This page provides CAT 2025 VARC Slot 3 with detailed solutions and analysis. Download the free PDF to practice real CAT questions and boost your preparation.
Download PDF here Take Test3
Explanation:
The passage makes three key points:
1. Memory-beliefs occur entirely in the present — they are present mental events.
2. There is no logical necessity that the remembered event actually happened.
3. Therefore, what we call knowledge of the past is logically independent of whether a past truly existed — it could all be a constructed present experience.
Option 3 captures all three essential arguments:
• Memory happens now, not in the past.
• Memories may not correspond to any real past.
• So “knowledge of the past” is logically independent of an actual past.
Why the other options are not as good: Option 1: Captures parts of the idea but doesn’t emphasise that what we call “knowledge of the past” is wholly analysable into present contents. This is central.
Option 2: Over-focuses on the “five-minute hypothesis” and sounds like an example rather than the main argument.
Option 4: Too narrow — focuses only on one part of the argument (the remembered event might not have occurred) but ignores the larger philosophical
claim about the logical independence of memory from the existence of the past.
2
(Blank 3)
Why the sentence fits best at Blank (3)
Let’s examine the flow of the paragraph:
1. Sentence before Blank 1: “ The f i rst suggested evidence of a human genetic mutation associated with aggressive behaviour came from a study in 1993.”
→ This introduces the study generally.
2. Blank 1: Should logically describe what the study investigated, not the specific mutation. Therefore, the given sentence (which gives a
very specific technical detail) does
NOT fit here.
3. After Blank 1: “Genetic and metabolic studies were conducted on a large Dutch family …”
Continues describing the study setup.
4. Blank 2: Should logically precede the description of behavioural issues. The given sentence talks about the location of the defect
— which does NOT fit here because the narrative hasn’t yet introduced the mutation.
5. Before Blank 3: “The undesirable behaviour included impulsive aggression, arson and exhibitionism.”
This transitions from behavioural findings to genetic findings.
6. Blank 3: This is where a sentence about the genetic defect location would naturally appear just before the next sentence, which talks about the specific mutation in the MAOA gene.
7. After Blank 3: “A point mutation was identified in the eighth exon of the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) structural gene…”
Perfect continuation: first the location (p11– 12), then the specific mutation.
8. Blank 4: Already filled logically by a concluding detail about the mutation effect.
4312
Explanation of the sequence Sentence 4
Introduces the context: activists creating the gender-neutral term Latinx. This is clearly the starting point of the idea.
Sentence 3
Explains why activists did this — to counter gendered language — while noting that grammatical gender is not the same as social/ sexual gender.
This logically follows the introduction of Latinx.
Sentence 1
Gives an example reacting to the newly introduced term Latinx: Cherie Moraga comments on whether she uses Latinx and explains her choice.
This fits after the introduction and explanation of the term.
Sentence 2
Provides statistical evidence about how
many people actually use Hispanic/Latino/Latinx.
This is a concluding data point and logically comes last.
3
Mega-infrastructure – Sacrifice zone – Worshipping modernity – Water impoundment Here is why Option 3 is the best mapping of the core arguments of the passage:
Why Option 3 is correct
The passage revolves around four major thematic ideas:
1. Mega-infrastructure
The passage opens by describing large dams as symbols of massive twentieth-century engineering — iconic “megainfrastructure” like the Hoover and Aswan dams.
2. Sacrifice zone
It explicitly states that dams create “sacrifice zones,” destroying ecosystems, livelihoods, Indigenous cultures, and entire ways of life.
3. Worshipping modernity
The text criticizes how dams were justified as offerings “at the temples of modernity,” revealing the ideological commitment behind dam- building rather than rational public decision- making.
4. Water impoundment
The final paragraph highlights continuing global dam-building, shifting balance toward increased water impoundment even when dams are failing, aging, or ecologically destructive.
These four terms correspond directly and meaningfully to the central argumentative pillars of the passage.
Why the other options are incorrect
Option 1
“Lucrative contracts” and “expected lives” are mentioned but not central themes; “global balance” appears only in a narrow sense about modern construction patterns. Together they do not capture the philosophical, political, and ecological thrust of the passage.
Option 2
Includes “toxic algae” and “quarter century”—both minor or contextual points, not structural elements of the argument.
Option 4
“Decided democratically” is mentioned only to highlight the lack of democracy; it does not map the main idea. “Alternative
energy” appears briefly and is not central.
1
smaller, though not inconsequential, dams are safer than large dam projects.
Here is the reasoning:
Why Option 1 is the EXCEPT (i.e., NOT a valid inference)
The passage never says or implies that smaller dams are safer than large dams.
It only says:
• Smaller dams “draw little attention.”
• They are “not inconsequential.”
• They “impede the flow of water on nearly two- thirds of the world’s waterways.”
None of this allows us to infer safety. The passage discusses ecological damage, displacement, and aging infrastructure without distinguishing safety levels between large and small dams.
So Option 1 is NOT a valid inference.
Why the other options are valid inferences
Option 2: Colonisation and dam-building The passage clearly states:
“In the western United States, dams were often an instrument of colonialism, used to dispossess Indigenous people…”
So this is directly supported.
Option 3: Dams continue to be built despite opposition
The passage says:
There is evidence construction has slowed, but there is “a wave of recent and ongoing construction… tilt[ing] the global balance firmly in favor of water impoundment.”
Thus, this is a valid inference.
Option 4: Dam-building is extremely costly and possibly unjustifiable
The passage cites:
• A $2 trillion global investment.
• The World Commission on Dams conclusion that few analyses justify such costs.
• Many dams are aging, failing, and underperforming due to drought.
So this inference is valid.
1
Exemplification and manifestation Explanation
The passage says:
“Dams were also lucrative contracts, large-scale employers, and the physical instantiation of a messianic drive to conquer territories and control nature.”
Here, instantiation means a concrete, physical example or embodiment of an abstract idea— in this case, the drive to conquer
nature.
Let’s evaluate the options:
Option 1: Exemplification and manifestation
— Correct
Both words mean a concrete example or embodiment of an abstract concept.
This matches the usage perfectly.
Dams exemplify or manifest the drive to control nature.
Option 2: Development and construction — Incorrect
These refer to creating or building something, not
embodying an abstract idea.
Option 3: Durability and timeliness — Incorrect These refer to time-related qualities, not relevant to meaning of “instantiation.”
Option 4: Concreteness and viability —
Incorrect
“Concreteness” is close, but “viability” (workability) does not fit the meaning.
4
The drive to control nature is evident not only in mega-infrastructures like the Hoover and Aswan dams, but in smaller dams as well. Explanation
In the first paragraph, the author writes:
• Some dams—like Hoover and Aswan—are charismatic mega-infrastructure, famous and visually spectacular.
• But most dams worldwide are small and unnoticed, yet they too obstruct and reshape rivers.
• The author’s purpose is to show that the same messianic drive to dominate nature operates across both the grand and the ordinary dams.
Thus, the reference to Hoover and Aswan serves to:
• Introduce the largest, most dramatic examples of this human impulse.
• Contrast them with the much more numerous smaller dams, which collectively also exert massive ecological impact.
Why the others are wrong
1. Incorrect – Nowhere does the author call builders “messianic figures.” The
messianic drive refers to ideology, not people.
2. Incorrect – No reference to designers’ charisma; charisma applies to the infrastructure, not individuals.
3. Incorrect – The thin blue line refers to rivers altered by dams, not specifically the Colorado or Nile here.
4
(the sentence fits in blank 4)
Why the sentence fits best at Blank 4
The missing sentence is:
“Productivity gains, once expected to feed through to broader living standards, now primarily serve to enhance returns to wealth.” Let’s check the flow:
1. Sentence before Blank 4:
“Wealth and income inequality are linked, but where wages have stagnated and collective bargaining has weakened, capital income – derived from profits, rents and interest – has been boosted by design.”
This sets up a contrast between:
• stagnant wages
• rising capital income
2. Missing sentence meaning:
It explains how capital income has been boosted — because productivity gains no longer raise wages but instead increase returns to wealth.
3. Therefore the missing sentence works as the concluding insight, showing why inequality deepens: productivity is no longer benefitting workers, only capital owners.
Why it does not fit earlier blanks
• Blank 1: Introduces the idea that wealth is structurally different from income — the missing sentence is too specific and comes later in the argument.
• Blank 2: Follows a discussion of political choices affecting wealth; the missing sentence doesn’t relate to political structures here.
• Blank 3: Summarises erosion of mechanisms constraining inequality, but the missing sentence discusses productivity gains, which fits better after wages vs capital discussion.
1
(NOT supported ’! correct answer)
“With fixed moral starting points and expanding computational resources, the argument
forecasts convergence on one ethical system and treats contextual judgement as unnecessary once formal reasoning scales across domains and cultures.” Why this CANNOT be inferred:
• The passage never forecasts convergence on a single ethical system.
• It explicitly says ethical theories, like physical theories, diverge, and even when they align in conclusions, they justify them differently.
• The passage emphasizes that contextual judgment is essential and cannot be eliminated.
• It is deeply skeptical about formalization replacing moral intuition and lived experience.
Thus, option 1 contradicts the passage andcannot be inferred.
This is the correct answer.
Option 2 (supported)
The passage makes a direct analogy:
• Physics has incompatible theories that share a structure (postulates consequences).
• Ethics also has incompatible theories with similar formal structures.
Thus inference is reasonable.
Option 3 (supported)
The appeal of AI as an ideal judge (unbiased, unemotional) appears in the passage, but the author questions whether this procedural perfection equals genuine moral understanding.
Option 4 (supported)
The passage states:
• Moral judgment draws on intuition, history, context.
• Attempts to formalize ethics “flatten” these essential aspects.
• AI would “strip morality of the depth that enables ethical reflection.”
Thus fully supported.
3
Here is the reasoning:
Why Option 3 is the best summary
Option 3 captures all three central moves of the passage:
1. The initial appeal of AI moral arbiters
– The passage begins with the imagined attractiveness of an unemotional, unbiased AI judge.
2. The doubts about whether AI can truly understand morality
– It highlights concerns:
• AI may simply reproduce human biases
• Moral judgment relies on intuition, history, and context
• Formalisation may flatten ethics and remove its depth
3. Use of physics analogy to explain ethical formalisation
– The passage compares structured ethical theories with structured but divergent physical theories.
– This shows plurality and incompatibility, not convergence.
Option 3 accurately reflects all of this:
“It warns that codification can erode case-sensitive judgement, allow axiom-led reasoning at scale, and use a physics analogy to model structured plurality.”
This is exactly the argument.
Why the other options are incorrect
Option 1 — Incorrect
• Claims the passage “treats reproducing human moral judgement as progress.”
→ False. The passage warns that AI may merely replicate human biases.
• Claims it praises automation.
→ The passage is sceptical, not celebratory.
Option 2 — Incorrect
• Claims the passage rejects formal methods in principle.
→ False. It doesn’t reject formalisation; it explains both its potential and its limits.
• Claims the passage concludes AI should never
serve in moral roles.
→ The passage never makes such an absolute claim.
Option 4 — Incorrect
• Claims codified schemes “retain case nuance at scale.”
→ Opposite of the text. The passage says codification flattens nuance.
• Claims the physics analogy predicts “convergence on a unified framework.”
→ Absolutely false. The passage explicitly says physical theories and ethical theories diverge and remain plural.
1
Here’s why:
What is utilitarianism?
Utilitarianism = Maximise total or average welfare / happiness.
The morally right action is the one that
produces the greatest overall good.
So the opposite of utilitarianism would be an approach that does NOT prioritise maximising total welfare and instead follows a different moral principle such as:
• giving priority to certain groups (not maximising)
• following rules regardless of outcomes
• emphasising duties or rights over welfare outcomes
Option Analysis
Option 1 (Correct)
“The council followed a prioritarian approach, assigning greater moral weight to improvements for the worst-off rather than to maximising total welfare.”
This is closest to the opposite of utilitarianism.
• Prioritarianism is explicitly non-utilitarian.
• It does not maximise total welfare.
• It gives extra weight to the well-being of the worst-off, even if that reduces total welfare.
This directly contradicts the core utilitarian principle of maximisation of total good.
Why the others are not opposites
Option 2 (Incorrect)
Absolutist stance with exceptionless rules but still evaluates choices by broadest societal benefit. This mixes deontology with welfarist evaluation. Not the clean opposite, because it still prioritises broad societal benefit (= utilitarian-like).
Option 3 (Incorrect)
A non-egoist framework ranking policies by overall social welfare.
This is literally utilitarianism in different words. Not opposite at all.
Option 4 (Incorrect)
Deontological ethics but still selecting outcomes that deliver the highest total benefit.
This is contradictory, but still retains the utilitarian maximising principle.
So not opposite.
4
Here is the reasoning:
What the passage says
The passage compares ethical theories to
physical theories:
• Physics has multiple incompatible theories, each valid within a domain (quantum, classical, relativity, etc.).
• Each theory starts with postulates and derives conclusions.
• Ethical theories similarly have different starting principles, and diverge.
The analogy is useful only if we can decide: Which framework applies to which type of case. Otherwise AI would not know which ethical postulates to begin with.
Option Analysis Option 4 (Correct)
“There is a principled way to decide which ethical framework applies to which class of cases, so the system can select the relevant starting points before deriving a recommendation.”
This assumption must be true for the analogy to guide AI practice.
Just as physics chooses Newtonian or relativistic equations depending on the scenario, AI must choose the correct ethical framework before reasoning.
Why the other options are wrong
Option 1 — Incorrect
All ethical frameworks yield the same recommendation.
The passage explicitly says ethical theories
diverge and justify actions differently.
Option 2 — Incorrect
A single master framework replaces all others. The passage rejects the idea of one unified ethical system.
Option 3 — Incorrect
Real cases never straddle different areas.
Unrealistic, and the passage never implies such clean separation.
Actual moral dilemmas often overlap frameworks.
3
For tribals, conversing with the dead
becomes a way of seeking control over time. Explanation
The passage explicitly states that:
• Tribal communities historically realized they could not dominate territorial space.
• As a result, they turned “almost obsessively to gaining domination over time.”
• This urge manifests in their ritual of conversing with dead ancestors, through carved-wood or terracotta representations.
• The ritual aims to enter a trance in which they speak with the dead, symbolically controlling or transcending time.
Thus, worshipping dead ancestors is fundamentally linked to their attempt to gain mastery over time, not space or tradition alone. Why the other options are incorrect
Option 1: “Tribals show respect to their ancestors…”
• This is true but not the central explanation
according to the passage.
• Respect is a surface description, not the deeper purpose emphasized by the author.
Option 2: “Tribals seek territorial domination…”
• This directly contradicts the passage, which says they realized they could not dominate space.
Option 4: “Tribals possess a sophisticated knowledge system…”
• This is also true but explains how they classify objects, not why they worship ancestors.
3
shamanic rituals involving conversing with the dead often feature in tribal stories. Understanding the Question
The passage argues that tribal imagination is hallucinatory, meaning:
• It fuses planes of existence.
• It ignores spatial and temporal order.
• It blends reality with dreamlike sequences.
• It includes rituals of conversing with ancestors.
We are asked:
Which option does NOT weaken this claim? i.e., Which option is consistent with or supports the hallucinatory tribal imagination?
The correct answer is the option that does not contradict the passage’s claims.
Why Option 3 is the Correct Answer Option 3:
“Shamanic rituals involving conversing with the dead often feature in tribal stories.”
This supports the passage rather than weakens it, because the passage explicitly says:
• Tribals converse with dead ancestors in ritual.
• Their imagination admits the fusion of time and space.
• Their art and narrative forms draw on memory, trance, and hallucinatory modes.
Thus, this matches the passage perfectly and does not weaken the claim about hallucinatory imagination.
Why the other options weaken the passage
Option 1: “tribal stories depict the natural world in accordance with rational scientific knowledge.”
• This contradicts the passage’s idea that tribal imagination is dreamlike and unconcerned with rationality.
• So this weakens the claim.
Option 2: “tribal narratives exhibit a chronological beginning, middle, and end.”
• The passage states that tribal stories ignore sequence and temporal order.
• So this weakens the claim.
Option 4: “tribal art excludes the depiction of the mundane reality of everyday life and objects.”
• The passage says tribal epics begin with everyday events and merge art with daily living spaces.
• Excluding mundane reality contradicts this and thus weakens the claim.
4
accommodate existential fluidity.
Explanation
The passage says that in tribal imagination:
• Oceans fly like birds
• Mountains swim like fish
• Animals speak like humans
• Stars grow like plants
• All these forms can be angry, sad, or happy This is because tribal narratives naturally fuse planes of existence, ignore rigid boundaries of space and time, and allow fluid movement between categories of being.
This quality is best described as “existential fluidity.”
Why the other options are incorrect
Option 1: “have a self-conscious form.”
• The passage says tribal imagination is natural and artless, not self-conscious.
• So this is incorrect.
Option 2: “abandon all rules and regulations.”
• The passage explicitly states tribal art does have conventions and rules—they are simply different.
• So this is incorrect.
Option 3: “are rudimentary and underdeveloped.”
• The passage never suggests this; in fact, it stresses that tribal systems are highly complex.
• So this is incorrect.
2
Imagination helps humans make sense of space while memory helps them understand time. Explanation
The passage directly describes the distinction:
• “We put meaning into space by perceiving it in terms of images. The image-making faculty is a genetic gift to the human mind—this power of imagination helps us understand the space that envelops us.”
• “With regard to time, we make connections with the help of memory; one remembers being the same person today as one was yesterday.”
So:
• Imagination → understanding space (via images)
• Memory → understanding time ( via continuity and recollection)
This is the central conceptual difference the author outlines.
Why the other options are incorrect
Option 1:
• The passage does not say imagination
must be cultivated; it says it is a genetic gift.
• Memory is not described as “racial and sensory” for all humans—that description is specific to tribal imagination.
Option 3:
• Both imagination and memory are presented as fundamental human faculties; the passage does not claim memory is more central than imagination.
Option 4:
• The passage explains tribal emphasis on memory, but this is not the general difference between imagination and memory.
4
Let’s analyse carefully. The question asks:
Which statement DOES NOT weaken the narrative?
(i.e., which one is consistent with the passage) The passage’s main narrative is:
• British forest policy (Forest Act of 1878) usurped traditional rights of peasants and tribals.
• British forestry emphasised revenue, commercial exploitation, policing, and exclusion of local communities.
• German forestry experts helped create this bureaucratic, exclusionary system.
• Present-day controversies echo the same issues—state monopoly, exclusion of communities, and colonial legacy.
So, a statement that weakens this narrative would be one that contradicts these claims.
We need the statement that does not weaken
the narrative.
Evaluate Each Option
Option 1.
The timber requirement for railway works… was met through import from China.
→ This contradicts the passage’s claim that massive deforestation in India happened due to railway expansion.
→ This weakens the narrative.
Option 2.
Before British rule, peasants and tribal groups were denied access to forests by Indian rulers.
→ This contradicts the passage’s core
argument that British policies were a sharp break from precolonial practices and introduced unprecedented usurpation of forest rights.
→ This clearly weakens the narrative.
Option 3.
Certain tribal groups are responsible for climate change due to mass scale deforestation.
→ The passage stresses that tribals had longstanding claims and were excluded unfairly; blaming them for environmental harm weakens the narrative drastically.
→ So it weakens the narrative.
Option 4.
Nineteenth century German forestry experts were infamous for violating indigenous rights.
→ The passage says British forestry relied on German experts and that the system excluded villagers and tribal rights.
→ Saying German experts also violated indigenous rights is consistent with the passage’s criticism of colonial forestry practices.
→ This does NOT weaken the narrative; it actually supports it.
4
Let’s examine why. The question asks:
Why did the “raging controversy” over the 1982 draft forest act develop into a “larger controversy”?
The passage explains:
• The initial controversy was about the rights violations in the draft act (peasants and tribals).
• But the debate then expanded into a broader critique of state forest policy itself.
What caused this expansion? The key lines:
“The debate over the draft forest act fuelled a larger controversy over the orientation of state forest policy.”
“It was pointed out… that the draft act was closely
modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878…
The earlier act rested on a usurpation of rights of ownership by the colonial state…”
“…the system of forestry introduced by the British
— and continued after 1947 — emphasized revenue and commercial exploitation, while excluding villagers…”
Thus, the controversy became larger because: It was not just about one draft act.
It exposed a continuity of colonial-style forest control, usurpation of rights, and exploitation.
This aligns exactly with Option 4, which captures the structural, historical critique.
Why the other options are insufficient
Option 1:
True, but describes only the initial controversy, not why it developed into a larger one.
Option 2:
Focuses on the behaviour of forest officials; not the historical legacy that broadened the debate.
Option 3:
The passage does say British forestry emphasized commercial exploitation, but the larger debate was about the colonial origins and continued replication of such policies — broader than commercial exploitation alone.
3
Involving local people in cultivating forests. Here is why:
The passage states that although the government has made some reforms — such as:
• Stopping ecologically hazardous practices
like clear-felling
• No longer treating forests as a source of revenue
— one major demand has not been met:
“the government has shown little inclination to meet the major demand of the critics of forest policy — namely, abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land by handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation.”
This means:
The government has not yet involved local people (tribals/peasants/communities) in cultivating or managing forests.
Community control or shared forest cultivation has not been implemented.
Hence the reform yet to happen is:
Option 3 — Involving local people in cultivating forests.
Why the other options are incorrect:
1. Recognising the significance of forests to ecology
– Already done; the government has stopped harmful practices like clear-felling.
2. Recognising the state’s claim to forest land use
– This has existed since the colonial era and still continues; not a reform that is “yet to happen”.
4. A ban on deforestation
– The passage says hazardous practices (like clear-felling) have been stopped, implying reforms already exist to curb destructive deforestation.
2
Both resulted in large scale deforestation.
Explanation:
We must identify which option describes something NOT common to both:
Option 1: Both reflect a colonial mindset.
True.
The passage explicitly states that the 1982 draft act “was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878”, and that the earlier act was based on the colonial usurpation of rights. So both reflect the same colonial orientation of state control.
Option 3: Both sparked controversy and debate.
True.
• The 1982 draft act caused a “ raging controversy.”
• The 1878 Forest Act was passed after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy.
So controversy surrounded both.
Option 4: Both sought to establish the state’s monopoly over forest resources.
True.
• The 1878 Act explicitly established state
monopoly over forest land.
• Critics argued the 1982 draft act continued the same principle of state monopoly.
Option 2: Both resulted in large scale deforestation.
NOT common. This is the correct answer. The passage does not say that either act caused deforestation.
• It says deforestation occurred due to railway timber demands before and around the creation of the forest department—not as a direct result of the 1878 Act.
• The 1982 draft act was justified by officials to
prevent ongoing deforestation, not cause it. Thus, deforestation is NOT described as a consequence of either act, making this the correct choice.
3
Here is the reasoning why Sentence 3 is the odd one out.
Why 3 is the odd sentence out
Let’s examine the theme of the other sentences.
Sentence 1
About half of all the oxygen we breathe is made near the surface…
This introduces oxygen production.
Sentence 2
Scientists discovered they also produce oxygen on the seafloor.
This continues the theme: oxygen is being produced deep in the ocean.
Sentence 4
The discovery is a surprise considering oxygen is typically created…
This explains why the finding is surprising, still focused on oxygen production.
Sentence 5
Polymetallic nodules host many sea critters. This supports sentence 2 by giving context about the deep-sea nodules involved in the discovery. So, 1, 2, 4, and 5 all naturally link together in a coherent passage about:
• oxygen production at the surface,
• surprising oxygen production at the seafloor,
• the nature of the rocks involved,
• and why this discovery is unexpected.
Why Sentence 3 is the odd one out Sentence 3
The research team used deep-sea chambers… This is a methodological detail about scientific instruments.
While related, it breaks the narrative flow, because:
• The rest of the sentences focus on what was discovered, why it is surprising, and context about the nodules.
• Sentence 3 shifts abruptly into experimental procedure, which does not blend into the conceptual explanation the other sentences provide.
Thus, it disrupts the thematic flow and is correctly identified as the odd one out.
2143
Below is a clear explanation showing why 2143
forms the only coherent paragraph.
Step-by-step Logic
Sentence 2
Some candidates… adorn their prospectus with a portrait; this presupposes that photography has a power…
This is the natural opening: it introduces the topic
— the use of photographs by candidates — and sets up the need to analyse this power.
Sentence 1
The effigy of a candidate establishes a personal link…
This follows smoothly because it explains how a photograph works in politics, extending the idea introduced in 2.
Sentence 4
Photography tends to restore the paternalistic nature of elections…
This builds on 1 by discussing the broader political consequences of photographic use in elections.
Sentence 3
Inasmuch as photography is an ellipse of language… it constitutes an anti-intellectual weapon…
This is the most abstract theoretical point and logically concludes the paragraph by giving the deepest critique of photography’s political effect.
Therefore, the coherent order is: 2143
4
Here is why Option 4 best captures the essence of the passage:
Why Option 4 is correct
The passage discusses three simultaneous shifts
motivating mindful Indian shoppers:
1. Moving away from homogeneity/ uniformity of fast fashion
2. Rejecting wastefulness of fast fashion
3. Seeking customisation and good fit without high bespoke pricing
Option 4 captures all three shifts:
“The mindful Indian shopper is shifting away from convenience and uniformity of clothing,
and waste in fashion, to customisation and less exorbitantly priced clothing.”
This mirrors the passage’s central argument most completely.
Why the other options are incorrect
Option 1
“All Indian shoppers…”
Too broad. Passage refers specifically to mindful
shoppers, not all Indians.
Option 2
Oversimplifies the reasoning by claiming shoppers reject branded clothes because they are wasteful. It misses the points about custom fit and avoiding uniformity.
Option 3
Focuses only on desire for inexpensive, well-fitting, fashionable clothes and misses the environmental and anti-uniformity motivations.
1
Here’s why:
Look at the thematic flow of the other four sentences:
• 2. Music is a universal phenomenon that utilizes a myriad brain resources.
• 5. Engaging with music is among the most cognitively demanding tasks a human can undergo, and it is identified across cultures.
• 4. The proclivity to create and appreciate music is ubiquitous among humans, permeating daily life across diverse societies.
• 3. This inherent connection to musical expression is deeply intertwined with human identity and experience.
These four can form a coherent paragraph about:
1. Music as a universal human phenomenon
(2, 4).
2. Its cognitive complexity (5).
3. Its deep link with human identity and experience (3).
Sentence 1 shifts the focus to:
“the profound emotional impact of music” and specifically “ongoing research into its relationship with emotions.”
That introduces a different angle: scientific research on emotions and music, which doesn’t smoothly integrate into the emerging theme of universality, cognition, and identity without going off on a tangent.
So 1 is the odd sentence out.