XAT 2023 Question Paper With Detailed PDF Solutions

Directions for questions 13 to15: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Interpretation in our own time, however, is even more complex. For the contemporary zeal for the project of interpretation is often prompted not by piety toward the troublesome text (which may conceal an aggression), but by an open aggressiveness, an overt contempt for appearances. The old style of interpretation was insistent, but respectful; it erected another meaning on top of the literal one. The modern style of interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs “behind” the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one. The most celebrated and influential modern doctrines, those of Marx and Freud, actually amount to elaborate systems of hermeneutics, aggressive and impious theories of interpretation. All observable phenomena are bracketed, in Freud’s phrase, as manifest content. This manifest content must be probed and pushed aside to find the true meaning—the latent content beneath. For Marx, social events like revolutions and wars; for Freud, the events of individual lives (like neurotic symptoms and slips of the tongue) as well as texts (like a dream or a work of art)—all are treated as occasions for interpretation. According to Marx and Freud, these events only seem to be intelligible. Actually, they have no meaning without interpretation. To understand is to interpret. And to interpret is to restate the phenomenon, in effect to find an equivalent for it.

Thus, interpretation is not (as most people assume) an absolute value, a gesture of mind situated in some timeless realm of capabilities. Interpretation must itself be evaluated, within a historical view of human consciousness. In some cultural contexts, interpretation is a liberating act. It is a means of revising, of transvaluing, of escaping the dead past. In other cultural contexts, it is reactionary, impertinent, cowardly and stifling.

Directions for questions 16 and 17: Read the poem and answer the TWO questions that follow.

The slow person you left behind when, finally, you mastered the world, and scaled the heights you now command, where is he while you walked around the shaved lawn in your plus fours, organizing with an electric clipboard your big push to tomorrow?

Oh, I have come across him, yes, I have, more than once, coaxing his battered grocery cart down the freeway meridian, Others see in you sundry mythic types distinguished not just in themselves but by the stories we put in with beginnings, ends, surprises: the baby Oedipus on the hillside with his broken feet or the dog whose barking saves the grandmother flailing in the millpond beyond the weir, dragged down by her woolen skirt.

He doesn’t see you as a story, though. He feels you as his atmosphere. When your sun shines, he chorteles. When your barometric pressure drops and the thunder heads gather, he huddles under the overpass and writes me long letters with the study little pencil he steals from the public library. He asks me to look out for you.

Directions for questions 18 to 20: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow. Socrates believed that akrasia (meaning procrastination) was, strictly speaking, impossible, since we could not want what is bad for us; if we act against our own interests, it must be because we don’t know what’s right. Loewenstein, similarly, is inclined to see the procrastinator as led astray by the “visceral” rewards of the present. As the nineteenth-century Scottish economist John Rae put it, “The prospects of future good, which future years may hold on us, seem at such a moment dull and dubious, and are apt to be slighted, for objects on which the daylight is falling strongly, and showing us in all their freshness just within our grasp.” Loewenstein also suggests that our memory for the intensity of visceral rewards is deficient: when we put off preparing for that meeting by telling ourselves that we’ll do it tomorrow, we fail to take into account that tomorrow the temptation to put off work will be just as strong.

Ignorance might also affect procrastination through what the social scientist Jon Elster calls “the planning fallacy.”

Elster thinks that people underestimate the time “it will take them to complete a given task, partly because they fail to take account of how long it has taken them to complete similar projects in the past and partly because they rely on smooth scenarios in which accidents or unforeseen problems never occur.”

Directions for questions 21 to 23: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Corporations continue to ignore the threat of global warming, probably because global warming is a hyperobject, very difficult to touch and feel. Because hyperobjects have much wider time-space boundaries than human beings, we tend to consider hyper-objects as given and non-existent. Therefore, it is very difficult to deal with hyper-objects as their common understanding is lacking. Some of us continue to believe that global warming is blown out of proportion-it is not a serious threat. Even those who understood hyper-objects have yet to figure out right response to them.

The lack of understanding and response from corporations to “climate change” is evident from the fact that most of businesses have remained largely human-centric. Some businesses have adopted green practices- voluntarily, or involuntary. These efforts attempt to reduce emissions through better energy efficiency. Though laudable, the efforts have failed to make any significant dent at the global level; the planet continues to get warmer. Moreover, most of the efforts are still in the sphere of “business as usual” and “what is good for us”.

Business as usual, the current model of economic production and distribution is deeply flawed as it is based mainly on the capitalistic ethos of free-market legitimized through private property, competition, and unlimited consumption. The word “free” has come to mean that there are no constraints on individuals, and the word market has come to mean that buying and selling are the primary mechanisms, and everything is a transaction. Private property gives individuals/nations a chance to create legal rights to own more and more, subject to very little constraints. It is evident in income inequalities witnessed across the world. The very notion of ownership is controloriented and human-centric that promotes unlimited extraction from environment, hyper-nationalism, and hyperindividualism. The extraction and exploitation of the environment has served our economic interests, and led to the growth and survival of businesses. However, it has also led to the destruction of environment. Global warming is the response of nature to human actions driven by businesses operating on the principles of surplus, predictability, control, hyper-rationality, linearity, and quantification. In other words, “business as usual” has yet to dance to the rhythm of nature.

Directions for questions 24 to 26: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
It is harder and harder to make sense of life. Everything is changing, all the time, at a faster and faster pace. Our civilization is struggling to keep up with exponential technology and disruptive change. Our age-old institutions, politics, economics, ethics, religion and laws, even our environment, are so fundamentally challenged, that we risk collapse. Our stories have gotten so divorced from reality, so divisive, so inflexible and so inept to adapt to and explain our present, let alone guide us towards a better future, that we often feel like helpless passengers on a Titanic spaceship Earth. No wonder Aristotle observed that “When the storytelling goes bad in a society, the result is decadence.”

But why is this the case? And, perhaps more importantly, how is it that bad storytelling can keep, if not bring, a whole society down? Is that not simply overstating the power of story? Literary theorist Kenneth Burke famously noted: “Stories are equipment for human living. We need storytelling in order to make certain sense out of life.” If that is true then our equipment for living has gone obsolete. And unless we upgrade it we are going to go obsolete too. It was this process that Fred Polak had in mind in 1961 while observing:

Any student of the rise and fall of cultures cannot fail to be impressed by the role played in this historical succession by the image of the future. The rise and fall of images precede or accompany the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.

That is why we desperately need a new story. A story that will not only help us make sense of the world today but also unite us as a species of human beings. A story that will motivate us to stop bickering and resolve our common problems. A story that will inspire us to achieve our common goals and guide us towards a better future for all sentient beings on our planet.

We have to rewrite the human story. Because the old stories that brought us thus far are no longer useful. They’ve lost their vision and grandeur. They’ve become petty and short-sighted. They’re stuck in a past that never was at the expense of a future that can be. They divide us and keep us bickering while our civilization is facing unprecedented diversity and depth of existential challenges. Those stories are not simply our history. They are now our chains. And unless we break them, they will be our death sentence.

So, it is worth exploring if or how new stories, good stories can bring us up. The human story that brought us into the 21st century was written and rewritten several times. The latest major update was perhaps during the industrial revolution. It is time to rewrite it again. We need a new story. A brave story. An unreasonable story. A story that can inspire, unite and motivate us to break free from the past and create the best possible future.

Directions for questions 24 to 26: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
It is harder and harder to make sense of life. Everything is changing, all the time, at a faster and faster pace. Our civilization is struggling to keep up with exponential technology and disruptive change. Our age-old institutions, politics, economics, ethics, religion and laws, even our environment, are so fundamentally challenged, that we risk collapse. Our stories have gotten so divorced from reality, so divisive, so inflexible and so inept to adapt to and explain our present, let alone guide us towards a better future, that we often feel like helpless passengers on a Titanic spaceship Earth. No wonder Aristotle observed that “When the storytelling goes bad in a society, the result is decadence.”

But why is this the case? And, perhaps more importantly, how is it that bad storytelling can keep, if not bring, a whole society down? Is that not simply overstating the power of story? Literary theorist Kenneth Burke famously noted: “Stories are equipment for human living. We need storytelling in order to make certain sense out of life.” If that is true then our equipment for living has gone obsolete. And unless we upgrade it we are going to go obsolete too. It was this process that Fred Polak had in mind in 1961 while observing:

Any student of the rise and fall of cultures cannot fail to be impressed by the role played in this historical succession by the image of the future. The rise and fall of images precede or accompany the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.

That is why we desperately need a new story. A story that will not only help us make sense of the world today but also unite us as a species of human beings. A story that will motivate us to stop bickering and resolve our common problems. A story that will inspire us to achieve our common goals and guide us towards a better future for all sentient beings on our planet.

We have to rewrite the human story. Because the old stories that brought us thus far are no longer useful. They’ve lost their vision and grandeur. They’ve become petty and short-sighted. They’re stuck in a past that never was at the expense of a future that can be. They divide us and keep us bickering while our civilization is facing unprecedented diversity and depth of existential challenges. Those stories are not simply our history. They are now our chains. And unless we break them, they will be our death sentence.

So, it is worth exploring if or how new stories, good stories can bring us up. The human story that brought us into the 21st century was written and rewritten several times. The latest major update was perhaps during the industrial revolution. It is time to rewrite it again. We need a new story. A brave story. An unreasonable story. A story that can inspire, unite and motivate us to break free from the past and create the best possible future.