for being the best in the particular management discipline(i.e., Marketing, Finance, Operations, Human Resources, and Information Technology);and one for being ranked from 1st to 5th. Only one student can be declared as winnerunder each category. The secret project name, management discipline, and rankinginformation provided above need not to be in the same order. Determine who hasbeen assigned which secret project name, and which two awards, they received.Following set of information are also available:

(i) The winner under marketing category was ranked just above Babita’s project(which was not Purple umbrella).
(ii) The project coded as Blue Ocean was ranked just above Babita’s project (whichwas not winner under information technology discipline).
(iii) The Green forest project ranked just above the winner of project under humanresource discipline, and just below Chandan’s project.
(iv) The Red wings project was placed just higher than the winner of InformationTechnology discipline, and just below the Amar’s project.
(v) The Orange candy project ranked just above Dolly’s (which wasn’t the Purpleumbrella) and just below the winner of project under Finance discipline.
(vi) The winner under information technology was neither coded as Green forest, norwas it won by Eshan.

Which of the following is the secret project name of the Eshan?

Directions for Q.83 to Q.86: Read the following passage:
In an intra B-school competition, five students have participated. To facilitate a fairand blind evaluation, each student has been assigned a secret project name (i.e., Redwings, Green forest, Purple umbrella, Blue ocean, and Orange candy) randomly; andwere given two awards: one for being the best in the particular management discipline(i.e., Marketing, Finance, Operations, Human Resources, and Information Technology);and one for being ranked from 1st to 5th. Only one student can be declared as winnerunder each category. The secret project name, management discipline, and rankinginformation provided above need not to be in the same order. Determine who hasbeen assigned which secret project name, and which two awards, they received.Following set of information are also available:

(i) The winner under marketing category was ranked just above Babita’s project(which was not Purple umbrella).
(ii) The project coded as Blue Ocean was ranked just above Babita’s project (whichwas not winner under information technology discipline).
(iii) The Green forest project ranked just above the winner of project under humanresource discipline, and just below Chandan’s project.
(iv) The Red wings project was placed just higher than the winner of InformationTechnology discipline, and just below the Amar’s project.
(v) The Orange candy project ranked just above Dolly’s (which wasn’t the Purpleumbrella) and just below the winner of project under Finance discipline.
(vi) The winner under information technology was neither coded as Green forest, norwas it won by Eshan.

Which of the following are correctly matched?

Directions for Q.87 and Q.88: Read the following passage:
William and his wife Olivia have a family of three generations comprising of thirteenmembers. Some of Olivia’s children are married, but none of her grandchildren ismarried.
I. Olivia has a daughter-in-law named Victoria and two son-in-laws, one being Jack.
II. James brother is Michael.
III. Michael has two nephews and two nieces, one being Luna.
IV. Victoria, who is sister-in-law to Michael, has four nephew and nieces. Victoria hasno children.
V. Parker, who is married to Charlotte in the family has a daughter Violet and a son.
VI. John has a sister and two cousins, Dylan and Violet.
Answer the following based on above informations:

Who is Charlottes son?

Directions for Q.87 and Q.88: Read the following passage:
William and his wife Olivia have a family of three generations comprising of thirteenmembers. Some of Olivia’s children are married, but none of her grandchildren ismarried.
I. Olivia has a daughter-in-law named Victoria and two son-in-laws, one being Jack.
II. James brother is Michael.
III. Michael has two nephews and two nieces, one being Luna.
IV. Victoria, who is sister-in-law to Michael, has four nephew and nieces. Victoria hasno children.
V. Parker, who is married to Charlotte in the family has a daughter Violet and a son.
VI. John has a sister and two cousins, Dylan and Violet.
Answer the following based on above informations:

Who is Jack's daughter?

In a certain language, "ba tu qui zu" implies "zomato provides food delivery". In the same language "ra ni ma tu" implies "i love good food"; "ba te ma so"implies "love the delivery fresh"; and "so zu tu qui ba" implies "zomato delivery provides fresh food". What would be the code of "love the fresh" in this code language:

Based on the statement given below, identify which of the assumption/sis/are implicit:
Vikas says to Harry, "Refer to the Cambridge dictionary instead of Oxford dictionary to be good at English."
Assumption:
I. Harry wants to be good at English.
II. Vikas is a good advisor.

Which of the following straits connect the Atlantic Ocean with theMediterranean Sea?

Which of the following ministries of Govt. of India has developed the"SACRED portal";

Which of the following is not within the scope of privatization of GeneralInsurance Business Amendment Bill, 2021:

Match the logo with the corresponding airline:

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

What is the name given to India's first ever satellite and nuclear missiletracking ship?

Which among the following is not an indicator of Human DevelopmentIndex?

Which of the following agencies/bodies helps to solve the balance ofpayment problems of member countries?

Who sworn in as the 71st U.S. Secretary of the State on January 26, 2021:

Which one of the following countries hosted the 13th BRICS summit in2021?

Indian Institute of Heritage has been proposed to be set up in 2021 inwhich city by the Minister of Culture, Government of India?

Which country was officially admitted as the 9th full member of ShanghaiCooperation Organization (SCO) in 2021?

Match the player with his/her respective sport

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

Which country announced the information technology (IntermediaryGuidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021?

Which force has commissioned its first two women officers in combat forthe first time in India?

Who directed the famous Italian comedy-drama movie "Life is Beautiful"?

Shehroze Kashif, who has become the youngest person to reach the summitof K2 in 2021, belongs to which country?

________ is a car named after free-roaming horse breed of the AmericanWest that is also referred to as wild horses.

___________ , a Central Sector Scheme of Ministry of Panchayati Raj, is areformative step towards establishment of clear ownership of property in ruralinhabited (Abadi) areas, by mapping of land parcels using drone technology and providing 'Record of Rights' to village household owners with issuance of legalownership cards to the property owners.

Which amongst the following is the country's cleanest city as per SwachhSarvekshan 2021?

Which continent has highest number of countries in the world?