CAT 2022 VARC Questions — Slot 1

This asks where a missing sentence best fits. The trick is to read the sentence itself and ask what job it does — then find the only gap where that job makes sense.

The sentence to place: "Having made citizens more and less knowledgeable than their predecessors, the Internet has proved to be both a blessing and a curse." This is a balanced, summing-up line — it gathers both the upside (more knowledgeable / blessing) and the downside (less knowledgeable / curse) into one verdict. A summary of both sides can only land after both sides have been laid out.

Walking the gaps:

• Gap 1: only the upside has appeared so far, and the very next line — "Yet it is not clear that people today are more knowledgeable" — would clash with a "both a blessing and a curse" verdict placed here. Too early.
• Gap 2: still only the upside (access to "realms of knowledge"). The downside hasn't arrived yet. Too early.
• Gap 3: a further downside still follows — "It has let people choose sources that reinforce their opinions." A summary here would interrupt before the last negative is even stated.
• Gap 4: now both sides are on the table — the access-to-knowledge upside and both downsides (retreat from serious study, and reinforcing one's own opinions). The balanced verdict caps the paragraph perfectly.

💡 Teacher tip: A sentence that weighs "both a blessing and a curse" is a conclusion. Conclusions go where all the evidence is already in — usually the last gap.

Answer: Option 4

This is a para-jumble: find the sentence that can open with no back-reference, then follow the thread link by link.

Opener — Sentence 2. It states a clean general principle with nothing before it to depend on: shorter commutes support innovation by giving more office time, more in-person collaboration, and less physical strain. It introduces the commute–innovation link, so it must come first.

2 → 1. Sentence 1 grounds that principle in practice: company leaders are choosing where to locate offices because their best inventors "suffered the greatest productivity losses when their commutes grew longer." This is the real-world evidence for the link just introduced in 2.

1 → 4. Sentence 4 pivots to the other side: "Some see the link between long commutes and productivity as support for work-from-home." The phrase "the link" only makes sense once the link has been established — which 1 and 2 have done — and 4 now introduces the work-from-home alternative.

4 → 3. Sentence 3 closes by qualifying 4: "This is not always the case: remote work does not automatically lead to greater creativity … water-cooler conversations are also very important." The word "This" points straight back at the work-from-home claim in 4.

Read straight through, 2 → 1 → 4 → 3 flows without a break at any junction.

💡 Teacher tip: a demonstrative like "this" or "the link" is a promise that the idea already appeared. Place such a sentence after whatever it refers to, never as the opener.

Answer: 2143

Para-jumble: find the topic-introducing opener, then follow problem → solution → detail.

Opener — Sentence 2. It introduces the subject with no back-reference: "Collagen, one of the main structural proteins in connective tissues in the human body, is well known for promoting skin regeneration." A clean definition-style opening.

2 → 4. Sentence 4 raises the problem with the obvious source of collagen: using pig and cow collagen for wound healing "risk[s] introducing disease agents into other species," which "has inhibited its broader applications." This follows naturally from 2's mention of collagen's healing use.

4 → 3. Sentence 3 offers the fix and links straight to that problem: "Fish skin swims in here as diseases and bacteria that affect fish are different from most human pathogens." Fish-skin collagen sidesteps the very disease risk 4 described.

3 → 1. Sentence 1 then adds why fish skin works so well: "excellent thermo-stability and tensile strength making it ideal for use as bandage that adheres to the skin." It elaborates the solution introduced in 3.

Reading 2 → 4 → 3 → 1: collagen heals skin → but animal collagen carries disease risk → fish skin avoids that risk → and here is what makes fish skin ideal.

💡 Teacher tip: a problem–solution paragraph almost always states the problem before the remedy. Spotting "here is the fix" language (like "swims in here") tells you what must come just before it.

Answer: 2431

A summary question. The passage sets petitioning against elections, so the right option must capture both what petitioning does and how it relates to elections.

What the passage says. Petitioning lets citizens bring issues straight to government and be heard continuously — it shapes agendas, recruits people to causes, gives voice to the voteless, and sharpens arguments. Elections, by contrast, are limited: few candidates, not tied to specific policies, and episodic. So petitioning fills the gaps elections leave, keeping the people's voice engaged between votes.

Why C is correct. "Petitioning has been important to democratic functioning, as it supplements the electoral process by enabling ongoing engagement with the government." It captures both petitioning's value and its role as a continuous supplement to the episodic election — exactly the passage's point.

Why the others fail.

• A calls petitioning "an ideal form of a representative democracy." The passage never crowns it the ideal form — that overstates.
• B claims "citizens become less inclined to petitioning," a trend the passage never mentions.
• D wants us to rely on petitioning "rather than holding periodic elections." The passage says petitioning supplements elections — it doesn't call for replacing or downgrading them.

Answer: C

What the question asks. Identify the main argument of the fourth paragraph. The way to do it is to find the paragraph's central claim, not just a supporting example.

The paragraph says: "As an environment, technologies shape their inhabitants. In this respect, they are comparable to laws and customs." It then shows each institution privileges a dimension of human nature — property law → ownership, parental authority → safety, the automobile → mobility.

Why D is correct. The paragraph's core point is that technology, laws and customs are alike — "not unlike each other" — when viewed as institutions, each representing dimensions of human nature. D states exactly that.

Why the others miss.

• A ("comparable, but dissimilar"): the paragraph argues they are comparable and similar in function, not dissimilar.
• B ("privilege certain dimensions of human nature as effectively as laws and customs"): narrows to one mechanism and adds an "as effectively as" comparison the text doesn't make; the real point is their likeness as institutions.
• C ("automobiles represent the interest in mobility"): a supporting example, not the main argument.

Answer: D

What the question asks. Which statement, if true, would support the passage's arguments — that is, restate a claim the passage actually makes.

Why B is correct. The passage says critical theory "regards technologies as an environment rather than as a collection of tools," that "we live today with and even within technologies that determine our way of life," and that "as an environment, technologies shape their inhabitants." B — "Technologies form the environmental context and shape the contours of human society" — is a direct paraphrase of this.

Why the others don't support it.

• A ("not human nature, but human culture... represented by institutions"): the passage says institutions represent dimensions of human nature, not culture — A contradicts it.
• C ("Nature decides the point at which society loses the capacity to control history"): the passage says nature lies at that limit; it doesn't say nature "decides" it. This is a Frankfurt School aside, not support for the technology argument.
• D ("the romantic conception... requires theoretical legitimacy"): the passage proposes admitting a "less romantic" conception — moving away from the romantic view — so D misstates it.

Answer: B

What the question asks. Which statement contradicts the passage — so we want the option that gets the passage's logic backwards.

The passage says: "everywhere [that] masses are organized — whether it be Foucault's prisons or Habermas's public sphere — the same pattern prevails." Here the pattern (the command-and-control, capitalist rationalisation) is the cause, and prisons and the public sphere are merely examples of places where that pattern shows up.

Why C contradicts the passage (the answer). C claims masses are organised "in patterns set by Foucault's prisons and Habermas' public sphere" — as if prisons and the public sphere set the patterns. That reverses the causal direction: they are illustrations of the pattern, not its source.

Why the others are consistent (wrong picks).

• A (command problems gave rise to the same patterns wherever masses were organised): matches "this trajectory arose from the problems of command... the same pattern prevails."
• B (Marx's and Marcuse's views share theoretical inclinations): both sit in the one tradition the passage traces (Marx → Foucault/Habermas; Marcuse's "project").
• D (capitalist rationalisation marks socialist systems too): matches "every modern political system, including so-called socialist systems."

Answer: C

What the question asks. All but one claim can be inferred from the passage — find the EXCEPT, the claim the text does not support.

Why D cannot be inferred (the answer). The passage says technologies and other institutions "privilege certain dimensions of... human nature" — the version "sanctioned by society." It never says this privileging comes "at a high cost to lived nature." That cost judgment is added from outside; the passage doesn't make it.

Why the others can be inferred.

• A (parental authority's role in safety doesn't make it a permanent feature of human nature): matches "Customs such as parental authority represent the interest of childhood in safety... This notion of representation does not imply an eternal human nature."
• B (as human-rights claims take centre stage, the authoritarian order grows in the background): matches the opening — rights "take center stage while in the background centralization... imposes an authoritarian social order."
• C (analyses of technology must engage their social histories to reveal their meanings): matches "A hermeneutics of technology must make explicit the meanings implicit in the devices... Social histories... have made important contributions."

Answer: D

What the question asks. This is a "which is NOT a possible implication" question about the meditation line. Three options will follow fairly from the quote; one will bring in an idea the passage never supports — and that odd one is the answer.

The quoted line says one allows emotions to arise, observes them at a distance without acting, and then decides what has value.

Why B is the answer (it is not a possible implication). B claims meditation allows "out-of-body experiences." Nothing of the sort appears in the passage. The "distance" it describes is psychological — watching your own emotions with detachment — not any literal separation from the body. B imports an idea the text never raises, so it cannot be drawn from the quote.

Why the other three are fair implications (so they're wrong picks).

• A reads "an initially passive reception" onto "one allows emotions to happen to oneself (it is impossible to prevent this)" — letting the feeling occur before any reasoned response. Fair.
• C links observing emotions at a distance and then deciding their value to the earlier "second movement" — the deliberate, after-thinking response the Stoics prize. Fair.
• D follows from the order in the quote: you must gain distance before you can "decide what has value," which implies that while caught up in emotion the valuable/valueless line is blurred. Fair.

Answer: B

What the question asks. Pick the statement that can be accurately inferred from the Marcus Aurelius example — supported by the text, not just plausible-sounding.

Why D is correct. In the example, an army general accuses Marcus, and one listed second movement is "continuing to lead the Romans in a way that Marcus Aurelius believed best benefited them." He is positioned to lead the Romans, and he is accused by a general rather than the other way round. Together these support that Marcus was a leader of the Romans / the Roman army.

Why the others fail.

• A ("humiliated"): the passage names his first movement as "surprise and anger," with physical signs like face flushing. "Humiliation" is a different emotion the text doesn't state.
• B ("a Stoic whose philosophy survived into the Roman era"): Marcus is only an illustration; the passage never calls him a Stoic. And it is Stoicism, founded by Zeno, that survived — not "his philosophy."
• C ("plotted revenge"): a revenge plot is only one hypothetical second movement ("might have included"), not something he actually did.

💡 Teacher tip: In inference questions, "might have" and "for instance" mark possibilities, not facts — never infer that a hypothetical actually happened.

Answer: D

What the question asks. This is a layered negative: "which statement, if false, could be seen as contradicting the passage?" That means: find the statement the passage actually affirms — because only the affirmed statement, if it were false, would clash with the text.

Why C is correct. The passage says the Epicureans believed people "should enjoy simple pleasures... but not be indulgent in these pursuits." So being indulgent in simple pleasures is not desirable — which is exactly statement C. The passage affirms this, so if C were false (indulging is desirable), it would contradict the Epicurean view the passage reports.

Why the others are not affirmed (so their falsity wouldn't contradict).

• A ("emotions cannot ever be controlled"): the passage argues the reverse — second movements are "under one's control," and meditation helps. The passage denies A, so A being false actually agrees with the text.
• B ("Zeno survived into the Roman era"): the passage says Stoicism survived, not the man Zeno. It doesn't affirm this.
• D ("reasoned response as the FIRST movement"): the passage assigns the reasoned response to the second movement, so it doesn't affirm D.

Answer: C

What the question asks. Which statement can be regarded as true on the basis of the passage — that is, directly supported by it.

Why B is correct. The passage says the "Stoic idea of developing virtue in oneself... laid the foundation for the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam," and that these share the tenet of controlling emotions. That is precisely "Stoic influences can be seen in multiple religions."

Why the others fail.

• A ("valorised the pursuit of money, power, and sexual gratification"): the opposite of the text — Stoics held we must "free ourselves of nearly all desires such as too much desire for money, power, or sexual gratification."
• C ("Epicureans believed in controlling all emotions"): the passage presents the Epicureans as valuing enjoyment of simple pleasures in moderation. The "emotions must be reined in" idea is about the ancient philosophers generally, and "all emotions" overstates.
• D ("There were no Stoics in India"): unsupported. The passage draws a parallel between Stoicism and Buddhism (which arose in India) but makes no claim about the presence or absence of Stoics there.

Answer: B

What the question asks. Which copy would a Chinese museum be unlikely to see as worth less than the original? The passage gives the key idea: an exact reproduction — fuzhipin — is treated as equal in value to the original, with "absolutely no negative connotations."

So the answer must be an exact reproduction.

Why B is correct. "Identical in every respect" is the very definition of that exact reproduction. A Chinese museum would treat it as equal to the original — not lesser.

Why the others are seen as lesser (wrong picks).

• A (bearing Picasso's signature): this is Picasso's own interpretation, not a reproduction at all — plainly a different, lesser thing as a "copy."
• C (a photograph at the same scale): a different medium; a photo of a painting is not an exact reproduction of the painting.
• D (miniaturised): scaled down, so visibly different — closer to the other kind of copy, an imitation whose difference from the original is obvious.

Answer: B

What the question asks. Which scenario is unlikely to follow from the passage's arguments — i.e., the one the text actually cuts against.

Why C is the answer. The passage says that in the 17th-century West, excavated antiquities "were not restored in a way that was faithful to the original. Instead, there was massive intervention in these works, changing their appearance." So a 17th-century Western (Christian) artist would not have been bound to stay "completely true to the original intent" — heavy intervention was the norm. C asserts the reverse, so it doesn't follow.

Why the others do follow (wrong picks).

• A (a 17th-century British painter adding personal touches): directly supported by "massive intervention... changing their appearance."
• B (a Japanese Buddhist monk valuing a rebuilt shrine as the original): supported by the Ise Grand Shrine — "1,300 years old" yet "completely rebuilt from scratch every 20 years."
• D (a 21st-century Christian scientist opposing cloning): supported by "Christians called for a ban on human cloning," and the link the passage draws between the Western "unassailable original" mindset and scruples about cloning.

Answer: C

What the question asks. Which statement does not correctly express a similarity between the Ise Grand Shrine and Freiburg Minster — so we want the "similarity" that is actually a difference.

Why C is the answer. The two differ precisely in tempo. Freiburg is "covered in scaffolding almost all year round" and "continually being examined" — that's continual. The Ise Shrine is "completely rebuilt from scratch every 20 years" — that's periodic, not continual. So "both are continually undergoing restoration" misstates the relationship.

Why the others are genuine similarities (wrong picks).

• A (both places of worship): a Shinto shrine and a Christian cathedral — both are worship sites.
• B (both very old): Ise is "1,300 years old"; Freiburg's stones are "from the Middle Ages."
• D (both will one day be completely rebuilt): Ise is rebuilt wholesale every 20 years; at Freiburg the stones are, over time, all replaced — the passage calls it "fundamentally... the same operation," only slower.

💡 Teacher tip: On "which is NOT a similarity" questions, hunt for the option that quietly swaps a shared trait for a point of contrast — here, "continual" vs "periodic."

Answer: C

What the question asks. The Western value placed on "an unassailable original" leads to several results — pick the one that is not a consequence of it.

The passage roots this "unassailable original" idea in the world of art and cultural artefacts.

Why D is the exception (the answer). The passage grounds cloning scruples in a religious / intellectual divide — the Buddhist view of reincarnation versus the Christian/monotheistic view — not in the art-world "unassailable original." Hwang even justifies his cloning in theological terms ("life is recycled through reincarnation"). So opposition to human cloning is not shown to flow from valuing the unassailable original.

Why the others are consequences (wrong picks).

• A (discourages simultaneous displays of multiple copies): valuing the unique original makes copies lesser — Western museums even reject the copies China sends.
• B (regular employment for craftsmen): the Freiburg workshop "constantly" produces replacement copies — craftsmen are employed precisely to keep the original going.
• C (discourages interventions in ancient art): today, unlike the 17th century's "massive intervention," the unique original is preserved, so intervention is discouraged.

Answer: D

A summary question. The passage corrects an old story, so the right option must capture both the mistaken view and the correction.

What the passage says. Modern historians weren't ignorant of contact between Ethiopia and Europe — they had the power dynamic backwards. The traditional story cast Ethiopia as weak, seeking military help from northern Christians. But the real story, sitting in medieval diplomatic texts, is that Ethiopia's own kings sponsored missions of diplomacy, faith and commerce — a well-connected, outward-looking Ethiopia.

Why C is correct. "Medieval texts have been 'cherry-picked' to promote a view of Ethiopia as weak and in need of Europe's military help with aggressive neighbours, but recent studies reveal it was a well-connected and outward-looking culture." It captures both the selective, reversed narrative and the corrective picture.

Why the others fail.

• A keeps the very power dynamic the passage says was reversed — "military and trade links" with the old framing intact.
• B says Ethiopia had close connections "with them," meaning its neighbours; the connection the passage highlights is Ethiopia's own outreach to Europe, so the referent is misplaced.
• D blames "medieval historical sources" for pushing the narrative. But the passage blames modern historians' reading — the true story was "buried in plain sight in medieval diplomatic texts," so the sources aren't the culprit.

Answer: C

A missing-sentence question. Read the sentence, decide what role it plays, then find the one gap where that role fits the flow.

The sentence to place: "Easing the anxiety and pressure of having a 'big day' is part of the appeal for many couples who marry in secret." This gives a reason secret weddings appeal to people. So it belongs among the other reasons the passage lists — after the trend has been introduced, and before the expert is quoted.

Walking the gaps:

• Gap 1: the secret-wedding trend hasn't been introduced yet — the next line ("But instead of expanding the guest list, many couples are opting to have entirely secret ceremonies") is what introduces it. Mentioning "couples who marry in secret" here is premature.
• Gap 2: the trend is now established, and two reasons are already given (Covid, cost of living). The inserted sentence adds a third reason — easing the pressure of the big day — and the line that follows, "Plus, it can't hurt that... celebrity circles...," adds a fourth with "Plus." The reasons stack up naturally.
• Gap 3: this would break the move into the expert's quote, and the "Plus" connector belongs right before the celebrity point, not after it.
• Gap 4: this sits inside the expert's own quotation and would split her sentence from its closing line, "They just want to get to the part where they are married."

💡 Teacher tip: When a paragraph is stacking up reasons, a new reason slots in with the others — and a following "Plus/Also" is a strong clue that your sentence goes just before it.

Answer: Option 2

Para-jumble: locate the general opening statement, then chain each sentence to the one it extends or explains.

Opener — Sentence 3. It makes a broad, self-standing claim: the creative industry is getting a lot of attention because "its growth rate is faster than that of the world economy as a whole." Nothing precedes it, so it opens.

3 → 2. Sentence 2 builds directly on that scale point: "In fact, the creative element … would be larger still, if we added the contribution … such as the design of tech accessories." Both "In fact" (signalling elaboration) and "larger still" (extending the growth/size idea) tie 2 to 3.

2 → 1. Sentence 1 narrows from the whole industry down to the level of a single firm: "The creative element in product design has become of paramount importance … one of the few ways a firm … can sustain a competitive advantage." It explains why creativity matters so much.

1 → 4. Sentence 4 draws the consequence: "It is for this reason that today's trade issues are increasingly involving intellectual property." "For this reason" refers to creativity's competitive importance stated in 1, leading naturally to protecting it through IP.

So the order is 3 → 2 → 1 → 4: attention on the creative industry → its scale is even larger → why creativity matters to a firm → therefore IP and trade.

Answer: 3214

This is a para-summary question: state the passage's single core claim, then keep the option that captures exactly that — no less, no more.

The core. At the scale of quantum mechanics, the clean line we draw between living and non-living things dissolves: "The distinction between animate and inanimate simply cannot be made when you enter the world of quantum mechanics," because everything is ultimately the same subatomic particles "all tied together." Our sense of a firm animate/inanimate divide is just an artefact of our "limited vision."

Why D is right. "Arbitrary distinctions between inanimate and animate objects disappear at the scale at which quantum mechanics works" restates that central claim precisely — the divide vanishes at the quantum level.

Why the others fall short:

• A ("the effect of stimuli is similar in inanimate vs animate objects") picks up only one supporting detail and drops the quantum-mechanics heart of the passage.
• B ("an astigmatic view of reality results in erroneous assumptions") twists "limited vision" into a medical-sounding "astigmatic" and shifts the point to faulty assumptions rather than the animate/inanimate collapse.
• C ("the inanimate world is both sentient and cognizant") overstates. The passage says inanimate objects are "affected by stimuli just as humans are" — being responsive to stimuli is not the same as being sentient or thinking.

Answer: D

What the question asks. Restate the claim in the quoted line accurately. The line says the Undead "were often accorded attributes... to confirm their abnormal status," and those attributes "defied the natural order."

The crucial word is accorded — given, by human imagination.

Why A is correct. The ones doing the according are human beings — they conceptualise the Undead as having abnormal features (shape-shifting, blood-drinking, influencing minds from afar). A captures that direction exactly: humans ascribe abnormal attributes to the Undead.

Why the others distort it.

• B ("deified in nature's order"): the attributes defy the natural order; the Undead aren't being placed, or worshipped, within it.
• C ("natural attributes... rendered abnormal by changing their status"): reverses the logic — it's the abnormal status that calls forth abnormal attributes, not natural attributes being relabelled.
• D ("according the Undead an abnormal status is to reject the natural order"): shifts the claim onto the act of granting status, whereas the line is about the attributes defying nature.

Answer: A

What the question asks. Draw a valid conclusion from the opening line about "whispers of eerie creatures... not quite alive... yet not quite dead." The key is to read "whispers" correctly — it means rumours and stories circulating among people, not literal speech by the creatures.

Why A is correct. The line says such stories reach us from mankind's earliest years, describing creatures neither fully alive nor fully dead. A restates this cleanly: early mankind held a belief in eerie creatures that were neither quite alive nor dead.

Why the others distort the image.

• B ("creatures used to whisper... that they were not quite dead"): takes "whispers" literally as the creatures' own speech — but the whispers are rumours among humans.
• C ("creatures alive with eerie whispers, seen only in darkness"): garbles the picture, tangling the whispers together with how visible the creatures were.
• D ("we can understand the lives of the eerie creatures"): the passage implies the opposite — their way of being alive is something "which we can[not] understand."

Answer: A

What the question asks. Pick the statement that best describes what the whole passage is about — the main idea, not one stage of it.

Trace the arc: the Undead begin as vague, primal fears → take on more definite shapes as mankind forms communities → become tied to magic and Shamans → and "from the Middle Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment, theories of the Undead continued to grow and develop" (werewolf, vampire, ghoul).

Why B is correct. "The passage discusses the evolution of theories of the Undead from primitive thinking to the Age of Enlightenment." That names the true subject — the Undead — and captures the whole development, start to finish.

Why the others fail.

• A drops the actual subject, turning it into a generic "transition from primitive thinking to the Age of Enlightenment" — but the passage is about the Undead, not history in general.
• C ("the failure of human beings to fully comprehend their environment"): not the passage's theme.
• D (the Undead's link to Shamans and magic): covers only one stage, not the full arc.

Answer: B

What the question asks. Another layered negative: "all of the following, if false, could be seen as in accordance with the passage, EXCEPT." For most options, the statement contradicts the passage — so its falsity would agree with the text. The EXCEPT is the one statement the passage actually affirms, so that its falsity would clash.

Why B is the exception (the answer). The passage states, "From the Middle Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment, theories of the Undead continued to grow and develop." So there were new theories — B is affirmed. If B were false (no new theories), it would contradict the passage.

Why the others are contradicted by the passage (so their falsity accords).

• A ("the Undead remained vague and ill-defined even as Mankind strove to understand"): the passage says that as mankind strove, the creatures "emerged more readily into the light" — they became more defined. The passage contradicts A, so A being false fits the text.
• C ("growing sophistication meant humans stopped believing in the Undead"): the Undead "travelled with" mankind into civilisation and on through the Enlightenment — belief continued. Contradicted.
• D ("the relationship between Shamans and the Undead was strong and stable"): the passage calls it "very tenuous and uncertain." Contradicted.

Answer: B