CAT 2021 VARC Questions — Slot 2

A "contradictory pulls" question asks you to identify the tension the author lays out at the very start — so go back to the opening lines and find the two opposing forces.

The passage says nationalism was struggling against colonial domination, yet to overcome that domination the colonised had to learn the coloniser's superior techniques — "Science, technology, rational forms of economic organization, modern methods of statecraft" — and fold them into their own culture. That is the pull: resist the West, but borrow from it where it is materially stronger. At the same time, the passage insists this borrowing had to stay limited to the material sphere, because imitating the West in every respect would destroy "the self-identity of national culture."

Why D is correct: It captures both sides of the tension — the fight against colonial domination and the need to borrow from the coloniser — and it places the borrowing in the correct sphere, the material one.

Why the others fail:

• A and C each give only one side of the tension (spiritual superiority vs. colonial domination; scientific inferiority vs. colonial domination). A single-sided statement cannot explain a contradiction.
• B names the wrong sphere. Borrowing was deliberately confined to the material domain; the spiritual domain was kept distinct and free of Western influence — that is the entire point of the material/spiritual and ghar/bāhir split.

Answer: D

This is an EXCEPT question, so three options must be supported by the passage and one must contradict it. Work through each against what the passage actually says about the material/spiritual dichotomy.

Why A is the exception (and thus the answer): The passage says the colonial situation "introduced an entirely new substance" to these dichotomies and "effected their transformation." In other words, the material/spiritual split was remade under colonialism — it was not simply a carry-over of age-old oppositions. Option A claims it was a continuation, which directly contradicts the passage.

Why the others are true (and therefore not the answer):

• B — The material/spiritual split is the premise that gets "condensed into" the inner/outer distinction, which is then applied as the ghar/bāhir (home/world) split. So the material/spiritual dichotomy is indeed the premise of ghar/bāhir.
• C — The passage says the inner/outer dichotomy was "ideologically far more powerful" than the material/spiritual one, so the material/spiritual split was indeed less ideologically powerful.
• D — Separating the spheres was how nationalism preserved "the self-identity of national culture" and protected "the inner core of the national culture, its spiritual essence." So the dichotomy did help safeguard nationalist identity.

Answer: A

A weaken question needs you to first pin down the author's central claim, then find the option that most directly undermines it.

The author's core argument is that nationalism kept the inner/spiritual domain distinct and uncolonised, borrowing from the West only in the material sphere. The closing line makes this explicit: nationalism supplied "an ideological principle of selection" — not "a total rejection of the West," but not an indiscriminate embrace either. The spiritual core was supposedly protected.

To weaken this, we need evidence that the supposedly protected spiritual/inner domain was not kept pure.

Why C is correct: If the colonial period saw hybridisation of Indian culture "in all realms" through contact with British/European culture, then the inner/spiritual domain was also penetrated and mixed — which directly undercuts the author's claim that the spiritual essence remained distinct and uncolonised.

Why the others fail:

• A would support the author: rejecting English education for women fits the project of preserving the inner/spiritual domain from Western influence.
• B is too vague to damage the specific material/spiritual separation the author is defending; saying colonial modernity "played a role" does not show the spiritual core was breached.
• D supports or at least explains the author's point about Western material superiority; it weakens nothing.

Answer: C

This question asks specifically about the liberal perception, so locate the one place the passage mentions liberals and read carefully what it says they believe.

The relevant line says liberals are apt, "in their despair at the many marks of social conservatism in nationalist practice," to read nationalism as "a total rejection of the West." The "social conservatism" the liberals despair of is the reaffirmation of traditional gender roles — the passage has just established that woman is made the emblem of the home/spiritual and man of the world/material, mapping gender onto the ghar/bāhir split. So the liberal perception is that nationalist discourse reaffirmed traditional gender roles for Indian women.

Why B is correct: It captures exactly what the liberals are said to be reacting to — the socially conservative, traditional gender arrangements in nationalist practice.

Why the others fail:

• A and D are the author's own points — the material/spiritual distinction and the "ideological principle of selection" are things the author is arguing for, not what liberals perceive.
• C states the opposite of what happened. Nationalism preserved traditional roles by anchoring women in the spiritual/home domain; it did not embrace colonial-era changes to those roles.

Answer: B

Let's find the one sentence that doesn't belong with the other four.

What unites the four sentences that belong together?

They all move through a single philosophical argument about the ethics of genetic enhancement, step by step:

1. Sentence 2 opens the discussion by posing the central puzzle: most people feel uneasy about genetic engineering, yet it is hard to explain exactly why re-engineering our nature is wrong.
2. Sentence 3 deepens that puzzle by laying out both sides of what genetics offers — the promise of preventing diseases and the predicament that the same knowledge could let us enhance our traits.
3. Sentence 4 picks up the phrase "the ethics of enhancement" directly from sentence 3, and explains why confronting this is so difficult: the questions verge on theology, so modern thinkers tend to avoid them.
4. Sentence 5 then supplies "one argument" against the drive for human perfection through genetics — that it is a bid for mastery that fails to appreciate human powers and achievements as gifts.

So the coherent sequence is 2 → 3 → 4 → 5: a puzzle is raised, its context is given, the difficulty of tackling it is explained, and one specific argument is offered.

Why sentence 1 is the odd one out

Sentence 1 says: "The care with which philosophers examine arguments for and against forms of biotechnology makes this an excellent primer on formulating and assessing moral arguments."

Notice what kind of sentence this is. It is not part of the philosophical discussion itself — it is a review-style comment about a book or text. The word "this" points to some external primer that the other four sentences never mention. No other sentence refers to a book, a primer, or an assessment of how carefully philosophers argue. Sentence 1 evaluates the quality of a text; sentences 2–5 actually conduct the argument.

That shift from doing philosophy to reviewing a book about philosophy is exactly what breaks the paragraph's unity.

Answer: 1

Framing: A central-theme question asks you to capture the whole arc of the passage — not one true detail, but the argument the entire passage is building toward.

Trace the argument end to end.

The passage opens by dismissing the idea that truth automatically brings power. It then splits power into two kinds: power over objective reality (tied to truth) and power over human beliefs (tied to shared stories, which need not be true). The rest of the passage explains why fiction often beats truth for uniting people — it is local, it is a costly loyalty signal, and it spares people painful realities. Everything converges on the final dilemma:

"Scholars have known this for thousands of years, which is why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony. Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same fiction, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity?"

That closing question is the passage's destination: a choice between attaining social cohesion and propagating objective truth — exactly option B.

Why the others fail:

• A captures only one sub-point — fiction's first advantage (distinguishing tribes). That is a supporting detail, not the theme.
• C introduces a distinction between leaders who spread fiction knowingly versus intentionally. The passage never discusses this.
• D names the broad topic (truth and power), but the passage's actual theme is the specific trade-off between the two — which B pinpoints.

Answer: B

Framing: "None of the following EXCEPT" means you are looking for the one statement the author would support — the other three must each contain something the passage does not endorse.

What does the author actually say about political power and truth?

The author repeatedly argues that plain, unvarnished truth repels followers:

• "the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you."
• A wholly truthful presidential candidate "has a 100 percent guarantee of losing the elections."
• "fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history."

So the one supported statement is D — people cannot handle the unvarnished truth, so leaders retain power by deviating from it. That is a direct restatement of the author's argument.

Why the others fail:

• A adds "there needs to be some limit" to belief in myths. The author never prescribes a limit — he describes fiction's advantages without proposing boundaries.
• B says leaders should "stay as close as possible" to truth. This pushes against the author's actual drift: fiction routinely wins, and sticking to truth is "not a winning political strategy."
• C is plausible from the two-types-of-power setup, but the passage never states that a leader who propagates only myths will lose power. D, by contrast, is stated outright.

Answer: D

Framing: The phrase "like scholars" is the key hook — the question asks you to carry the scholar analogy over to leaders and identify what the two share.

What is the scholar dilemma?

The closing lines frame it explicitly:

"scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony. Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same fiction, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity?"

Scholars must weigh objective truth against social unity — sometimes sacrificing one for the other. The "like scholars" implication for successful leaders is that they, too, must strike that same balance: deciding when to tell hard truths and when to rely on unifying stories. That is option C.

💡 Teacher tip: When a question says "like X," find the specific quality or dilemma attached to X in the passage, then transfer only that quality to the new subject.

Why the others fail:

• A claims leaders today are better at creating cohesion than in the past. The passage never makes a past-vs-present comparison.
• B misstates which type of power myths serve. Myths serve the second type of power — mass cooperation through shared belief — not the first type (manipulating objective reality, which is tied to truth).
• D is reasonable in a general sense, but the explicit "like scholars" hook ties leaders to the truth/unity balancing act, not to leveraging both power types.

Answer: C

Framing: "Overemphasises the importance of fiction" means: where does the author load fiction with more weight than the argument strictly earns — presenting it as more necessary or more dominant than the evidence supports?

Examine each quote.

In the scholars quote (option A), the dilemma is framed as a strict either/or:

"Should they aim to unite people by making sure everyone believes in the same fiction, or should they let people know the truth even at the price of disunity?"

Here, shared fiction is presented as the only route to social harmony, and truth as the guaranteed cause of disunity. By reducing the choice to fiction-or-disunity, the author gives fiction maximum weight — and that is exactly where a charge of overemphasis is most arguable. The passage's own framework acknowledges two types of power (one tied to truth, one to belief), yet this quote collapses social unity entirely onto fiction.

Why the others fail:

• B describes power over objective reality — the type tied to truth, not fiction. There is no overemphasis on fiction here.
• C merely rejects the "comforting myth" that truth always brings power. It does not pump up fiction; it knocks down a false claim about truth.
• D is the balanced thesis statement: "truth and power have a far more complicated relationship." This is the most even-handed line in the passage, not an overemphasis.

Answer: A

Let's build this paragraph link by link, starting with the sentence that can open the passage.

Step 1 — Find the opener. Sentence 3 introduces the broadest idea with no back-reference: "The greatest of all inventions is the über-invention… the modern scientific method." It sets up the central theme — the scientific method as the foundation on which other inventions depend. Nothing in 3 points back to an earlier sentence, so it is a natural opener. Sentences 1, 2, and 4 all contain hooks ("meaningful insights," "This invention") that need an antecedent, so none of them can start.

Step 2 — What follows 3? Sentence 3 ends by calling the scientific method "the über-invention that has provided the insights on which others depend." Sentence 2 picks up exactly that word: "To gain meaningful insights, logic has to be accompanied by asking probing questions of nature…" So 2 explains how the scientific method actually produces those insights — through controlled tests, precise observations, and clever analysis. The phrase "meaningful insights" is the bridge from 3 to 2.

Step 3 — From the general method to a specific invention. Sentence 1 now shifts from the abstract method to a concrete future example: "Look forward a few decades to an invention… commercial fusion power." After 3 and 2 have established the scientific method as the source of all great inventions, 1 presents one such invention. The progression is general → specific.

Step 4 — Close the loop. Sentence 4 begins "This invention is inconceivable without the scientific method…" The pronoun "This invention" must refer to the most recently mentioned invention — commercial fusion power from sentence 1. Sentence 4 then ties that example back to the scientific method and even specifies the underlying science (hydrogen transforming into helium to release energy), bringing the paragraph full circle from method → example → method.

So the logical thread is:

1. 3 — Introduce the scientific method as the greatest invention.
2. 2 — Explain how it produces insights.
3. 1 — Give a specific future invention: fusion power.
4. 4 — Link fusion power back to the scientific method.

Answer: 3214

💡 Teacher tip: In para jumbles, watch for a noun in one sentence being picked up as a pronoun or repeated phrase in the next. Here, "insights" (3→2) and "This invention" (1→4) are the two hinges that lock the order in place.

Let's first trace the paragraph's arc in plain terms.

1. Creativity is now hugely valued — seen as the engine of economic progress, with organizations, encyclopedias, and handbooks devoted to it.
2. This very success has eroded its stable identity — it has become so loaded with value that its meaning can no longer be pinned down or policed.
3. The obsession is now self-defeating — people actually trying to produce original work feel that excessive focus on the idea of creativity obstructs real creativity.

So the essence has three linked beats: value inflated → meaning lost → real creativity hampered.

Option D captures exactly this chain — the value assigned to creativity has grown so large that the concept has lost its real meaning, and this in turn is hampering the production of genuine creativity. It preserves both the cause (over-valuation/obsession) and the consequence (real creativity suffers), without overstating either.

Now, why the others fall short:

• Option A captures only the "meaning has become impossible to define" half. It drops the crucial final point — that this obsession is getting in the way of real creativity. A summary that omits the paragraph's concluding consequence is incomplete.

• Option B overstates the damage. The passage says the obsession "gets in the way" of real creativity; it does not say the creative process has been "destroyed." It also wrongly packages the phenomenon as an "industry," which the passage does not claim.

• Option C misplaces the subject. The passage says it is the value/obsession around creativity that has proliferated, not "creativity" itself. Also, "stifled" is stronger than what the text supports ("gets in the way").

💡 Teacher tip: In summary questions, check whether an option preserves the full causal chain — not just one part of it. Here, the paragraph moves from over-valuation to lost meaning to harm to real creativity; any option missing a link or overstating one is out.

Answer: D

Let's first pin down the paragraph's core point in one line.

Main idea: During an economic downturn, the capitalist exploits the unemployed workers' shared anxieties and their ready-made political organisation, using them as cover to seize the political agenda for his own interests.

The passage is not describing a genuine partnership of equals. It is describing a one-sided arrangement: the workers supply the numbers, the anxiety, and the political organisation; the capitalist supplies the agenda and walks away with it.

Now let's test each option against this.

1. Option A says that in a downturn, capitalists use the anxieties of the unemployed and their political organisation to set the political agenda to suit their economic interests. This matches the passage precisely — the capitalist focuses on the costs of competition, and then uses the workers' distress and organisation as cover to capture the agenda. The direction of benefit (capitalist → uses workers) and the outcome (agenda captured for capitalist's interests) are both correct.

2. Option B frames the arrangement as a genuine alliance whose shared purpose is to stifle competition in free markets. But the passage never says the workers share the capitalist's goal of stifling competition; the workers are simply anxious and organised, and the capitalist uses that. Also, B drops the crucial outcome — capturing the political agenda — which is the paragraph's punchline.

3. Option C is garbled. It says the downturn creates competition, which then causes the capitalists to capture an agenda created by the workers' organisation. The passage does not say competition is created by the downturn, nor that the workers create the agenda — the capitalist captures it. The cause-effect chain is scrambled.

4. Option D presents the agenda-capture as a joint achievement of the "alliance" — they "come together to unite politically and capture the political agenda." But the passage is explicit: the capitalist captures the agenda, using the workers as cover. The workers are the instrument, not co-authors of the capture.

💡 Teacher tip: When a passage describes one party "using" another, watch for options that quietly turn it into a shared, mutual project. The essence lies in who benefits and who is used — not just in who is present.

Answer: A

Let's build this paragraph link by link by watching what each sentence presupposes.

Step 1 — Find the opener.

Sentence 2 is the natural opener: it lays down the foundation of the story — Canada officially acquired the islands forming the Northwest Passage in 1880 and claims sovereignty over the shipping routes. Nothing in it refers back to an earlier statement, so it can stand first.

Sentence 1, by contrast, mentions "without seeking Canada's permission" — that only makes sense once Canada's claim has already been introduced. So 1 cannot open; it needs 2 before it.

Step 2 — Place the US position.

Sentence 1 presents the opposing American stance: the Passage is an international strait, and US vessels may pass without Canada's permission. The phrase "Canada's permission" directly picks up Canada's sovereignty claim from sentence 2. So the order so far is 2 → 1 — Canada's claim first, then the US rebuttal.

Step 3 — The unresolved status quo.

Sentence 4 says the US and Canada have "never legally settled the question of access through the Passage, but have an agreement…" This is a consequence of the two conflicting claims we have just seen in 2 and 1. The phrase "the question of access" only has content once both positions are on the table. So 4 follows 1, giving us 2 → 1 → 4.

Step 4 — The forward-looking close.

Sentence 3 begins with "The dispute could be transitory, however…" Two signals lock it into the final slot:

• "The dispute" refers back to the unsettled question just described in sentence 4.
• "however" introduces a twist on that status quo — the dispute may soon become moot because an ice-free Arctic would let ships sail through without anyone's permission.

So 3 closes the paragraph: 2 → 1 → 4 → 3.

💡 Teacher tip: In a dispute-themed jumble, the opener usually establishes one party's claim; the opposing claim follows; then the unresolved status quo; and finally any future-looking sentence ("could be transitory") rounds things off.

Answer: 2143

Let's find the one sentence that does not belong with the other four.

Step 1 — Look for the topic anchor.

Sentence 3 introduces the subject clearly and from scratch: "The new, growing field of neuromarketing attempts to reveal the inner workings of consumer behaviour…" Nothing in sentence 3 points back to an earlier idea, so it is the natural opener. The paragraph's topic is neuromarketing.

Step 2 — Check which sentences stay on that topic.

• 4 develops 3 directly: "Some see neuromarketing as an attempt to make the 'art' of advertising into a science…" — still about neuromarketing.
• 1 continues with "It has taken on a warm, fuzzy glow in the advertising world…" — the pronoun "It" refers back to neuromarketing, and the sentence reports how warmly advertisers have received it.
• 2 then contrasts with 1: "There is little enthusiasm for this in the scientific arena…" — "this" again points to neuromarketing, and the contrast (advertisers excited vs. scientists skeptical) is clean and deliberate.

So the coherent sequence is 3 → 4 → 1 → 2: define the field, give one interpretation of it, then contrast its warm reception in advertising with its cool reception in science.

Step 3 — Spot the sentence that breaks the unity.

Sentence 5 talks about marketing gurus drawing on psychology and advertising people borrowing the focus-group idea from social scientists. That is about marketing and advertising in general — it never mentions neuromarketing, never refers back to "this" or "it", and sits at a broader, less specific level than the tightly focused 3-4-1-2 cluster.

💡 Teacher tip: In Odd-One-Out, once you find the sentence that names and defines the topic, test every other sentence against that exact subject. The odd one usually drifts to a related but broader idea — here, general marketing techniques instead of neuromarketing specifically.

Answer: 5

Let's first read the passage for its main thread and scope.

The paragraph does three things in sequence:

1. Contrasts two fields: physicists routinely post digital preprints, while biologists who do the same are labelled "rogue".
2. States the advantage of preprints: quick, open dissemination that speeds up scientific progress and widens access.
3. Pinpoints the barrier for biologists: their own conservative research community's judgment.

So the essence is a contrast between physicists and biologists in their attitude toward preprints, together with the reason preprints are valued (faster dissemination).

Why Option B fits: It captures both pillars of the passage — physicists are less conservative than biologists about digital pre-publication (the contrast), and this practice allows faster dissemination of knowledge (the advantage). Nothing is stretched or reversed.

Why the others fail:

• Option A overstates the resistance. It says preprints are "not accepted by most scientific communities," but the passage explicitly tells us physicists routinely use them. The rejection is only by "some journals," not most communities.
• Option C also overstates. It claims "almost all peer-reviewed journals are reluctant," whereas the passage says only "some journals still don't accept" such research. The word "almost all" is not supported.
• Option D flips the facts. It says preprints are "accepted among biologists," but biologists are exactly the conservative group described as treating web-publishers as "rogue." The passage's barrier is the biology community's resistance, not its acceptance.

💡 Teacher tip: In summary questions, watch for options that quietly upgrade a qualified claim ("some journals") into an absolute ("almost all journals"). That single word-shift is enough to disqualify an option.

Answer: B

An "EXCEPT" question asks you to find the one option that is not something the author actually argues. So your job is to check each choice against the passage and spot the one that distorts what the author says.

Why A, B, and D are genuinely in the passage

• A matches the sceptic's core claim. The passage says the sceptic holds we "cannot be sure that we know anything … if we think of reality as … independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions." That is exactly what A states.
• B matches the philosophers' warning: unless we can "distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy …", the actions we take on presumed knowledge "will be irrational and unjustifiable."
• D matches the line: "philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone."

Why C is the exception

The passage does say that ignoring the scandal is "the most common" way of handling it. But C upgrades that into a recommendation — "the best way to deal with scepticism … is to ignore it." The author never says ignoring it is best or advisable; they only describe what people actually do.

💡 Teacher tip: Watch for options that turn a description of behaviour into a judgement or prescription. The passage reports that people ignore the scandal; it never says they should.

Answer: C

This question asks you to capture the argument behind a specific sentence, not just paraphrase its words. Read the sentence in context: the sceptic is explaining why, if reality is independent of our perception, we can never get at it.

The sentence says we "cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes" and "cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it." The point is that reality, conceived as independent of us, sits permanently outside our perceiving — there is no standpoint outside our own perception from which to check our ideas against it. So the argument is a conditional: if reality is independent of our perception, then we cannot perceive or know that reality.

Why D is correct

Option D states exactly that conditional: "If the reality of things is independent of our perception, logically we cannot perceive that reality." It preserves both the "if" structure and the conclusion the sceptic draws.

Why the others fail

• A says the opposite of the passage. The sentence insists we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above our perceiving; A claims our knowledge does float above it.
• B swaps "reality" for "our perception" and narrows the broad idea of perception to "eyesight." The argument is about not being able to perceive reality, not about not being able to perceive our own perception.
• C misreads the issue. The problem is not whether knowledge can be "merged" with conceiving; it is that reality lies beyond all conceiving, so we can never reach it to compare.

💡 Teacher tip: When a question asks for the argument of a sentence, ask: what conditional or conclusion is it actually driving at? Don't let surface words like "floats" or "conceiving" pull you toward a half-matching option.

Answer: D

This is a precise-retrieval question. You must complete one specific clause — "We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on" — with exactly what the passage says fills that slot, nothing more.

The passage completes that clause with two things: "how we acquired them" (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and "how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed" by relevant people (experts, friends, colleagues).

Why A is correct

Option A captures both halves faithfully: "how we come to hold them" = how we acquired them; "how widely they are held in our social circles" = how broadly they are shared or endorsed. It is the broadest accurate match to this particular sentence.

Why the others fail

• C names real factors from the passage — "what seems to be at stake" and "what resources are available" — but those govern the next sentence, about how closely we examine, explain, and defend our convictions. Right factors, wrong slot.
• D describes the general public response to the scandal (ignoring it, remaining outside the academy), not what belief-confidence depends on.
• B ("All") fails because C and D do not fill this specific clause, so "all" cannot be right.

💡 Teacher tip: In "which does the sentence depend on" questions, stay inside the sentence's own clause. Factors mentioned in a neighbouring sentence may be true to the passage but still wrong for the slot being asked about.

Answer: A

This question asks which statement the author is most likely to support. The author treats the "scandal" of knowledge as real and takes the sceptic's challenge seriously throughout, so look for the option that restates the scandal in the author's own terms.

Why B is correct

The passage's central thesis is that if we conceive of reality as "something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions," then we have no way to compare our mental representations with that reality and therefore cannot be sure we know anything. Option B restates this exactly: the scandal is that we might not know anything at all about reality under that conception of it.

Why the others fail

• A contradicts the last paragraph, which says our confidence in a belief usually depends on "how we acquired them" — i.e., on its source. A claims confidence is independent of the source.
• C distorts the passage. The first paragraph says actions based on presumed knowledge are "irrational and unjustifiable" unless we can ground knowledge as such. C replaces that demanding standard with mere "widely held confidence," which the author never endorses as sufficient for rationality.
• D misstates the sceptic's position. The sceptic's point is that we cannot know a reality independent of our perceptions; D turns this into a recommendation that we should aim to know it independently — the opposite of the sceptic's conclusion.

💡 Teacher tip: For "author would support" questions, eliminate options that reverse the passage's stance (A, D) or that weaken a strong condition into a weaker one (C). The supported statement will restate the passage's thesis in the author's own terms.

Answer: B

An EXCEPT question asks us to find the one option the author does not list as a cause of language decline. The strategy is to locate each choice in the passage and check whether the author actually presents it as a reason languages disappear.

Why A, B, and D are all listed as causes

• A matches the passage's account of catastrophic destruction: "Through war, famine and natural disasters, whole communities can be destroyed, taking their language with them to the grave," with Tasmania given as an example.
• B matches "often amplified by state coercion or neglect" — governments pressuring or abandoning certain languages.
• D matches the process called "language shift," where speakers "abandon their language in favor of another vernacular" for "economic and educational reasons."

Why C is the exception

The passage does not say that internet use causes a focus on a few languages and thereby drives decline. In fact, the author argues the opposite: the internet is a space where oral languages can "live on," and "Monolingualism, then, not globalization, should be our primary concern." So C describes a myth the author rejects, not a cause he lists.

Answer: C

This is an inference EXCEPT — three options can be reasonably inferred from the passage; one cannot. We must check each claim against what the text actually says or implies.

Why A, B, and C are supported

• A is directly stated: indigenous languages are "vehicles for the transmission of cultural traditions, environmental understandings and knowledge about medicinal plants." They are, in other words, repositories of traditional knowledge.
• B is a fair inference. The passage says most of the world's languages are "still transmitted orally," and that "orality is fragile and contributes to linguistic vulnerability." So the oral mode of transmission does put them in danger.
• C is supported: speech communities are "increasingly involved in projects to protect their languages," and the author describes speakers embracing digital media and technology to document and sustain them.

Why D is the exception

The passage calls some of these languages "poorly documented" and notes their "intriguing grammar," but it never explains why they are poorly documented. It does not say the vocabulary or grammar is difficult or challenging to record. Option D invents a reason the passage never gives.

Answer: D

This question asks what the author is in favour of — so we need an explicit endorsement, not just something the author describes neutrally.

Why A is correct

The author's prescription is stated plainly: "Monolingualism, then, not globalization, should be our primary concern," followed immediately by "Multilingualism can help us live in a more connected and more interdependent world." That is a clear, direct endorsement of greater multilingualism.

Why the others fail

• B — "language shift" is described as a widespread cause of decline, not something the author favours.
• C — cultural homogenisation is exactly what the author warns against; he traces it to the "monolingual mindset."
• D — the passage never calls for an expanded state role. The state is mentioned mainly as a source of coercion and stigma, as with Welsh being "stigmatized and disparaged by the British state." So an active state preservation programme is never advocated.

Answer: A

A "to show that" question asks for the purpose of an example. We need to ask: what point is the Welsh illustration making in the flow of the argument?

Why B is correct

Welsh is introduced immediately after the discussion of "language shift" — the process by which speakers abandon their own language for another. The sentence reads: "Welsh, long stigmatized and disparaged by the British state, has rebounded with vigor." The point is that a language pushed hard toward abandonment can still recover. That is exactly option B — languages can revive even after their speakers have gone through a language shift.

Why the others fail

• A — the passage never discusses efforts to "integrate Welsh speakers into the English-speaking fold," fruitless or otherwise.
• C reverses the role of the state. The British state stigmatised Welsh; the rebound came despite state hostility, not through state effort.
• D ties the rebound to globalisation, but the Welsh example is about revival-after-shift. The globalisation/digital point is made separately, through the Nepali migrants uploading wedding videos to YouTube.

Answer: B

Let's build this paragraph link by link, watching for the sentence that can open and the connectors that force each next move.

Step 1 — Find the opener. Sentence 2 says, "We are at a crossroads now in our vision and practice of development." This is a clean, self-contained statement that introduces the topic — the current state of our thinking on development — without referring back to anything. None of the other sentences can open: 1 begins with "But today…" (a contrast that needs a prior idea), 3 begins with "This calls for…" (a pronoun needing an antecedent), and 4 launches into "Half a century ago…" which reads as an explanation of why we are at a crossroads. So 2 opens.

Step 2 — What brought us to this crossroads? Sentence 4 supplies the history: development began as a hope half a century ago, but that hope has "lost itself in the dreary desert of various kinds of hegemonic applications." This directly explains the troubled situation that sentence 2 calls a "crossroads." The flow 2 → 4 is natural: we are at a crossroads because the original hope has curdled.

Step 3 — The pivot to the present challenge. Sentence 1 opens with "But today there is an epochal challenge to rethink and reconstitute… development as a shared responsibility." The "But today" is the key signal: it contrasts with sentence 4's account of hope lost in the past, and offers a new, forward-looking direction — rethinking development as a shared, mutual responsibility between the developed and developing worlds. So 4 → 1.

Step 4 — The concluding response. Sentence 3 says, "This calls for the cultivation of an appropriate ethical mode of being…" The pronoun "This" must refer to the challenge just stated — the "epochal challenge to rethink… as a shared responsibility" from sentence 1. Sentence 3 then spells out what that challenge requires of us: a new ethical orientation. It is the natural closing, so 1 → 3.

The full sequence: 2 → 4 → 1 → 3.

💡 Teacher tip: In para jumbles, watch the first word of each sentence. Words like "But", "This", "However" almost always disqualify a sentence from opening, because they need a previous idea to attach to.

Answer: 2413