Xavier Aptitude Test (XAT) 2016
Sunday, January 03, 2016
VERBAL AND LOGICAL ABILITY
|ANSWER KEYS XAT 2016 - SET A
|VERBAL AND LOGICAL ABILITY
|11.(E or C)
- VERBAL ANALOGY
(C) We have to find similar relationship as shown by INSPECT : VIVISECT. Now, Inspect is to see carefully and come to some conclusion, or try and find something. Vivisect is to conduct surgery on a live organism to inspect the internals. Hence vivisect is the higher intensity form of inspect. Of the options given, E is ruled out (Question : Respond) due to opposite actions. Option D (Query : Survey) also does not show a higher intensity relationship, and neither does A (Enquire : Observe). We are left with B and C. Look at C – Investigate : Interrogate. Investigate is to try and find everything about something. Interrogate is to aggressively and formally go into the person’s mind. Vivisect matches Interrogate in intensity (to cut open). Hence, best answer is option C. In B, Explore is not as strong, but some may have marked it (totally at Examiner’s discretion).
- ESSENCE OF STATEMENT (POEM)
(C) The poem mentions “beneath the foam” an ocean was laid bare. Then it talks about “into my heart’s night, along a narrow way”. Both these indicate that on the face of it, things were not clear. But when the screen was removed (or I went beyond the obvious), the truth was visible. Now look at the options. A is too strong a conclusion. It is not always so. B is silly. C is best as it matches the above analysis. D is silly. E does not match the first part of the analysis. Hence, best answer is option C.
- ANALOGOUS STATEMENT
(E) If you read carefully – “only the final product of the recipe dictates whether the ingredients suffice” means that the quality of final output depends on the specific manner in which ingredients were arranged, and not necessarily on the ingredients themselves. Option A is irrelevant. B says – “The apple never falls far from the tree” meaning a child is usually just like the parent (our question statement does not say this). C is used to denote that “if the outcome of a situation is pleasant, then it makes up for any unpleasantness encountered earlier”. That is not what’s meant in our question. D assumes that if ingredients are good, output will be good. Again, wrong. Only E matches our analysis. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” means “the real value of something can be judged only from results and not from appearance”. Hence, best answer is option (E).
- PARA JUMBLE OF 6 STATEMENTS (Most logically ordered)
(A) Check the options first. Option D is absurd (1 cannot be followed by Q). D is ruled out. Similarly, option B and E are ruled out (1-R is silly). We are left with A and C. Check one by one. 1SPQR6 makes the most sense, as R6 is good, and 1S is also good. Similarly, PQR is logically sound. Hence, best answer is option (A).
- PARA JUMBLE OF 6 STATEMENTS (Most logically ordered)
(B) Check the options first. Option E is absurd (R cannot go before 6). By the logic that P cannot come before S (we are performing a certain operation), both options A and C are ruled out (also because Q-P does not look logical). We are left with B and D. Best answer is (B) as in (D), 1-R is a too-close repetition of ideas (define – define). Also, in B, R-S is a good connection. Remember, S-P is a key connection. The only confusion is between B and D. We choose B.
- BEST CONCLUSION FROM A PARAGRAPH
(E) We cannot conclude A as nothing is mentioned about cricket in India. Similarly, B is too far-fetched a conclusion from the given data (popularity is not necessarily the same as success in matches). C can be perhaps concluded, because had the national football team had a Latin American coach, it may have succeeded in international tournaments (the way club teams coached by Lat-Am coaches are doing well). D cannot be concluded as nothing is given about European coaches in the para. Option E can be correct as it says – “It cannot be definitely concluded that popular sports produce better coaches”. The supporting arguments / data needed for such a conclusion are missing. Hence the best option is (E).
- PRONUNCIATION OF THE WORD
(A) The trick is to realize that for the French word “Sobriquet” meaning a nickname, the “t” at the end is silent. That eliminates options C, D and E. Option A is best.
- LOGICALLY TRUE STATEMENT
(C) Check the options first. Option E is wrong as those with greater savings would have either saved from the subsidies they got (a wrong notion as subsidies are for basic living and not savings) or saved a lot by sheer effort (and not through subsidies). In the second case, E goes wrong because Statement I means we are trying to help such marginalized sections (and are now helping those who have good habits like savings). Similarly, option A is wrong (as it would be true only if designed with mala-fide intentions – no one from such marginalized sections should get a position, i.e.). Now look at Statement II. It talks of “fair opportunity” which cannot mean all citizens being equally intelligent (D - otherwise why talk of a “fair opportunity”) or that all citizens are equally exposed to all opportunities (B – otherwise why talk of a “fair opportunity”). Hence, only C is left. That is best. (confusion can arise between C and D)
- MOST REINFORCING STATEMENT
(D) The para has an air of ‘matter-of-fact’ about it, as it says that the country will survive irrespective of the texture of politics it gets. Hence, best answer has to be D. Why? If D is true, it means the country has faced such a situation earlier too, and there is established precedence, and hence the author is sure it’ll survive this one too. Of the other options, B comes close (but will be a big assumption), C is wrong, E may be true, A may be perhaps true. Confusion will be between D and B.
- VOCABULARY TEST
(C) In option A, Aggressive does not relate to words like sneakiness or immorality or skullduggery. In B, Illegal does not relate with ‘cutting corner’. In D, Banned does not relate with wickedness. In E, Vetoed does not relate with many. Hence, best is C – Deviant (i.e. away from normal, as expected from normal people). [knavery = rascality, skulduggery = underhand or dishonest or devious]
- STATEMENT INFERENCE
(E or C) Oinos talks of “I can comprehend you thus far…” meaning Agathos was explaining something to him earlier. A is ruled out (we have to find which cannot be definitely inferred – A can be inferred). B is wrong, as earth is indeed mentioned in the conversation (hence it existed as a concept at least). D cannot be inferred for sure (natural laws are creations of nature and not philosophers – they only put words to it). C and E both seem possible answers.
- BEST COMPLETION OF PASSAGE
(B) Option C is wrong. If we trust someone, his actions will be beneficial to us (high probability). E is also wrong. A is also wrong (we trust him). B positively completes the passage, and D negatively completes the passage. We will select B as best.
RC PASSAGE # 1 – Theme – Analysis of Communication styles in terms of sports (Bowling, Ping-Pong, Dumb Charades) – Total 4 questions – options very close, tough passage and tough questions
- (E) When we read the statement, it says (second para, last sentence) – “Of course, that makes sense only if target listeners are interchangeable, static pins waiting to be bowled over by our words – which they aren’t”. Option A is wrong (complementary being something that completes – individuals are separate entities). Option B too is wrong. Contiguous means placed together (physically maybe right, maybe wrong). Option C is ‘conforming’. Not all listeners may conform to the speaker, though they may not disagree openly (in this context of bowling). Hence wrong. Option D is ‘compatible’. Not at all! Finally, option E says “comparable”. Comparable pins (of same size, same shape, same demeanour) can be interchanged (not incomparable ones). Hence closest answer is (E) (although (C) is also very close).
- (A) Here, we can rule out B, D and E by a simple reading of the last two paras. But A and C are very close. Between these two, we choose to go with A as unless there is a minimum threshold overlap of shared images (in the minds of the people communicating with each other), there can be no efficiency in the communication process. Hence A. But C is also not wrong, at first sight. It talks about an ability to stimulate affect (now you realize that stimulate affect is a wrong structure – had it been ability to stimulate effect it may have been right). Hence C is ruled out. A is the best answer.
- (E) A very close one. Options A and C are not mentioned anywhere in the passage. How can be assume any of them? Hence ruled out. In option B, second part is clearly wrong (the receiver cannot predict the spin always). D goes against the idea itself. Hence, we are left with only E.
- (A) A very tough one. We have to properly eliminate here. Option B is eliminated as “Addressing a public gathering” has no “interaction” in it. Option C is not entirely correct either. Option D is incorrect too. In E, the first part itself is wrong. On the whole, A is not wrong at all.
RC PASSAGE # 2 – Theme – Analysis of the concepts of Market Efficiency, Role of Governments, Communication styles in terms of sports (Bowling, Ping-Pong, Dumb Charades) – Total 4 questions – options very close, tough passage and tough questions
- (C) This is one of the most loaded questions as options are too close. In fact, we can see that all of these – A, B and C – can be correct. We choose C due to its slight tilt towards knowledge gaps – efficiency – government relation.
- (E) Free flow of short-term capital might fail to ensure growth, actually. Hence A is wrong (we have to choose the one that CANNOT be inferred. A can be inferred). B has also happened, hence B is wrong. C can be partially correct. D can happen. Hence D is ruled out. But E is our answer as state intervention and imperfect information can go hand-in-hand.
- (D) A very good question! A is wrong as they are not parallel arguments. B is obviously wrong as success is discussed, not failure. C is wrong factually. D is simple, and best! E is wrong as it is not being disproved.
RC PASSAGE # 3 – Theme – Ayn Rand and an analysis plus description of elements of Objectivism, Existence, Consciousness
- (B) Obviously A is wrong as things that exist may not be perceived by us. B has to be correct as we cannot perceive that which does not exist. C is definitely wrong. D is wrong as “being” or “existence”. E is wrong as it is the base for knowledge, and not existence.
- (E) One of the rare, simple questions! Directly can be seen in the last line of second para. Many students must have been confused how it is so easy, but it was!
- (B) You have to eliminate options aggressively in this one. If A is correct, then why not E? Hence both A and E are gone. By a similar logic, C and D are wrong. Hence, B is correct. It actually seems correct too – ‘Twitter’ and ‘perception of Twitter’ = ‘Identity’ and ‘Identification’
- (A) Option B is negative and wrong (in the statement’s context). C is partially correct (‘essentially’ is correct but ‘objectively’ is wrong) hence ruled out. D is wrong (you face them, not circumvent them). E is only half right. Hence A is correct. One cannot change nature’s laws but one can face them.
RC PASSAGE # 4 – Theme – The nature of science, experiments, laws
- (B) We are asked to identify which option is DEFINITELY NOT an approximation to the complete truth. Option B is correct. ‘I know that I do not know’ means that I am aware of the fact that there are things / values / numbers of nature that I do not know. This is also mentioned in the first para, third line. Option A is wrong (Approximation concept), C is wrong (I do not know exact values), D is wrong (there may be many things I do not know about which I am not even aware of) and E is also wrong (as compared to B). Actually, E and B are very close.
- (B) Be cautious – we are asked ‘which option CANNOT be concluded’. B cannot be. Why? Because the whole passage is about the fact that we do not know (cannot know ever, perhaps) the complete truth. E is actually concluded from this passage (hence wrong). A and C are wrong (they can be concluded partially at least). D is wrong.
- (B) A very good question. It can be inferred that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by theoretical physicists. Then the structure of the universe fit into that model (expanding) etc.
~ All the best – Kar ke dikhayenge ~
PT Education ● 22 years ● 4,50,000 students ● 50 cities ● Legacy of success