In terms of this reading selection, which of the following would not qualify to be called an example of wisdom?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honorable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the laborers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think of art as more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.
   
Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything - e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.    

At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.

 We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.

Which of the following can be legitimately inferred from the above passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honorable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the laborers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think of art as more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.
   
Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything - e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.    

At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.

 We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.

The passage above is basically an attempt to

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honorable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the laborers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think of art as more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.
   
Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything - e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.    

At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.

 We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.

The style of writing of the author can be broadly characterised as which of the following?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honorable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the laborers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think of art as more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.
   
Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything - e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.    

At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.

 We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.

The last paragraph is designed to

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

With a view to action experience seems in no respect inferior to art, and men of experience succeed even better than those who have theory without experience. (The reason is that experience is knowledge of individuals, art of universals, and actions and productions are all concerned with the individual; for the physician does not cure man, except in an incidental way, but Callias or Socrates or some other called by some such individual name, who happens to be a man. If, then, a man has the theory without the experience, and recognizes the universal but does not know the individual included in this, he will often fail to cure; for it is the individual that is to be cured.) But yet we think that knowledge and understanding belong to art rather than to experience, and we suppose artists to be wiser than men of experience (which implies that Wisdom depends in all cases rather on knowledge); and this because the former know the cause, but the latter do not. For men of experience know that the thing is so, but do not know why, while the others know the 'why' and the cause. Hence we think also that the master workers in each craft are more honorable and know in a truer sense and are wiser than the manual workers, because they know the causes of the things that are done (we think the manual workers are like certain lifeless things which act indeed, but act without knowing what they do, as fire burns, but while the lifeless things perform each of their functions by a natural tendency, the laborers perform them through habit); thus we view them as being wiser not in virtue of being able to act, but of having the theory for themselves and knowing the causes. And in general it is a sign of the man who knows and of the man who does not know, that the former can teach, and therefore we think of art as more truly knowledge than experience is; for artists can teach, and men of mere experience cannot.
   
Again, we do not regard any of the senses as Wisdom; yet surely these give the most authoritative knowledge of particulars. But they do not tell us the 'why' of anything - e.g. why fire is hot; they only say that it is hot.    

At first he who invented any art whatever that went beyond the common perceptions of man was naturally admired by men, not only because there was something useful in the inventions, but because he was thought wise and superior to the rest. But as more arts were invented, and some were directed to the necessities of life, others to recreation, the inventors of the latter were naturally always regarded as wiser than the inventors of the former, because their branches of knowledge did not aim at utility. Hence when all such inventions were already established, the sciences which do not aim at giving pleasure or at the necessities of life were discovered, and first in the places where men first began to have leisure. This is why the mathematical arts were founded in Egypt for there the priestly caste was allowed to be at leisure.

 We have said in the Ethics what the difference is between art and science and the other kindred faculties; but the point of our present discussion is this, that all men suppose what is called Wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things; so that, as has been said before, the man of experience is thought to be wiser than the possessors of any sense-perception whatever, the artist wiser than the men of experience, the master worker than the mechanic, and the theoretical kinds of knowledge to be more of the nature of Wisdom than the productive. Clearly then Wisdom is knowledge about certain principles and causes.

Directions: A brief passage or a statement is given and a question is asked, based on the information provided in the passage/statement. Critically examine the five alternative answer options marked (1) to (5) and choose the best answer. �Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely� You are most likely to refute your opponent's argument using the above line, if he says that

Directions: A brief passage or a statement is given and a question is asked, based on the information provided in the passage/statement. Critically examine the five alternative answer options marked (1) to (5) and choose the best answer. I won't play with your dog because I'll be scratching my body all the time if I do. Thrice in the past I have played with it and each time, it makes me adopt ridiculous postures, scratching myself all over the body. The above argument is most like which of the following ones?

Directions: A brief passage or a statement is given and a question is asked, based on the information provided in the passage/statement. Critically examine the five alternative answer options marked (1) to (5) and choose the best answer. �Anne goes out alone during day-light hours, but goes out after dark, only if both Fruity and Cherry are with her.� Which of the following conclusions can be logically inferred from the statements above?

Directions: A brief passage or a statement is given and a question is asked, based on the information provided in the passage/statement. Critically examine the five alternative answer options marked (1) to (5) and choose the best answer. “Ronaldo scored at least ten goals in the last World Cup Soccer Tournament”. This inference can be logically deduced from which of the following statements?

Which of the following purposes is served by the first paragraph in relation to the passage as a whole?

PASSAGE – I

The passage is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Autism has a strong genetic component: With one identical twin autistic, the other has a 70 percent chance of having it, a risk 10 times that of fraternal twins. Yet great, unsuccessful effort has been spent looking for its genetics. To Wigler, the key lies in spontaneous mutations — novel alterations in the parental germ line of the offspring. Last year he formed a controversial theory for it. It suggests that females, who develop autism with a 1/ 4th frequency with which males do, may carry the genetic profile for it.

Wigler attributes the failure of conventional studies to their studies on families with more than one autistic child to search for differences in one genetic base. These differences could be any alteration in a base called SNPs.  Uncovering SNPs shared by affected people would uncover high-risk people. The problem is locating the same target: they have implicated loci on 20 of the 23 human chromosomal pairs.

In his first autistic research, Wigler, with Sebat, tried to determine the role of spontaneous mutations, called copy number variations. Before human genome sequencing, researchers thought an individual always had two copies of a gene. In 2004, the team showed that even in healthy individuals, they could go missing from (or be added to) the genome via genetic rearrangements.  Studies on families with only one autistic member showed that up to 10 percent of non-inherited autism cases could be caused by these rearrangements. They found that the structural events were primarily deletions, leaving individuals with only one copy of a particular gene and leading, sometimes, to its functional disruption.

Later, Wigler unveiled a unified genetic theory, which he cobbled together by examining families with multiple autistic individuals and incorporating both hereditary and spontaneous events. Focusing on families with the first two children affected, he found that third-born male children have a 50 percent risk of acquiring the disorder, whereas the risk for third-born girls is closer to 20 percent. From there, Wigler developed a two-tiered hypothesis: The majority fall into the low-risk category, having spontaneous mutation. Contrarily, high-risk families — 25 percent of all, manifest the disease when an unaffected individual, mostly female, carries a sporadic mutation. In case of a male, the chances are roughly half.

Which of the following is a major problem in uncovering the genetic basis of autism in terms of the conventional approach?

PASSAGE – I

The passage is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Autism has a strong genetic component: With one identical twin autistic, the other has a 70 percent chance of having it, a risk 10 times that of fraternal twins. Yet great, unsuccessful effort has been spent looking for its genetics. To Wigler, the key lies in spontaneous mutations — novel alterations in the parental germ line of the offspring. Last year he formed a controversial theory for it. It suggests that females, who develop autism with a 1/ 4th frequency with which males do, may carry the genetic profile for it.

Wigler attributes the failure of conventional studies to their studies on families with more than one autistic child to search for differences in one genetic base. These differences could be any alteration in a base called SNPs.  Uncovering SNPs shared by affected people would uncover high-risk people. The problem is locating the same target: they have implicated loci on 20 of the 23 human chromosomal pairs.

In his first autistic research, Wigler, with Sebat, tried to determine the role of spontaneous mutations, called copy number variations. Before human genome sequencing, researchers thought an individual always had two copies of a gene. In 2004, the team showed that even in healthy individuals, they could go missing from (or be added to) the genome via genetic rearrangements.  Studies on families with only one autistic member showed that up to 10 percent of non-inherited autism cases could be caused by these rearrangements. They found that the structural events were primarily deletions, leaving individuals with only one copy of a particular gene and leading, sometimes, to its functional disruption.

Later, Wigler unveiled a unified genetic theory, which he cobbled together by examining families with multiple autistic individuals and incorporating both hereditary and spontaneous events. Focusing on families with the first two children affected, he found that third-born male children have a 50 percent risk of acquiring the disorder, whereas the risk for third-born girls is closer to 20 percent. From there, Wigler developed a two-tiered hypothesis: The majority fall into the low-risk category, having spontaneous mutation. Contrarily, high-risk families — 25 percent of all, manifest the disease when an unaffected individual, mostly female, carries a sporadic mutation. In case of a male, the chances are roughly half.

Which of the following could have been the most suitable title for the above passage?

PASSAGE – I

The passage is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Autism has a strong genetic component: With one identical twin autistic, the other has a 70 percent chance of having it, a risk 10 times that of fraternal twins. Yet great, unsuccessful effort has been spent looking for its genetics. To Wigler, the key lies in spontaneous mutations — novel alterations in the parental germ line of the offspring. Last year he formed a controversial theory for it. It suggests that females, who develop autism with a 1/ 4th frequency with which males do, may carry the genetic profile for it.

Wigler attributes the failure of conventional studies to their studies on families with more than one autistic child to search for differences in one genetic base. These differences could be any alteration in a base called SNPs.  Uncovering SNPs shared by affected people would uncover high-risk people. The problem is locating the same target: they have implicated loci on 20 of the 23 human chromosomal pairs.

In his first autistic research, Wigler, with Sebat, tried to determine the role of spontaneous mutations, called copy number variations. Before human genome sequencing, researchers thought an individual always had two copies of a gene. In 2004, the team showed that even in healthy individuals, they could go missing from (or be added to) the genome via genetic rearrangements.  Studies on families with only one autistic member showed that up to 10 percent of non-inherited autism cases could be caused by these rearrangements. They found that the structural events were primarily deletions, leaving individuals with only one copy of a particular gene and leading, sometimes, to its functional disruption.

Later, Wigler unveiled a unified genetic theory, which he cobbled together by examining families with multiple autistic individuals and incorporating both hereditary and spontaneous events. Focusing on families with the first two children affected, he found that third-born male children have a 50 percent risk of acquiring the disorder, whereas the risk for third-born girls is closer to 20 percent. From there, Wigler developed a two-tiered hypothesis: The majority fall into the low-risk category, having spontaneous mutation. Contrarily, high-risk families — 25 percent of all, manifest the disease when an unaffected individual, mostly female, carries a sporadic mutation. In case of a male, the chances are roughly half.

The author could have been all of the following except

PASSAGE – III

The passage is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Why do we divide a minute into 60 seconds, an hour into 60 minutes, while there are only 24 hours in a day? Currently, the most prevalent numeral system is decimal (base 10), which possibly originated as it enabled easier counting with fingers. The civilizations that first split the day into smaller parts, nevertheless, used different numeral systems, notably duodecimal (base 12) and sexagesimal (base 60).

Most historians opine that the Egyptians were the first to divide the day into smaller parts. The first of the sundials they created were just stakes placed on the ground that indicated time by the length and direction of the resulting shadow. By 15th century B.C., they had developed a more advanced sundial. Without artificial light, humans at that time considered sunlit and dark periods to be two opposing realms. When sundials were used first, however, the Egyptians also first observed a group of 36 stars which divided the circle of the heavens. The clepsydra i.e. water clock, was also used to record time at night, and was perhaps the most accurate timekeeping device of its times.
Later the concept of a 24-hour day arose. The concept of fixed-length hours, however, originated in the Hellenistic period. Hipparchus proposed dividing the day into 24 equinoctial hours. Despite this suggestion, laypeople continued to use seasonally varying hours.

Hipparchus and other Greek scientists used astronomical techniques developed by the Babylonians. They made calculations in the sexagesimal (base 60) system. Although we do not know why 60 was chosen, it is convenient for expressing fractions, since it is the smallest number divisible by the first six counting numbers and also by 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30.

The Greek astronomer Eratosthenes used a sexagesimal system to divide a circle into 60 parts. Abou 100 years later, Hipparchus normalized the lines of latitude and also invented a system of longitude lines that encompassed 360 degrees. In his treatise Almagest, Ptolemy expanded Hipparchus' work by subdividing each of the 360 degrees of latitude and longitude. Each degree was divided into 60 parts, each subdivided into 60 parts. The first division, partes minutae primae, or first minute, became known as the "minute." The second segmentation, partes minutae secundae, or "second minute," became known as the second.

Why does the author state that the word 'criminal doesn't have a clearly defied meaning'?

PASSAGE – II

The passage is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

There can be no sane discussion of "crime" and "criminals" without an investigation of the meaning of the words. A large majority of men, even among the educated, speak of a "criminal" as if the word had a clearly defined meaning. As a matter of fact, there is no such division, and from the nature of things, there never can be such a line.

Strictly speaking, a crime is an act forbidden by the law of the land, and one which is considered sufficiently serious to warrant providing penalties for its commission. It does not necessarily follow that this act is either good or bad; the punishment follows for the violation of the law and not necessarily for any moral transgression. No doubt most of the things forbidden by the penal code are such as are injurious to the organized society of the time and place, and are usually of such a character as for a long period of time, and in most countries, have been classed as criminal. But even then it does not always follow that the violator of the law is not a person of higher type than the majority who are directly and indirectly responsible for the law.

It is apparent that a thing is not necessarily bad because it is forbidden by the law. Legislators are forever repealing and abolishing criminal statutes, and organized society is constantly ignoring laws, until they fall into disuse and die. The laws against witchcraft, the long line of "blue laws," the laws affecting religious beliefs and many social customs, are well-known examples of legal and innocent acts which legislatures and courts had once made criminal. Not only are criminal statutes always dying by repeal or repeated violation, but every time a legislature meets, it changes penalties for existing crimes and makes criminal certain acts that were not forbidden before.