- These tests are a check for your learning and are meant to serve as tools for assessment.
- The test is designed to check your current understanding of the language and whether you are able to logically infer the relationships between different parts of the paragraph.
- Directions for individual questions: The questions in this section are based on the reasoning contained in brief statements or passages. For some questions, more than one of the choices could conceivably answer the question. However, you are to choose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question.
Critical Reasoning: Test-3
Congratulations - you have completed Critical Reasoning: Test-3.
You scored %%SCORE%% out of %%TOTAL%%.
You correct answer percentage: %%PERCENTAGE%% .
Your performance has been rated as %%RATING%%
Your answers are highlighted below.
India is the only country in the world where, in the States which are governed by the Communist party, human rights are fully respected — and that is only because the Bill of Rights is firmly entrenched in our national Constitution. We can proudly say that our Constitution gave us a flying start and equipped us adequately to meet the challenges of the future. Which of the following conclusions is not implied by the passage above?
Communist states often do not respect human rights
Communist states never respect human rights
The entrenchment of the Bill of Rights is what ensures that even Communist-governed states respect human rights
The Indian Constitution prepared India for the challenges of independence
Question 1 Explanation:
The correct answer is option B as in paragraph itself we have an example where a communist state respects human rights. This means that the option with the ‘never’ in it cannot be correct
India is the only country in the world where, in the States which are governed by the Communist party, human rights are fully respected — and that is only because the Bill of Rights is firmly entrenched in our national Constitution. We can proudly say that our Constitution gave us a flying start and equipped us adequately to meet the challenges of the future. Which of the following, if true, would weaken the above argument?
Communist governments are motivated to respect human rights out of Communist principles, not Constitutional ones.
The Constitution of India is itself sympathetic to Communist principles
Human rights need to be enforceable to have any meaning
Countries without a strong culture of human rights are prone to oppressing minorities
Question 2 Explanation:
The easy to identify answer in this case is option A. If option A is correct, the whole basis of the argument is ripped apart and all Communist States would respect human rights.
'Poverty is ... more restrictive and limiting than anything else. If poverty and low standards continue then democracy, for all its fine institutions and ideals, ceases to be a liberating force. It must therefore aim continuously at the eradication of poverty and its companion unemployment. In other words, political democracy is not enough. It must develop into economic democracy also' Which of the following is not implied by the above passage?
A. Democracy has ceased to be a liberating force
B. Democracies should aim to eliminate poverty
C. Poverty and unemployment go hand in hand
D. Political democracy should develop into economic democracy
Question 3 Explanation:
Option A is clearly not implied in the paragraph. The paragraph does talk about how it should democracy encompasses economic liberation as well but it never labels democracy as a force which has ceased to have any effect.
'Poverty is ... more restrictive and limiting than anything else. If poverty and low standards continue then democracy, for all its fine institutions and ideals, ceases to be a liberating force. It must therefore aim continuously at the eradication of poverty and its companion unemployment. In other words, political democracy is not enough. It must develop into economic democracy also' Which of the following views, if true, would weaken the argument of the above passage?
Political democracy is inseparable from economic democracy
Poverty does not in fact restrict freedom
Democracy flourishes most in poor societies
Economic democracy is a necessary condition for the elimination of unemployment
Question 4 Explanation:
The central aspect of the paragraph is how poverty restricts freedom, which in turn then limits the powers of democracy. If this was not true, and poverty did not shackle, then democracy could function in a poor society as well. This makes option B the best choice.
'China has a higher literacy rate than India. This is due to the greater efficiency of the Communist system. Efficiency is sorely lacking in India's democratic system. Therefore, democracy is the biggest obstacle to India's achieving 100% literacy.' Which of the following, if true, would directly undermine the above argument? A. Inefficiency is equally a problem in democracies and Communist countries. B. Communist systems do not respect human rights. C. Freedom is more important than literacy. D. China is slowly making the transition to democracy.
Question 5 Explanation:
Options B and C are rejected as they make no sense in the given context. If the inefficiency were the same in both systems, it would mean that there has to be some other reason for China’s success. This helps us negate the conclusion easily. Hence, option A is the correct answer.
'In 399 BC, a jury in Athens condemned Socrates to death for impiety and corrupting the morals of the youth. Socrates' friends offered to help him escape, but Socrates refused. Socrates argued that the fact that he had lived in Athens for so many years meant that he had committed himself to obeying its laws. It would therefore be wrong for him to break those very laws he was implicitly committed to obeying.' Which one of the following claims constitutes the most plausible challenge to Socrates' argument?
Long residence only commits someone to obeying just laws and Socrates was convicted under an unjust law
Long residence by itself does not imply a commitment to obeying laws since one never made any explicit commitment
Obedience to the law is not always required
There is no point in escaping from prison since one will anyway be captured again
Question 6 Explanation:
Option A will form the most plausible counter argument in this case. It helps us establish how Socrates was held unjustly and how his breaking the law would not constitute a violation of law
'Soft drinks have been shown by scientists to be bad for the teeth. Therefore, the government would be justified in banning all soft drinks from the Indian market.' Assuming that the factual claim in the above argument is true, what else needs to be assumed for the conclusion to follow?
The government is justified in banning anything that is bad for dental health
Soft drinks are also bad for gastric health
Dental hygiene is a matter of great concern
No further assumptions are necessary
Question 7 Explanation:
Clearly, option A is the assumption required by the argument. It co-relates the fact given in the paragraph with the conclusion reached.
'In order to be eligible for election to the Lok Sabha, a person must be at least 25 years of age. Moreover, one must not be bankrupt. Therefore, Jatinder Singh, over 50 years of age and without any criminal convictions, cannot be the Speaker of the Lok Sabha since he has just filed - for bankruptcy.' Which of the following must be assumed for the conclusion to follow logically?
Anyone over 50 years of ago is eligible to be Speaker of the Lok Sabha as long as he or she has no criminal convictions.
People without criminal convictions cannot be elected to the Lok Sabha even if they are not bankrupt
Only those eligible for election to the Lok Sabha are eligible to be the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
There is no minimum age requirement for the Speaker of the Lok Sabha
Question 8 Explanation:
Option C is the assumption required in this case. It co-relates statement 1 with the second one, and provides a reason why Jatinder Singh cannot be the speaker
'The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius proposed the following thought experiment. If the universe has a boundary, we can throw a spear at this boundary. If the spear flies through, then it is not a boundary. If the spear bounces back, there must something beyond this boundary that is itself in space, which means it is not a boundary at all. Either way, it turns out that the universe has no boundary.' How best can the form of Lucretius' argument for the infinity of space be described?
Lucretius shows that positing finite space leads to a contradiction
Lucretius shows that finite space is inconsistent with physics
Lucretius shows that finite space is inconsistent with mathematics
Lucretius shows that finite space is inconceivable
Question 9 Explanation:
The experiment does one simple thing: it highlights a paradox, a contradiction that cannot be solved
'Utilitarians believe that the right action is that which produces the most happiness.' Which of the following claims is incompatible with the utilitarian view?
The right thing to do is to make the consequences of our actions as good as possible
The right thing to do is to do our duty, whatever the consequences
The right thing to do is to act on a rule which, if followed widely, produces the most happiness
The right thing to do is to act from motivations which produce the most happiness
Question 10 Explanation:
Option B is inconsistent as it does not clarify what will be the end consequence, happy or sad
Once you are finished, click the button below. Any items you have not completed will be marked incorrect.
There are 10 questions to complete.