Online XAT - 2006 Solved Question Paper

The phrase ‘Ranch on the Ganges’:

‘In this place flowed a river. A town came up by its banks sometime. And today there is a concrete road of the metropolitan city. When I bend down and place my ears on the road, I can still hear the splashing of the water flowing underneath.’ The passage above is:

‘When I become aware of the pain in my injured leg, it begins to hurt and the pain becomes so excruciating that I often loose control over my senses.’

In the above passage, ‘excruciating’ refers to:

‘When I become aware of the pain in my injured leg, it begins to hurt and the pain becomes so excruciating that I often loose control over my senses.’

Which of the following words can possibly replace ‘excruciating’ without CHANGING the underlying meaning?

Which of the following choices MOST accurately captures the meaning of edifice as used in the sentence below?
The edifice of ‘public space’, built up through literacy or informative institutions of popular education and on which the pillars of democracy were mounted, is now crumbling.

The__ of the Sanskrit Vedic hymns into English is often not possible; what experts do is a
Below there are three words indicated. Choose the alternative (among A, B,C, D) that you think has the right combination of words that can be used to fill the gaps in the sentence above and give it a coherent meaning.

X: Translation
Y Rendition
Z: Conversion

QUESTIONS : In each of the following questions, choose the correct order of statements (A, B, C…) to give a coherent meaning to the text?
one aspect, and the interoperable system is itself evolving.

Statement A: Such inter-operability of a software service or product appears to be only

Statement B: Each software product introduces a variation and consequently a change in the system.

Statement C: An operating system must work with applications and other elements in a hardware platform.

Statement D: A software firm while introducing its product or service, therefore, does not strive for mute complementarities alone but tries to bring about a change in the existing structure.

Statement E: In other words the components must be designed to be inter-operable.

In each of the following questions, choose the correct order of statements (A, B, C…) to give a coherent meaning to the text?

Statement A: Moreover, as argued above, knowledge is entailed not by way of justification as such. but by the realization of good or fruit ladenness of meaning and actions or iterated actions.
Statement B: Knowledge is required in order to resolve doubts and thus in order to act meaningfully.

Statement C: Therefore the actions in a commonly led daily life are both meaningful and knowledge-driven.

Statement D: Indian theorists argue for a common knowledge, which is obtained through iterated fruitful! actions, through the authority of sentences (or words).

Statement E: We argue for four sources of validation of knowledge, viz., sentence, inference, direct perception and analogy.

Statement A: But PST has also used satellite pictures to suggest that an ancient fortified town had existed 30 Km from Junagadh.
Statement B: Soil and vegetation patterns were used in the search.
Statement C: The site marches the description of Krishna’s town in an ancient scripture.
Statement D: PST’s primary job at Space Applications Centre has been tracking land use
and forest cover with satellite images. Statement E: An archeologist however cautioned that remote sensing and scriptures by themselves would not be enough to identify a township.
Statement F: It was claimed that soil and vegetation patterns at ancient abandoned sites reveal specific patterns that can be picked by satellite images.

QUESTION : Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer for the following questions.

“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the Royal Bengal tiger will approach extinction,” said the biologist.

“So all that is needed to save the tiger is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.

Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?

QUESTION : Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer for the following questions.

There is little point in looking to artists for insights into political issues. Most of them hold political views that are less insightful than those of any reasonably well-educated person who is not an artist. Indeed, when taken as a whole, the statements made by artists, including those considered to be great» indicate that artistic talent and political insight are rarely found together.

Which one of the following can be inferred from the passage?

QUESTION : Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer for the following questions.

All intelligent people are nearsighted. I am very nearsighted. So I must be a genius.
Which one of the following exhibits both of the logical flaws exhibited in the argument above?

The district health officer boasts that the average ambulance turnaround time, the time from summons to delivery of the patient, has been reduced this year for top-priority emergencies. This is a serious misrepresentation. This “reduction” was produced simply by redefining “top priority”. Such emergencies Used to include gunshot wounds and electrocutions, the most time-consuming cases. Now they are limited strictly to heart attacks and strokes.

Which one of the following would strengthen the author’s conclusion that it was the redefinition of “top priority” that produced the reduction in turnaround time?

*DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Deliberative democracy demands a reflexive (or reflection driven) reordering of preferences in a non-coercive manner. The authenticity of democracy requires in addition that these reflective preferences, influence collective outcomes and action, and so long as the state is the main (though far from exclusive) locus of collective decisions, it requires discursive mechanisms for transmission of public opinion to the state. A deliberative or more properly a discursive democracy, in order that it can accommodate several competing versions of democracies such as the liberal, the minimal, me difference, etc., must also accommodate rhetoric, narratives, and empathy along with reasoning. A rationality and a reasoning that does not accommodate values is meaningless. However, it is also argued that’ individual rationality cannot he realized if values are embedded in the decision procedures, in other words, realization of values could be made possible only when individuals behave non- rationally. Further if values having been abandoned at the individual level are accorded a place only collectively, the same must lead to either “epistemological inconsistency or abandonment of autonomy of individual evaluations”. A talk or a rhetoric, otherwise, is strategic and is employed with the intention of signaling certain information. Such a talk can be therefore deceptive and coercive. The illocutionary force and the normative trappings of a Foucauldian discourse while allowing identification with a community and differences with the others, do simultaneously pose through coercion a threat to an utterance as such. If democracy cannot ensure utterance as freedom and if the illocutionary forces in a discursive democracy disciplines the thought and the talk, then how such a democracy could indeed be called authentic!

Most human actions and discourses are actuated by a deeper or primordial antedeliberation Desire (let us use a capital ‘D’). Speaking as such is out of such a Desire (one might use volition or passion). Engaging in a deliberation or else in an action is possible only since there has been such a Desire. Desire appears to both the reflection and also to an observer as a mental-state. A discourse can be set only when such mental states are in harmony, or share a common predisposition or attitude. In the absence of such shared mental-states, no discourse and no deliberation can begin. A running underlying and most often unstated theme that remains at the back of the idea of deliberative democracy is competition – a competition with the ‘other’ which introduces strategy. The alternative to competition, a mental-state which is out of a Desire to enjoy the ‘other’ in the light of a memorythat this ‘one’ and the ‘other’ were but the same and would again become the same, do not appear in the known Anglo-American literature. Such a mental-state might generate and keep alive possibilities of cooperation although is never a state of cooperation alone as such.

Which of the following follows from the passage above?

*DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Deliberative democracy demands a reflexive (or reflection driven) reordering of preferences in a non-coercive manner. The authenticity of democracy requires in addition that these reflective preferences, influence collective outcomes and action, and so long as the state is the main (though far from exclusive) locus of collective decisions, it requires discursive mechanisms for transmission of public opinion to the state. A deliberative or more properly a discursive democracy, in order that it can accommodate several competing versions of democracies such as the liberal, the minimal, me difference, etc., must also accommodate rhetoric, narratives, and empathy along with reasoning. A rationality and a reasoning that does not accommodate values is meaningless. However, it is also argued that’ individual rationality cannot he realized if values are embedded in the decision procedures, in other words, realization of values could be made possible only when individuals behave non- rationally. Further if values having been abandoned at the individual level are accorded a place only collectively, the same must lead to either “epistemological inconsistency or abandonment of autonomy of individual evaluations”. A talk or a rhetoric, otherwise, is strategic and is employed with the intention of signaling certain information. Such a talk can be therefore deceptive and coercive. The illocutionary force and the normative trappings of a Foucauldian discourse while allowing identification with a community and differences with the others, do simultaneously pose through coercion a threat to an utterance as such. If democracy cannot ensure utterance as freedom and if the illocutionary forces in a discursive democracy disciplines the thought and the talk, then how such a democracy could indeed be called authentic!

Most human actions and discourses are actuated by a deeper or primordial antedeliberation Desire (let us use a capital ‘D’). Speaking as such is out of such a Desire (one might use volition or passion). Engaging in a deliberation or else in an action is possible only since there has been such a Desire. Desire appears to both the reflection and also to an observer as a mental-state. A discourse can be set only when such mental states are in harmony, or share a common predisposition or attitude. In the absence of such shared mental-states, no discourse and no deliberation can begin. A running underlying and most often unstated theme that remains at the back of the idea of deliberative democracy is competition – a competition with the ‘other’ which introduces strategy. The alternative to competition, a mental-state which is out of a Desire to enjoy the ‘other’ in the light of a memorythat this ‘one’ and the ‘other’ were but the same and would again become the same, do not appear in the known Anglo-American literature. Such a mental-state might generate and keep alive possibilities of cooperation although is never a state of cooperation alone as such.

Desire as ante-deliberation driving action refer to:

*DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Deliberative democracy demands a reflexive (or reflection driven) reordering of preferences in a non-coercive manner. The authenticity of democracy requires in addition that these reflective preferences, influence collective outcomes and action, and so long as the state is the main (though far from exclusive) locus of collective decisions, it requires discursive mechanisms for transmission of public opinion to the state. A deliberative or more properly a discursive democracy, in order that it can accommodate several competing versions of democracies such as the liberal, the minimal, me difference, etc., must also accommodate rhetoric, narratives, and empathy along with reasoning. A rationality and a reasoning that does not accommodate values is meaningless. However, it is also argued that’ individual rationality cannot he realized if values are embedded in the decision procedures, in other words, realization of values could be made possible only when individuals behave non- rationally. Further if values having been abandoned at the individual level are accorded a place only collectively, the same must lead to either “epistemological inconsistency or abandonment of autonomy of individual evaluations”. A talk or a rhetoric, otherwise, is strategic and is employed with the intention of signaling certain information. Such a talk can be therefore deceptive and coercive. The illocutionary force and the normative trappings of a Foucauldian discourse while allowing identification with a community and differences with the others, do simultaneously pose through coercion a threat to an utterance as such. If democracy cannot ensure utterance as freedom and if the illocutionary forces in a discursive democracy disciplines the thought and the talk, then how such a democracy could indeed be called authentic!

Most human actions and discourses are actuated by a deeper or primordial antedeliberation Desire (let us use a capital ‘D’). Speaking as such is out of such a Desire (one might use volition or passion). Engaging in a deliberation or else in an action is possible only since there has been such a Desire. Desire appears to both the reflection and also to an observer as a mental-state. A discourse can be set only when such mental states are in harmony, or share a common predisposition or attitude. In the absence of such shared mental-states, no discourse and no deliberation can begin. A running underlying and most often unstated theme that remains at the back of the idea of deliberative democracy is competition – a competition with the ‘other’ which introduces strategy. The alternative to competition, a mental-state which is out of a Desire to enjoy the ‘other’ in the light of a memorythat this ‘one’ and the ‘other’ were but the same and would again become the same, do not appear in the known Anglo-American literature. Such a mental-state might generate and keep alive possibilities of cooperation although is never a state of cooperation alone as such.

Which of the following is true from the passage?

*DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Deliberative democracy demands a reflexive (or reflection driven) reordering of preferences in a non-coercive manner. The authenticity of democracy requires in addition that these reflective preferences, influence collective outcomes and action, and so long as the state is the main (though far from exclusive) locus of collective decisions, it requires discursive mechanisms for transmission of public opinion to the state. A deliberative or more properly a discursive democracy, in order that it can accommodate several competing versions of democracies such as the liberal, the minimal, me difference, etc., must also accommodate rhetoric, narratives, and empathy along with reasoning. A rationality and a reasoning that does not accommodate values is meaningless. However, it is also argued that’ individual rationality cannot he realized if values are embedded in the decision procedures, in other words, realization of values could be made possible only when individuals behave non- rationally. Further if values having been abandoned at the individual level are accorded a place only collectively, the same must lead to either “epistemological inconsistency or abandonment of autonomy of individual evaluations”. A talk or a rhetoric, otherwise, is strategic and is employed with the intention of signaling certain information. Such a talk can be therefore deceptive and coercive. The illocutionary force and the normative trappings of a Foucauldian discourse while allowing identification with a community and differences with the others, do simultaneously pose through coercion a threat to an utterance as such. If democracy cannot ensure utterance as freedom and if the illocutionary forces in a discursive democracy disciplines the thought and the talk, then how such a democracy could indeed be called authentic!

Most human actions and discourses are actuated by a deeper or primordial antedeliberation Desire (let us use a capital ‘D’). Speaking as such is out of such a Desire (one might use volition or passion). Engaging in a deliberation or else in an action is possible only since there has been such a Desire. Desire appears to both the reflection and also to an observer as a mental-state. A discourse can be set only when such mental states are in harmony, or share a common predisposition or attitude. In the absence of such shared mental-states, no discourse and no deliberation can begin. A running underlying and most often unstated theme that remains at the back of the idea of deliberative democracy is competition – a competition with the ‘other’ which introduces strategy. The alternative to competition, a mental-state which is out of a Desire to enjoy the ‘other’ in the light of a memorythat this ‘one’ and the ‘other’ were but the same and would again become the same, do not appear in the known Anglo-American literature. Such a mental-state might generate and keep alive possibilities of cooperation although is never a state of cooperation alone as such.

A Foucauldian discourse as used in the passage does NOT refer to:

*DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Deliberative democracy demands a reflexive (or reflection driven) reordering of preferences in a non-coercive manner. The authenticity of democracy requires in addition that these reflective preferences, influence collective outcomes and action, and so long as the state is the main (though far from exclusive) locus of collective decisions, it requires discursive mechanisms for transmission of public opinion to the state. A deliberative or more properly a discursive democracy, in order that it can accommodate several competing versions of democracies such as the liberal, the minimal, me difference, etc., must also accommodate rhetoric, narratives, and empathy along with reasoning. A rationality and a reasoning that does not accommodate values is meaningless. However, it is also argued that’ individual rationality cannot he realized if values are embedded in the decision procedures, in other words, realization of values could be made possible only when individuals behave non- rationally. Further if values having been abandoned at the individual level are accorded a place only collectively, the same must lead to either “epistemological inconsistency or abandonment of autonomy of individual evaluations”. A talk or a rhetoric, otherwise, is strategic and is employed with the intention of signaling certain information. Such a talk can be therefore deceptive and coercive. The illocutionary force and the normative trappings of a Foucauldian discourse while allowing identification with a community and differences with the others, do simultaneously pose through coercion a threat to an utterance as such. If democracy cannot ensure utterance as freedom and if the illocutionary forces in a discursive democracy disciplines the thought and the talk, then how such a democracy could indeed be called authentic!

Most human actions and discourses are actuated by a deeper or primordial antedeliberation Desire (let us use a capital ‘D’). Speaking as such is out of such a Desire (one might use volition or passion). Engaging in a deliberation or else in an action is possible only since there has been such a Desire. Desire appears to both the reflection and also to an observer as a mental-state. A discourse can be set only when such mental states are in harmony, or share a common predisposition or attitude. In the absence of such shared mental-states, no discourse and no deliberation can begin. A running underlying and most often unstated theme that remains at the back of the idea of deliberative democracy is competition – a competition with the ‘other’ which introduces strategy. The alternative to competition, a mental-state which is out of a Desire to enjoy the ‘other’ in the light of a memorythat this ‘one’ and the ‘other’ were but the same and would again become the same, do not appear in the known Anglo-American literature. Such a mental-state might generate and keep alive possibilities of cooperation although is never a state of cooperation alone as such.

Which of the following words is. closest to the word ‘primordial’ as used in the passage above?

*DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Deliberative democracy demands a reflexive (or reflection driven) reordering of preferences in a non-coercive manner. The authenticity of democracy requires in addition that these reflective preferences, influence collective outcomes and action, and so long as the state is the main (though far from exclusive) locus of collective decisions, it requires discursive mechanisms for transmission of public opinion to the state. A deliberative or more properly a discursive democracy, in order that it can accommodate several competing versions of democracies such as the liberal, the minimal, me difference, etc., must also accommodate rhetoric, narratives, and empathy along with reasoning. A rationality and a reasoning that does not accommodate values is meaningless. However, it is also argued that’ individual rationality cannot he realized if values are embedded in the decision procedures, in other words, realization of values could be made possible only when individuals behave non- rationally. Further if values having been abandoned at the individual level are accorded a place only collectively, the same must lead to either “epistemological inconsistency or abandonment of autonomy of individual evaluations”. A talk or a rhetoric, otherwise, is strategic and is employed with the intention of signaling certain information. Such a talk can be therefore deceptive and coercive. The illocutionary force and the normative trappings of a Foucauldian discourse while allowing identification with a community and differences with the others, do simultaneously pose through coercion a threat to an utterance as such. If democracy cannot ensure utterance as freedom and if the illocutionary forces in a discursive democracy disciplines the thought and the talk, then how such a democracy could indeed be called authentic!

Most human actions and discourses are actuated by a deeper or primordial antedeliberation Desire (let us use a capital ‘D’). Speaking as such is out of such a Desire (one might use volition or passion). Engaging in a deliberation or else in an action is possible only since there has been such a Desire. Desire appears to both the reflection and also to an observer as a mental-state. A discourse can be set only when such mental states are in harmony, or share a common predisposition or attitude. In the absence of such shared mental-states, no discourse and no deliberation can begin. A running underlying and most often unstated theme that remains at the back of the idea of deliberative democracy is competition – a competition with the ‘other’ which introduces strategy. The alternative to competition, a mental-state which is out of a Desire to enjoy the ‘other’ in the light of a memorythat this ‘one’ and the ‘other’ were but the same and would again become the same, do not appear in the known Anglo-American literature. Such a mental-state might generate and keep alive possibilities of cooperation although is never a state of cooperation alone as such.

Which of the following captures the spirit of the position that the author hints at through the phrase ‘alternative to competition’?

DIRECTIONS: Questions are based on the passage below.

In 1980, the US Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedents that said that naturally occurring phenomenon, such as bacteria, could not be patented because they were discoveries rather than inventions. Yet that year, the Court decided that a biologist named Chakrabarty could patent a hybridized bacterium because ‘his discovery was his handiwork, not that of nature’. A majority of the judges reiterated that ‘a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant discovered in the wild is not patentable’. Yet they believed that Chakrabarty had concocted something new using his own ingenuity. Even Chakrabarty was surprised. He had simply cultured different strains of bacteria in the belief that they would exchange genetic material in a laboratory soup. The then embryonic industry used the case to argue that patents should be issued on gene, proteins and other materials of commercial value.

By 1980s, the US Patent Office had embarked on a far-reaching change of policy to propel the US industry forward, routinely issuing patents on products of nature including genes, fragments of genes and human proteins. In 1987. for example, Genetics Institute Inc. was awarded a patent on erythropoietin, a protein of 165 amino acids that stimulates the production of red blood cells. It did not claim to have invented the protein: it had extracted small amounts of the naturally occurring substance from thousands of gallons of urine. Erythropoietin is now a multi-billion dollar-a-year treatment.

The industry’s argument is that innovation prospers only when it is rewarded. Without rewards, innovation will not take place. The barriers to entry into biotechnology are relatively low. Biotechnology companies do not have to build costly factories of high street retail outlets or invest in brand reputations. The basic units of production are bacteria manipulated to deliver therapeutically and commercially valuable substances. Without the protection of a patent, an innovative biotechnology company will find its discoveries quickly copied by later entrant. If the ownership of rights to exploit a genetic discovery were left unclear, there would be less innovation in the economy as a whole and we would all be worse off. The biotechnology industry in USA is larger than anywhere else, in part because innovators there have been allowed to patent their’ inventions’. In 1998, there were almost 1500 patents claiming rights to exploit human gene sequences.

Yet the ownership regime for industries and products spawned by genetics is far from settled. A practical argument is about what should be owned – the gene or the treatment. The cystic fibrosis gene, for example, is patented, and anyone who makes or uses a diagnostic kit that uses knowledge of the gene sequence has to pay royalty to the patent holder. Many would argue that this is too broad a patent, which may be excessively strong and slow down innovation. As we move into the knowledge economy, issues such as the breadth and scope of a patent, the standards of novelty, even the duration; will become more problematical. To put in another way, who should own what and for how long will become more of an issue in a knowledge driven economy. That is because incentives to exploit knowledge need to be set against the value of sharing it. Scientific enquiry proceeds as a result of collaboration, the sharing and testing of ideas. We are lucky that James Watson and his collaborator Francis Creek did not work for Genentech or Glaxo-Wellcome because every genetic researcher would now be paying a royalty to use their discovery. Genetics, as most sciences, is built on a bedrock of shared knowledge. The more basic the knowledge, the more inappropriate strong property rights and exclusive private ownership becomes. Privatization ofknowledg- may make it less likely that know-how will be shared. Perkin Elme will publish its research on the, human genome, but only once in three months and the company will reserve at least 300 genes for its own patent programme. Publicly funded researchers share their results more openly and more frequently.

The erythropoietin episode shows that:

DIRECTIONS: Questions are based on the passage below.

In 1980, the US Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedents that said that naturally occurring phenomenon, such as bacteria, could not be patented because they were discoveries rather than inventions. Yet that year, the Court decided that a biologist named Chakrabarty could patent a hybridized bacterium because ‘his discovery was his handiwork, not that of nature’. A majority of the judges reiterated that ‘a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant discovered in the wild is not patentable’. Yet they believed that Chakrabarty had concocted something new using his own ingenuity. Even Chakrabarty was surprised. He had simply cultured different strains of bacteria in the belief that they would exchange genetic material in a laboratory soup. The then embryonic industry used the case to argue that patents should be issued on gene, proteins and other materials of commercial value.

By 1980s, the US Patent Office had embarked on a far-reaching change of policy to propel the US industry forward, routinely issuing patents on products of nature including genes, fragments of genes and human proteins. In 1987. for example, Genetics Institute Inc. was awarded a patent on erythropoietin, a protein of 165 amino acids that stimulates the production of red blood cells. It did not claim to have invented the protein: it had extracted small amounts of the naturally occurring substance from thousands of gallons of urine. Erythropoietin is now a multi-billion dollar-a-year treatment.

The industry’s argument is that innovation prospers only when it is rewarded. Without rewards, innovation will not take place. The barriers to entry into biotechnology are relatively low. Biotechnology companies do not have to build costly factories of high street retail outlets or invest in brand reputations. The basic units of production are bacteria manipulated to deliver therapeutically and commercially valuable substances. Without the protection of a patent, an innovative biotechnology company will find its discoveries quickly copied by later entrant. If the ownership of rights to exploit a genetic discovery were left unclear, there would be less innovation in the economy as a whole and we would all be worse off. The biotechnology industry in USA is larger than anywhere else, in part because innovators there have been allowed to patent their’ inventions’. In 1998, there were almost 1500 patents claiming rights to exploit human gene sequences.

Yet the ownership regime for industries and products spawned by genetics is far from settled. A practical argument is about what should be owned – the gene or the treatment. The cystic fibrosis gene, for example, is patented, and anyone who makes or uses a diagnostic kit that uses knowledge of the gene sequence has to pay royalty to the patent holder. Many would argue that this is too broad a patent, which may be excessively strong and slow down innovation. As we move into the knowledge economy, issues such as the breadth and scope of a patent, the standards of novelty, even the duration; will become more problematical. To put in another way, who should own what and for how long will become more of an issue in a knowledge driven economy. That is because incentives to exploit knowledge need to be set against the value of sharing it. Scientific enquiry proceeds as a result of collaboration, the sharing and testing of ideas. We are lucky that James Watson and his collaborator Francis Creek did not work for Genentech or Glaxo-Wellcome because every genetic researcher would now be paying a royalty to use their discovery. Genetics, as most sciences, is built on a bedrock of shared knowledge. The more basic the knowledge, the more inappropriate strong property rights and exclusive private ownership becomes. Privatization ofknowledg- may make it less likely that know-how will be shared. Perkin Elme will publish its research on the, human genome, but only once in three months and the company will reserve at least 300 genes for its own patent programme. Publicly funded researchers share their results more openly and more frequently.

After reading the passage, which of the following statements do you think captures best, the tenor of the piece?

DIRECTIONS: Questions are based on the passage below.

In 1980, the US Supreme Court overturned decades of legal precedents that said that naturally occurring phenomenon, such as bacteria, could not be patented because they were discoveries rather than inventions. Yet that year, the Court decided that a biologist named Chakrabarty could patent a hybridized bacterium because ‘his discovery was his handiwork, not that of nature’. A majority of the judges reiterated that ‘a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant discovered in the wild is not patentable’. Yet they believed that Chakrabarty had concocted something new using his own ingenuity. Even Chakrabarty was surprised. He had simply cultured different strains of bacteria in the belief that they would exchange genetic material in a laboratory soup. The then embryonic industry used the case to argue that patents should be issued on gene, proteins and other materials of commercial value.

By 1980s, the US Patent Office had embarked on a far-reaching change of policy to propel the US industry forward, routinely issuing patents on products of nature including genes, fragments of genes and human proteins. In 1987. for example, Genetics Institute Inc. was awarded a patent on erythropoietin, a protein of 165 amino acids that stimulates the production of red blood cells. It did not claim to have invented the protein: it had extracted small amounts of the naturally occurring substance from thousands of gallons of urine. Erythropoietin is now a multi-billion dollar-a-year treatment.

The industry’s argument is that innovation prospers only when it is rewarded. Without rewards, innovation will not take place. The barriers to entry into biotechnology are relatively low. Biotechnology companies do not have to build costly factories of high street retail outlets or invest in brand reputations. The basic units of production are bacteria manipulated to deliver therapeutically and commercially valuable substances. Without the protection of a patent, an innovative biotechnology company will find its discoveries quickly copied by later entrant. If the ownership of rights to exploit a genetic discovery were left unclear, there would be less innovation in the economy as a whole and we would all be worse off. The biotechnology industry in USA is larger than anywhere else, in part because innovators there have been allowed to patent their’ inventions’. In 1998, there were almost 1500 patents claiming rights to exploit human gene sequences.

Yet the ownership regime for industries and products spawned by genetics is far from settled. A practical argument is about what should be owned – the gene or the treatment. The cystic fibrosis gene, for example, is patented, and anyone who makes or uses a diagnostic kit that uses knowledge of the gene sequence has to pay royalty to the patent holder. Many would argue that this is too broad a patent, which may be excessively strong and slow down innovation. As we move into the knowledge economy, issues such as the breadth and scope of a patent, the standards of novelty, even the duration; will become more problematical. To put in another way, who should own what and for how long will become more of an issue in a knowledge driven economy. That is because incentives to exploit knowledge need to be set against the value of sharing it. Scientific enquiry proceeds as a result of collaboration, the sharing and testing of ideas. We are lucky that James Watson and his collaborator Francis Creek did not work for Genentech or Glaxo-Wellcome because every genetic researcher would now be paying a royalty to use their discovery. Genetics, as most sciences, is built on a bedrock of shared knowledge. The more basic the knowledge, the more inappropriate strong property rights and exclusive private ownership becomes. Privatization ofknowledg- may make it less likely that know-how will be shared. Perkin Elme will publish its research on the, human genome, but only once in three months and the company will reserve at least 300 genes for its own patent programme. Publicly funded researchers share their results more openly and more frequently.

Chakrabarty patent issue shows that:

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

The locale of the phrase “acting on a local scale” as used in the passage above refers to:

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

The idea of a ‘magic’ as used in the passage refers to:

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

According to the author, the several extant strands of strategy literature such as the Industrial Organization approach provide an incomplete landscape because:

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

Which of the following follows from the passage?

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

From the passage which would be an adequate characterization of the author?

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

From its usage in the passage which is the most appropriate meaning of the word ‘wizard’?

DIRECTIONS: Question is based on the passage below.

Enterprises in the throes of discovery have an aura of magic around them. In the world of software this becomes many-splendoured with a certain joie de yivre, quite distinct from what obtains elsewhere: a sense of wonderment, surprise and eventual delight; a coming within reach of power and profits; possibly through a little tweak in technology with a touch of novelty, opening up vistas that had always seemed so near yet so far. In professional management terms, this waving of the wizard’s wand, as it were, is nothing more than an effective recovery of strategy from a technological paradigm. This book is about exploring the journey from rules and norms to solutions, specific solutions prized out of the anoured covers of sector-specific industrial structures and often resourcesdetermined mindsets that Indian software’ firms seems to have mastered. Originality is the fountainhead of such a strategy. It then progresses into the realms of the economics of innovation to give itself a solid foundation from where it becomes possible to retrieve a new language of strategy and of innovation. In this high- natural yet dynamic world, the profit motive, backed by ingenuity, lend support to many of the arguments that evolve in this flow of events. The Indian software experience is a unique demonstration of how this process – the coalescing of the economics of surprise and novelty and the economics of knowledge works. This forms the basics of the strategy theory.

There are several grand theories of even grander traditions: the industrial organization approach, including several kinds of structure-conduct performance assertions and game theoretic models, evolutionary theories and corresponding case’ studies, resource-based approaches or several intermediate variants of competency based ideas that provide us with a rich yet incomplete landscape. This landscape is perhaps oblivious of certain traditions provided by theory; the rich repertoire bequeathed by Marshall and Shackle is a case in point, as they are immensely rewarding. Each important traditions or theory has made global assertions and has proved to be prescriptive or normative. Some authors have looked back at Marshall and a handful at Shackle. Fewer still reconsidered certain rich -traditions of thinking on strategy. This book does not attempt to issue prescriptive or normative guidelines purely because, the global canvass is too large and often beyond the capacity of intelligent comprehension. A strategist acts on a local scale following what Simon has generally observed. Pragmatism emerges as an important guide-and achieving the surprise element is above all. the key to definitive strategy. While this strategy evolves from governance, it also influences governance at every stage. Handicapped by a paucity of resources, the strategist must dovetail the two to increase immensely the scope 12 of governance not only over what the incumbent possesses, but also over a much larger group of firms not under its direct control. This need not necessarily be explained by another grand theory, with globally prescriptive assertions or powers of predictions. Surprise must stand beyond predictability. ‘It must govern to earn windfall profit. Strategy thus cannot be prescribed; it would comprise piecemeal engineering. This is what this book explains.

From its usage in the passage which is NOT the most appropriate meaning of the word ‘ingenuity’?

DIRECTIONS: Questions is based on the passage below.

Think back to 1993. That is when the Centre for Disease Control came up against the hantavirus in the South West. The virus made no sense. It had never appeared in landlocked regions before, and it was killing people by attacking their lungs rather than their kidneys, the virus’s usual target. It seemed to defy explanation. And that’s as close a parallel to a cosmology episode as I can describe. Basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode shattering is that people suffer from the event and, at the same time, lose the means ‘to recover from it. In this sense, a cosmology episode is the opposite of a déjà vu experience. In moments of deja vu, everything suddenly feels familiar, recognizable. By contrast, in a cosmology episode, everything seems strange. A person feels like he has never been here before, has no idea of where he is, and has no idea who can help him. An inevitable stare of panic ensues, and the individual becomes more and more anxious until he finds it almost impossible to make sense of what is happening to him.

The continual merging and divesting and recombining and changing of responsibilities and bosses over the years has created immense cosmological episodes for business people. Even senior executives are unsure of whom they are working for and why. So I think it is fair to say that in the course of their careers, every manager will have a cosmology episode: their worlds will get turned upside down. Having the kind of alertness to weak signals that we see at High Response organizations can help managers avoid this particular psychological crisis. In the case of hantavirus, for example, the puzzle was eventually solved when epidemiologists discovered that recent climatic changes had produced an explosion in the rodent population that carried the virus, which increased the likelihood that humans might be exposed to hantavirus. In cosmological episodes, paying very close attention to details can definitely restore a sense of mastery.

What I have repeatedly noticed is that people who really get into trouble during these crisis are those who try to think everything through before taking action. The problem with defining and refining your hypothesis without testing them is that the world keeps changing, and your analysis gets further and further behind. So you have constantly got to update your thinking while you are sitting there and reflecting. And that is why I am such a proponent of what I call ‘sensemaking’. There are many definitions of ‘sensemaking; for me it is the transformation of raw experience into intelligible world views. It’s a bit like what mapmakers do when they try to make sense of an unfamiliar place by putting it on paper. But the crucial point in cartography is that there is no one best map of a particular place. Similarly sense-making lends itself to multiple conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible. If an organization finds itself unsure of where it’s going, or even where its been, then it ought to be wide open to a lot of interpretations, al 1 of which can lead to possible action. The action and its consequence then begin to edit the list of interpretations down to a more manageable size.

And this is the point I wish to underscore. Action, tempered by reflection is the critical component in recovery from cosmology episodes. Once you start to act, you can flesh out your interpretations and rework them. It’s the action itself that gets you moving. There is a beautiful, example of this. Several years ago a platoon of Hungarian soldiers got lost in the Alps. One of the soldiers found a map in his pocket and the troops used it to get out safely. Subsequently, however, the soldiers discovered that the map they used was in fact the drawing of another mountain range the Pyrennes. In crisis leaders have to act to think.

The hantavirus incident DOES NOT shows that:

DIRECTIONS: Questions is based on the passage below.

Think back to 1993. That is when the Centre for Disease Control came up against the hantavirus in the South West. The virus made no sense. It had never appeared in landlocked regions before, and it was killing people by attacking their lungs rather than their kidneys, the virus’s usual target. It seemed to defy explanation. And that’s as close a parallel to a cosmology episode as I can describe. Basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode shattering is that people suffer from the event and, at the same time, lose the means ‘to recover from it. In this sense, a cosmology episode is the opposite of a déjà vu experience. In moments of deja vu, everything suddenly feels familiar, recognizable. By contrast, in a cosmology episode, everything seems strange. A person feels like he has never been here before, has no idea of where he is, and has no idea who can help him. An inevitable stare of panic ensues, and the individual becomes more and more anxious until he finds it almost impossible to make sense of what is happening to him.

The continual merging and divesting and recombining and changing of responsibilities and bosses over the years has created immense cosmological episodes for business people. Even senior executives are unsure of whom they are working for and why. So I think it is fair to say that in the course of their careers, every manager will have a cosmology episode: their worlds will get turned upside down. Having the kind of alertness to weak signals that we see at High Response organizations can help managers avoid this particular psychological crisis. In the case of hantavirus, for example, the puzzle was eventually solved when epidemiologists discovered that recent climatic changes had produced an explosion in the rodent population that carried the virus, which increased the likelihood that humans might be exposed to hantavirus. In cosmological episodes, paying very close attention to details can definitely restore a sense of mastery.

What I have repeatedly noticed is that people who really get into trouble during these crisis are those who try to think everything through before taking action. The problem with defining and refining your hypothesis without testing them is that the world keeps changing, and your analysis gets further and further behind. So you have constantly got to update your thinking while you are sitting there and reflecting. And that is why I am such a proponent of what I call ‘sensemaking’. There are many definitions of ‘sensemaking; for me it is the transformation of raw experience into intelligible world views. It’s a bit like what mapmakers do when they try to make sense of an unfamiliar place by putting it on paper. But the crucial point in cartography is that there is no one best map of a particular place. Similarly sense-making lends itself to multiple conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible. If an organization finds itself unsure of where it’s going, or even where its been, then it ought to be wide open to a lot of interpretations, al 1 of which can lead to possible action. The action and its consequence then begin to edit the list of interpretations down to a more manageable size.

And this is the point I wish to underscore. Action, tempered by reflection is the critical component in recovery from cosmology episodes. Once you start to act, you can flesh out your interpretations and rework them. It’s the action itself that gets you moving. There is a beautiful, example of this. Several years ago a platoon of Hungarian soldiers got lost in the Alps. One of the soldiers found a map in his pocket and the troops used it to get out safely. Subsequently, however, the soldiers discovered that the map they used was in fact the drawing of another mountain range the Pyrennes. In crisis leaders have to act to think.

The nature of knowledge that most probably seems to be the ambit of the author in the above passage relates to which of the following?

DIRECTIONS: Questions is based on the passage below.

Think back to 1993. That is when the Centre for Disease Control came up against the hantavirus in the South West. The virus made no sense. It had never appeared in landlocked regions before, and it was killing people by attacking their lungs rather than their kidneys, the virus’s usual target. It seemed to defy explanation. And that’s as close a parallel to a cosmology episode as I can describe. Basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode shattering is that people suffer from the event and, at the same time, lose the means ‘to recover from it. In this sense, a cosmology episode is the opposite of a déjà vu experience. In moments of deja vu, everything suddenly feels familiar, recognizable. By contrast, in a cosmology episode, everything seems strange. A person feels like he has never been here before, has no idea of where he is, and has no idea who can help him. An inevitable stare of panic ensues, and the individual becomes more and more anxious until he finds it almost impossible to make sense of what is happening to him.

The continual merging and divesting and recombining and changing of responsibilities and bosses over the years has created immense cosmological episodes for business people. Even senior executives are unsure of whom they are working for and why. So I think it is fair to say that in the course of their careers, every manager will have a cosmology episode: their worlds will get turned upside down. Having the kind of alertness to weak signals that we see at High Response organizations can help managers avoid this particular psychological crisis. In the case of hantavirus, for example, the puzzle was eventually solved when epidemiologists discovered that recent climatic changes had produced an explosion in the rodent population that carried the virus, which increased the likelihood that humans might be exposed to hantavirus. In cosmological episodes, paying very close attention to details can definitely restore a sense of mastery.

What I have repeatedly noticed is that people who really get into trouble during these crisis are those who try to think everything through before taking action. The problem with defining and refining your hypothesis without testing them is that the world keeps changing, and your analysis gets further and further behind. So you have constantly got to update your thinking while you are sitting there and reflecting. And that is why I am such a proponent of what I call ‘sensemaking’. There are many definitions of ‘sensemaking; for me it is the transformation of raw experience into intelligible world views. It’s a bit like what mapmakers do when they try to make sense of an unfamiliar place by putting it on paper. But the crucial point in cartography is that there is no one best map of a particular place. Similarly sense-making lends itself to multiple conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible. If an organization finds itself unsure of where it’s going, or even where its been, then it ought to be wide open to a lot of interpretations, al 1 of which can lead to possible action. The action and its consequence then begin to edit the list of interpretations down to a more manageable size.

And this is the point I wish to underscore. Action, tempered by reflection is the critical component in recovery from cosmology episodes. Once you start to act, you can flesh out your interpretations and rework them. It’s the action itself that gets you moving. There is a beautiful, example of this. Several years ago a platoon of Hungarian soldiers got lost in the Alps. One of the soldiers found a map in his pocket and the troops used it to get out safely. Subsequently, however, the soldiers discovered that the map they used was in fact the drawing of another mountain range the Pyrennes. In crisis leaders have to act to think.

Which of the following is necessarily true sad follows from the argument developed in the passage?

DIRECTIONS: Questions is based on the passage below.

Think back to 1993. That is when the Centre for Disease Control came up against the hantavirus in the South West. The virus made no sense. It had never appeared in landlocked regions before, and it was killing people by attacking their lungs rather than their kidneys, the virus’s usual target. It seemed to defy explanation. And that’s as close a parallel to a cosmology episode as I can describe. Basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode shattering is that people suffer from the event and, at the same time, lose the means ‘to recover from it. In this sense, a cosmology episode is the opposite of a déjà vu experience. In moments of deja vu, everything suddenly feels familiar, recognizable. By contrast, in a cosmology episode, everything seems strange. A person feels like he has never been here before, has no idea of where he is, and has no idea who can help him. An inevitable stare of panic ensues, and the individual becomes more and more anxious until he finds it almost impossible to make sense of what is happening to him.

The continual merging and divesting and recombining and changing of responsibilities and bosses over the years has created immense cosmological episodes for business people. Even senior executives are unsure of whom they are working for and why. So I think it is fair to say that in the course of their careers, every manager will have a cosmology episode: their worlds will get turned upside down. Having the kind of alertness to weak signals that we see at High Response organizations can help managers avoid this particular psychological crisis. In the case of hantavirus, for example, the puzzle was eventually solved when epidemiologists discovered that recent climatic changes had produced an explosion in the rodent population that carried the virus, which increased the likelihood that humans might be exposed to hantavirus. In cosmological episodes, paying very close attention to details can definitely restore a sense of mastery.

What I have repeatedly noticed is that people who really get into trouble during these crisis are those who try to think everything through before taking action. The problem with defining and refining your hypothesis without testing them is that the world keeps changing, and your analysis gets further and further behind. So you have constantly got to update your thinking while you are sitting there and reflecting. And that is why I am such a proponent of what I call ‘sensemaking’. There are many definitions of ‘sensemaking; for me it is the transformation of raw experience into intelligible world views. It’s a bit like what mapmakers do when they try to make sense of an unfamiliar place by putting it on paper. But the crucial point in cartography is that there is no one best map of a particular place. Similarly sense-making lends itself to multiple conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible. If an organization finds itself unsure of where it’s going, or even where its been, then it ought to be wide open to a lot of interpretations, al 1 of which can lead to possible action. The action and its consequence then begin to edit the list of interpretations down to a more manageable size.

And this is the point I wish to underscore. Action, tempered by reflection is the critical component in recovery from cosmology episodes. Once you start to act, you can flesh out your interpretations and rework them. It’s the action itself that gets you moving. There is a beautiful, example of this. Several years ago a platoon of Hungarian soldiers got lost in the Alps. One of the soldiers found a map in his pocket and the troops used it to get out safely. Subsequently, however, the soldiers discovered that the map they used was in fact the drawing of another mountain range the Pyrennes. In crisis leaders have to act to think.

Sense-making as used in the passage refers to skills that primarily depend on:

DIRECTIONS: Questions is based on the passage below.

Think back to 1993. That is when the Centre for Disease Control came up against the hantavirus in the South West. The virus made no sense. It had never appeared in landlocked regions before, and it was killing people by attacking their lungs rather than their kidneys, the virus’s usual target. It seemed to defy explanation. And that’s as close a parallel to a cosmology episode as I can describe. Basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode shattering is that people suffer from the event and, at the same time, lose the means ‘to recover from it. In this sense, a cosmology episode is the opposite of a déjà vu experience. In moments of deja vu, everything suddenly feels familiar, recognizable. By contrast, in a cosmology episode, everything seems strange. A person feels like he has never been here before, has no idea of where he is, and has no idea who can help him. An inevitable stare of panic ensues, and the individual becomes more and more anxious until he finds it almost impossible to make sense of what is happening to him.

The continual merging and divesting and recombining and changing of responsibilities and bosses over the years has created immense cosmological episodes for business people. Even senior executives are unsure of whom they are working for and why. So I think it is fair to say that in the course of their careers, every manager will have a cosmology episode: their worlds will get turned upside down. Having the kind of alertness to weak signals that we see at High Response organizations can help managers avoid this particular psychological crisis. In the case of hantavirus, for example, the puzzle was eventually solved when epidemiologists discovered that recent climatic changes had produced an explosion in the rodent population that carried the virus, which increased the likelihood that humans might be exposed to hantavirus. In cosmological episodes, paying very close attention to details can definitely restore a sense of mastery.

What I have repeatedly noticed is that people who really get into trouble during these crisis are those who try to think everything through before taking action. The problem with defining and refining your hypothesis without testing them is that the world keeps changing, and your analysis gets further and further behind. So you have constantly got to update your thinking while you are sitting there and reflecting. And that is why I am such a proponent of what I call ‘sensemaking’. There are many definitions of ‘sensemaking; for me it is the transformation of raw experience into intelligible world views. It’s a bit like what mapmakers do when they try to make sense of an unfamiliar place by putting it on paper. But the crucial point in cartography is that there is no one best map of a particular place. Similarly sense-making lends itself to multiple conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible. If an organization finds itself unsure of where it’s going, or even where its been, then it ought to be wide open to a lot of interpretations, al 1 of which can lead to possible action. The action and its consequence then begin to edit the list of interpretations down to a more manageable size.

And this is the point I wish to underscore. Action, tempered by reflection is the critical component in recovery from cosmology episodes. Once you start to act, you can flesh out your interpretations and rework them. It’s the action itself that gets you moving. There is a beautiful, example of this. Several years ago a platoon of Hungarian soldiers got lost in the Alps. One of the soldiers found a map in his pocket and the troops used it to get out safely. Subsequently, however, the soldiers discovered that the map they used was in fact the drawing of another mountain range the Pyrennes. In crisis leaders have to act to think.

A deja vu is a feeling where everything seems familiar, in order. Behind it, however, is a tragedy for the appearance of order is illusory. Ignorance about the disorder as well as non-experiencing of it builds the illusion. Such a characterization of deja vu is — its use in the passage. (Choose the apt phrase to fill the gap)

DIRECTIONS: Questions is based on the passage below.

Think back to 1993. That is when the Centre for Disease Control came up against the hantavirus in the South West. The virus made no sense. It had never appeared in landlocked regions before, and it was killing people by attacking their lungs rather than their kidneys, the virus’s usual target. It seemed to defy explanation. And that’s as close a parallel to a cosmology episode as I can describe. Basically a cosmology episode happens when people suddenly feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode shattering is that people suffer from the event and, at the same time, lose the means ‘to recover from it. In this sense, a cosmology episode is the opposite of a déjà vu experience. In moments of deja vu, everything suddenly feels familiar, recognizable. By contrast, in a cosmology episode, everything seems strange. A person feels like he has never been here before, has no idea of where he is, and has no idea who can help him. An inevitable stare of panic ensues, and the individual becomes more and more anxious until he finds it almost impossible to make sense of what is happening to him.

The continual merging and divesting and recombining and changing of responsibilities and bosses over the years has created immense cosmological episodes for business people. Even senior executives are unsure of whom they are working for and why. So I think it is fair to say that in the course of their careers, every manager will have a cosmology episode: their worlds will get turned upside down. Having the kind of alertness to weak signals that we see at High Response organizations can help managers avoid this particular psychological crisis. In the case of hantavirus, for example, the puzzle was eventually solved when epidemiologists discovered that recent climatic changes had produced an explosion in the rodent population that carried the virus, which increased the likelihood that humans might be exposed to hantavirus. In cosmological episodes, paying very close attention to details can definitely restore a sense of mastery.

What I have repeatedly noticed is that people who really get into trouble during these crisis are those who try to think everything through before taking action. The problem with defining and refining your hypothesis without testing them is that the world keeps changing, and your analysis gets further and further behind. So you have constantly got to update your thinking while you are sitting there and reflecting. And that is why I am such a proponent of what I call ‘sensemaking’. There are many definitions of ‘sensemaking; for me it is the transformation of raw experience into intelligible world views. It’s a bit like what mapmakers do when they try to make sense of an unfamiliar place by putting it on paper. But the crucial point in cartography is that there is no one best map of a particular place. Similarly sense-making lends itself to multiple conflicting interpretations, all of which are plausible. If an organization finds itself unsure of where it’s going, or even where its been, then it ought to be wide open to a lot of interpretations, al 1 of which can lead to possible action. The action and its consequence then begin to edit the list of interpretations down to a more manageable size.

And this is the point I wish to underscore. Action, tempered by reflection is the critical component in recovery from cosmology episodes. Once you start to act, you can flesh out your interpretations and rework them. It’s the action itself that gets you moving. There is a beautiful, example of this. Several years ago a platoon of Hungarian soldiers got lost in the Alps. One of the soldiers found a map in his pocket and the troops used it to get out safely. Subsequently, however, the soldiers discovered that the map they used was in fact the drawing of another mountain range the Pyrennes. In crisis leaders have to act to think.

The use of episode in cosmological episode in the passage refers to:

QUESTIONS : Please choose the alternative that CANNOT go into the sentence in the blank space to make a coherent sentence:

The sale of the hotel chain under— resulted in extremely low yield for the promoter.

Please choose the correct alternative that can go into the sentence in the blank space to make a coherent sentence:

The — of the country should take a greater interest in promoting the indigenous works that are rooted in the deep traditions of scholarship across the world.

Please choose the correct alternative that can go into the sentence in the blank space to make a coherent sentence:

——of different categories of problems often leads to design of improper solutions that fail to address the complexities of the problem.

QUESTIONS : are based on the following dialogue between a Japanese (J) manager and an American (A) manager. Based on the dialogue please answer the following questions.

J: Welcome to Japan! We are at your service. May I have the privilege of inviting you to play a round of golf together?

A: That is excellent! Golf has been one of my favorites. Some of my most memorable moments were on the golf course. Let us go. It will be a nice relaxation for me as well – it would take away the jet lag, before we sit to discuss the contract.

J: Surely, thanks for giving me the privilege to play host. I will take you to the best golf club in this part of the world.

A: Is golf very common among Japanese executives?

J: It depends, you know, on how you look at it. Doesn’t everything really depend like that – on how we look at it — even concepts of winning and loosing!

A. That sounds interesting.

J: Is it!

A: Well, there it goes.. Wah!

J: So, you have won ~ you are really good at golf. Why don’t we -play anothe

A: Well.. (long pause).0K.

S: so, you have won again.. tomorrow is a good day for golf- many of my business friends would be here and I will introduce you to them.

A: But, when will we sit for discussing the contract.

J: Well, if you want we can sit right away, we can go down to my office.

A: That is what I think we should do.

J. It is my privilege.

Emotions often get manifested as a ‘mental state’ of a speaker. A dialogue often reveals that. Based on the dialogue. Which of the following best characterizes the emotional state of the American manager?

QUESTIONS : are based on the following dialogue between a Japanese (J) manager and an American (A) manager. Based on the dialogue please answer the following questions.

J: Welcome to Japan! We are at your service. May I have the privilege of inviting you to play a round of golf together?

A: That is excellent! Golf has been one of my favorites. Some of my most memorable moments were on the golf course. Let us go. It will be a nice relaxation for me as well – it would take away the jet lag, before we sit to discuss the contract.

J: Surely, thanks for giving me the privilege to play host. I will take you to the best golf club in this part of the world.

A: Is golf very common among Japanese executives?

J: It depends, you know, on how you look at it. Doesn’t everything really depend like that – on how we look at it — even concepts of winning and loosing!

A. That sounds interesting.

J: Is it!

A: Well, there it goes.. Wah!

J: So, you have won ~ you are really good at golf. Why don’t we -play anothe

A: Well.. (long pause).0K.

S: so, you have won again.. tomorrow is a good day for golf- many of my business friends would be here and I will introduce you to them.

A: But, when will we sit for discussing the contract.

J: Well, if you want we can sit right away, we can go down to my office.

A: That is what I think we should do.

J. It is my privilege.

The dialogue reveals a swing in the mood of the American manager from __ to _ . Which of the following pairs of words (in the same order) best completes the sentence coherently?

Seven instructors – J, K, L, M, N, P and Q – teach management courses at a premier institute in east India. Each instructor teaches during exactly one term: the first term, the second term, or the third term. The following conditions apply:

K teaches during the third term.
L and M teach during the same term.
Q teaches during either the first term or the second term.
Exactly twice as many instructors teach during the third term as teach during the first
term. N and Q teach during different terms.
J and P teach during different terms.

Which one of the following could be an accurate matching of instructors to terms?

Seven instructors – J, K, L, M, N, P and Q – teach management courses at a premier institute in east India. Each instructor teaches during exactly one term: the first term, the second term, or the third term. The following conditions apply:

K teaches during the third term.
L and M teach during the same term.
Q teaches during either the first term or the second term.
Exactly twice as many instructors teach during the third term as teach during the first
term. N and Q teach during different terms.
J and P teach during different terms.

Which one of the following cannot be true?

Seven instructors – J, K, L, M, N, P and Q – teach management courses at a premier institute in east India. Each instructor teaches during exactly one term: the first term, the second term, or the third term. The following conditions apply:

K teaches during the third term.
L and M teach during the same term.
Q teaches during either the first term or the second term.
Exactly twice as many instructors teach during the third term as teach during the first
term. N and Q teach during different terms.
J and P teach during different terms.

If exactly one instructor teaches during the second term, which one of the following must be true?

Seven instructors – J, K, L, M, N, P and Q – teach management courses at a premier institute in east India. Each instructor teaches during exactly one term: the first term, the second term, or the third term. The following conditions apply:

K teaches during the third term.
L and M teach during the same term.
Q teaches during either the first term or the second term.
Exactly twice as many instructors teach during the third term as teach during the first
term. N and Q teach during different terms.
J and P teach during different terms.

Each of the following contains a list of instructors who can all teach during the same term EXCEPT:

Seven instructors – J, K, L, M, N, P and Q – teach management courses at a premier institute in east India. Each instructor teaches during exactly one term: the first term, the second term, or the third term. The following conditions apply:

K teaches during the third term.
L and M teach during the same term.
Q teaches during either the first term or the second term.
Exactly twice as many instructors teach during the third term as teach during the first
term. N and Q teach during different terms.
J and P teach during different terms.

If more instructors teach during the second term than teach during the first term, then which one of the following instructors must teach during the second term?

Sourav’s Fish Salon serves a special Friday night seafood banquet consisting of seven courses – hilsa, pomfret, Indian shrimp, rahu, kingfish, lobster, and bhetki. Diners are free to select the order of the seven courses, according to the following conditions:

The kingfish is served sometime after rahu. Exactly one course should be served between the pomfret and the Indian shrimp.
The lobster is served some time before the pomfret.
The kingfish is served either fifth or sixth. The hilsa is served second.

Which one of the following sequences would make for an acceptable banquet?

Sourav’s Fish Salon serves a special Friday night seafood banquet consisting of seven courses – hilsa, pomfret, Indian shrimp, rahu, kingfish, lobster, and bhetki. Diners are free to select the order of the seven courses, according to the following conditions:

The kingfish is served sometime after rahu. Exactly one course should be served between the pomfret and the Indian shrimp.
The lobster is served some time before the pomfret.
The kingfish is served either fifth or sixth. The hilsa is served second.

If kingfish is the fifth course served, then which one of the following MUST BE true?

Sourav’s Fish Salon serves a special Friday night seafood banquet consisting of seven courses – hilsa, pomfret, Indian shrimp, rahu, kingfish, lobster, and bhetki. Diners are free to select the order of the seven courses, according to the following conditions:

The kingfish is served sometime after rahu. Exactly one course should be served between the pomfret and the Indian shrimp.
The lobster is served some time before the pomfret.
The kingfish is served either fifth or sixth. The hilsa is served second.
Which one of the following would make it possible to determine the EXACT ordering of the courses?

Sourav’s Fish Salon serves a special Friday night seafood banquet consisting of seven courses – hilsa, pomfret, Indian shrimp, rahu, kingfish, lobster, and bhetki. Diners are free to select the order of the seven courses, according to the following conditions:

The kingfish is served sometime after rahu. Exactly one course should be served between the pomfret and the Indian shrimp.
The lobster is served some time before the pomfret.
The kingfish is served either fifth or sixth. The hilsa is served second.

If kingfish is the sixth course served, then which one of the following CANNOT be true?

Sourav’s Fish Salon serves a special Friday night seafood banquet consisting of seven courses – hilsa, pomfret, Indian shrimp, rahu, kingfish, lobster, and bhetki. Diners are free to select the order of the seven courses, according to the following conditions:

The kingfish is served sometime after rahu. Exactly one course should be served between the pomfret and the Indian shrimp.
The lobster is served some time before the pomfret.
The kingfish is served either fifth or sixth. The hilsa is served second.

If Bhetki is the third course served, which one of the following MUST BE true?

During one week, a human resource director conducts five interviews for a new job, one interview per day, Monday through Friday. There are six candidates for the job – Ram, Shyam, Trilochan, Usha, Veena, and Kishore. No more than two candidates are interviewed more than once. Neither Shyam nor Usha nor Veena is interviewed more than once, and no other candidate is interviewed more than twice. The schedule of interviews is subject to the following conditions:

If Trilochan is interviewed, then Trilochan must be interviewed on both Monday and Friday.
If Shyam is interviewed, then Usha is also interviewed, with Shyam’s interview taking place earlier than Usha’s interview.

If Ram is interviewed twice, then Ram’s second interview takes place exactly two days after Ram’s first interview.
If Veena is interviewed, then Kishore is interviewed twice, with Veena’s interview taking place after Kishore’s first interview and before Kishore’s second interview.

If Usha is interviewed, then Ram is also interviewed, with Usha’s interview taking place on a day either immediately before or immediately after a day on which Ram is interviewed.

Which of the following could be a complete and accurate list of candidates the human resources director interviews and the days on which those interviews take place?

During one week, a human resource director conducts five interviews for a new job, one interview per day, Monday through Friday. There are six candidates for the job – Ram, Shyam, Trilochan, Usha, Veena, and Kishore. No more than two candidates are interviewed more than once. Neither Shyam nor Usha nor Veena is interviewed more than once, and no other candidate is interviewed more than twice. The schedule of interviews is subject to the following conditions:

If Trilochan is interviewed, then Trilochan must be interviewed on both Monday and Friday.
If Shyam is interviewed, then Usha is also interviewed, with Shyam’s interview taking place earlier than Usha’s interview.

If Ram is interviewed twice, then Ram’s second interview takes place exactly two days after Ram’s first interview.
If Veena is interviewed, then Kishore is interviewed twice, with Veena’s interview taking place after Kishore’s first interview and before Kishore’s second interview.

If Usha is interviewed, then Ram is also interviewed, with Usha’s interview taking place on a day either immediately before or immediately after a day on which Ram is interviewed.

If Veena is interviewed on Tuesday, then which one of the following MUST BE true?

During one week, a human resource director conducts five interviews for a new job, one interview per day, Monday through Friday. There are six candidates for the job – Ram, Shyam, Trilochan, Usha, Veena, and Kishore. No more than two candidates are interviewed more than once. Neither Shyam nor Usha nor Veena is interviewed more than once, and no other candidate is interviewed more than twice. The schedule of interviews is subject to the following conditions:

If Trilochan is interviewed, then Trilochan must be interviewed on both Monday and Friday.
If Shyam is interviewed, then Usha is also interviewed, with Shyam’s interview taking place earlier than Usha’s interview.

If Ram is interviewed twice, then Ram’s second interview takes place exactly two days after Ram’s first interview.
If Veena is interviewed, then Kishore is interviewed twice, with Veena’s interview taking place after Kishore’s first interview and before Kishore’s second interview.

If Usha is interviewed, then Ram is also interviewed, with Usha’s interview taking place on a day either immediately before or immediately after a day on which Ram is interviewed.

If Kishore is not interviewed, then which one of the following MUST BE true?

During one week, a human resource director conducts five interviews for a new job, one interview per day, Monday through Friday. There are six candidates for the job – Ram, Shyam, Trilochan, Usha, Veena, and Kishore. No more than two candidates are interviewed more than once. Neither Shyam nor Usha nor Veena is interviewed more than once, and no other candidate is interviewed more than twice. The schedule of interviews is subject to the following conditions:

If Trilochan is interviewed, then Trilochan must be interviewed on both Monday and Friday.
If Shyam is interviewed, then Usha is also interviewed, with Shyam’s interview taking place earlier than Usha’s interview.

If Ram is interviewed twice, then Ram’s second interview takes place exactly two days after Ram’s first interview.
If Veena is interviewed, then Kishore is interviewed twice, with Veena’s interview taking place after Kishore’s first interview and before Kishore’s second interview.

If Usha is interviewed, then Ram is also interviewed, with Usha’s interview taking place on a day either immediately before or immediately after a day on which Ram is interviewed.

If Shyam is interviewed, then which one of the following could be true?

During one week, a human resource director conducts five interviews for a new job, one interview per day, Monday through Friday. There are six candidates for the job – Ram, Shyam, Trilochan, Usha, Veena, and Kishore. No more than two candidates are interviewed more than once. Neither Shyam nor Usha nor Veena is interviewed more than once, and no other candidate is interviewed more than twice. The schedule of interviews is subject to the following conditions:

If Trilochan is interviewed, then Trilochan must be interviewed on both Monday and Friday.
If Shyam is interviewed, then Usha is also interviewed, with Shyam’s interview taking place earlier than Usha’s interview.

If Ram is interviewed twice, then Ram’s second interview takes place exactly two days after Ram’s first interview.
If Veena is interviewed, then Kishore is interviewed twice, with Veena’s interview taking place after Kishore’s first interview and before Kishore’s second interview.

If Usha is interviewed, then Ram is also interviewed, with Usha’s interview taking place on a day either immediately before or immediately after a day on which Ram is interviewed.

If neither Usha nor Trilochan is interviewed, then each of the following MUST BE true EXCEPT:

During one week, a human resource director conducts five interviews for a new job, one interview per day, Monday through Friday. There are six candidates for the job – Ram, Shyam, Trilochan, Usha, Veena, and Kishore. No more than two candidates are interviewed more than once. Neither Shyam nor Usha nor Veena is interviewed more than once, and no other candidate is interviewed more than twice. The schedule of interviews is subject to the following conditions:

If Trilochan is interviewed, then Trilochan must be interviewed on both Monday and Friday.
If Shyam is interviewed, then Usha is also interviewed, with Shyam’s interview taking place earlier than Usha’s interview.

If Ram is interviewed twice, then Ram’s second interview takes place exactly two days after Ram’s first interview.
If Veena is interviewed, then Kishore is interviewed twice, with Veena’s interview taking place after Kishore’s first interview and before Kishore’s second interview.

If Usha is interviewed, then Ram is also interviewed, with Usha’s interview taking place on a day either immediately before or immediately after a day on which Ram is interviewed.
complete and accurate list of the days on which Kishore could be interviewed?

If both Usha and Veena are interviewed, then which one of the following is a

Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer. K.C. Das is preparing special puja sweet packages. Different sweet packages are numbered 1 through 5 from left to right, and K.C. Das is filling them with different sweets. Each package will contain at least one, but not more than two of the following types of sweets: Gulabjamun, Kaju barfi, Petha, Rasgulla, Sohan halwa, and Cham cham. Each type of sweet will be placed in at least one sweet package. These sweets will be packed either in a bucket, or a carton or a tin. K.C. Das fills the packages according to the following conditions:

At least two packages must contain Rasgulla. Exactly two packages must contain Kaju barfi, and these packages cannot be adjacent to each -other. Both packages that contain Kaju barfi must be to the left of any packages that contain Gutabjamun.

Package 2, 3, and 4 cannot contain Sohan halwa:
Any package that contains Rasgulla must be packed in a carton.
Any package that contains, Kaju barfi must be packed in a bucket.
Package 2 is packed in a carton.

Which one of the following CANNOT be true?

Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer. K.C. Das is preparing special puja sweet packages. Different sweet packages are numbered 1 through 5 from left to right, and K.C. Das is filling them with different sweets. Each package will contain at least one, but not more than two of the following types of sweets: Gulabjamun, Kaju barfi, Petha, Rasgulla, Sohan halwa, and Cham cham. Each type of sweet will be placed in at least one sweet package. These sweets will be packed either in a bucket, or a carton or a tin. K.C. Das fills the packages according to the following conditions:

At least two packages must contain Rasgulla. Exactly two packages must contain Kaju barfi, and these packages cannot be adjacent to each -other. Both packages that contain Kaju barfi must be to the left of any packages that contain Gutabjamun.

Package 2, 3, and 4 cannot contain Sohan halwa:
Any package that contains Rasgulla must be packed in a carton.
Any package that contains, Kaju barfi must be packed in a bucket.
Package 2 is packed in a carton.

If a package containing sweets and packed in a tin is not adjacent to a package packed in a bucket, then which one of the following MUST be true?

Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer. K.C. Das is preparing special puja sweet packages. Different sweet packages are numbered 1 through 5 from left to right, and K.C. Das is filling them with different sweets. Each package will contain at least one, but not more than two of the following types of sweets: Gulabjamun, Kaju barfi, Petha, Rasgulla, Sohan halwa, and Cham cham. Each type of sweet will be placed in at least one sweet package. These sweets will be packed either in a bucket, or a carton or a tin. K.C. Das fills the packages according to the following conditions:

At least two packages must contain Rasgulla. Exactly two packages must contain Kaju barfi, and these packages cannot be adjacent to each -other. Both packages that contain Kaju barfi must be to the left of any packages that contain Gutabjamun.

Package 2, 3, and 4 cannot contain Sohan halwa:
Any package that contains Rasgulla must be packed in a carton.
Any package that contains, Kaju barfi must be packed in a bucket.
Package 2 is packed in a carton.

If Rasgulla are contained in the maximum number of packages, which one of the FOLLOWING must be troe?

Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer. K.C. Das is preparing special puja sweet packages. Different sweet packages are numbered 1 through 5 from left to right, and K.C. Das is filling them with different sweets. Each package will contain at least one, but not more than two of the following types of sweets: Gulabjamun, Kaju barfi, Petha, Rasgulla, Sohan halwa, and Cham cham. Each type of sweet will be placed in at least one sweet package. These sweets will be packed either in a bucket, or a carton or a tin. K.C. Das fills the packages according to the following conditions:

At least two packages must contain Rasgulla. Exactly two packages must contain Kaju barfi, and these packages cannot be adjacent to each -other. Both packages that contain Kaju barfi must be to the left of any packages that contain Gutabjamun.

Package 2, 3, and 4 cannot contain Sohan halwa:
Any package that contains Rasgulla must be packed in a carton.
Any package that contains, Kaju barfi must be packed in a bucket.
Package 2 is packed in a carton.

If package 4 contains Petha and Cham cham, which one of the following pairs of sweets must be contained in the same package as each other?

Analyze the following statements and give an appropriate answer. K.C. Das is preparing special puja sweet packages. Different sweet packages are numbered 1 through 5 from left to right, and K.C. Das is filling them with different sweets. Each package will contain at least one, but not more than two of the following types of sweets: Gulabjamun, Kaju barfi, Petha, Rasgulla, Sohan halwa, and Cham cham. Each type of sweet will be placed in at least one sweet package. These sweets will be packed either in a bucket, or a carton or a tin. K.C. Das fills the packages according to the following conditions:

At least two packages must contain Rasgulla. Exactly two packages must contain Kaju barfi, and these packages cannot be adjacent to each -other. Both packages that contain Kaju barfi must be to the left of any packages that contain Gutabjamun.

Package 2, 3, and 4 cannot contain Sohan halwa:
Any package that contains Rasgulla must be packed in a carton.
Any package that contains, Kaju barfi must be packed in a bucket.
Package 2 is packed in a carton.

If package 3 is packed in a tin, which one of the FOLLOWING COULD be false?

Questions is based on the following:
Seven persons A, B, C, D, E, F and G contested in a game show that had total prize money ofRsl4 lakhs. Every contestant won some prize money and the highest prize money was Rs. 3.5 lakhs. No two contestants won the same amount of prize money. For every contestant the difference with the next highest and the next lowest winner is the same won Rs.21akhs
B won more money than A
The difference of prize money between B and A was the minimum.
The difference of prize money between D and F was not the least.
There was at least one person whose prize money was between that of E and G

Which of the following is a proper list of persons in increasing order of prize money won?

Questions is based on the following:
Seven persons A, B, C, D, E, F and G contested in a game show that had total prize money ofRsl4 lakhs. Every contestant won some prize money and the highest prize money was Rs. 3.5 lakhs. No two contestants won the same amount of prize money. For every contestant the difference with the next highest and the next lowest winner is the same won Rs.21akhs
B won more money than A
The difference of prize money between B and A was the minimum.
The difference of prize money between D and F was not the least.
There was at least one person whose prize money was between that of E and G

If D won more than E, and Band G together won Rs 3.5 lakhs, which of the following MUST be true?

Questions is based on the following:
Seven persons A, B, C, D, E, F and G contested in a game show that had total prize money ofRsl4 lakhs. Every contestant won some prize money and the highest prize money was Rs. 3.5 lakhs. No two contestants won the same amount of prize money. For every contestant the difference with the next highest and the next lowest winner is the same won Rs.21akhs
B won more money than A
The difference of prize money between B and A was the minimum.
The difference of prize money between D and F was not the least.
There was at least one person whose prize money was between that of E and G

If the difference of prize money between A and C is the minimum, which of the following pairs MUST NOT have won prize money that differs by the minimal amount?

Questions is based on the following:
Seven persons A, B, C, D, E, F and G contested in a game show that had total prize money ofRsl4 lakhs. Every contestant won some prize money and the highest prize money was Rs. 3.5 lakhs. No two contestants won the same amount of prize money. For every contestant the difference with the next highest and the next lowest winner is the same won Rs.21akhs
B won more money than A
The difference of prize money between B and A was the minimum.
The difference of prize money between D and F was not the least.
There was at least one person whose prize money was between that of E and G

If the total money won by A and D is equal to that of G, and the difference between E and D is at least 1 lakh, then which of the following MUST be TRUE?