DIRECTIONS for questions 1&2: Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Passage I: Neuroscience has, as its primary resource, technology that captures images of processes within the living brain. Fear lights up a certain area, therefore fear is a function of that area, which developed for the purposes of maintaining homeostasis. It prepares the organism to fight or flee. Well and good. But fear is rarely without context. People can be terrified of spiders, dentists, the Last Judgment, germs, the need to speak in public, the number 13, extraterrestrials, mathematics, hoodies, the discovery of a fraud in their past. All of these fears are the creatures of circumstance, of the history and state of health of a specific brain. They identify threat, interpreting an environment in highly individual terms. They, not threat in the abstract, trigger alarm, and they are the products of parts of the brain that do not light up under technological scrutiny and would elude interpretation if they did. If they are not taken into account, the mere evidence of an excitation has little descriptive and no predictive value. A fearful person might take a pill, faint, or commit mayhem. The assumptions behind the notion that the nature of fear and the impulses it triggers could be made legible or generalizable for the purposes of imaging would have to exclude complexity—the factor that introduces individuality with all its attendant mysteries. In fairness, however, the neuroscientists seem well content with the technology they have, extrapolating boldly from the data it yields. Refinements that introduced complication might not be welcome.
This all appears to be a straightforward instance of scientists taking as the whole of reality that part of it their methods can report. These methods are as much a matter of vocabulary as of technology, though the two interact and reinforce each other. Here is an example. Neuroscientists seem predisposed to the conclusion that there is no “self.” This would account for indifference to the modifying effects of individual history and experience, and to the quirks of the organism that arise from heredity, environment, interactions within the soma as a whole, and so on. What can the word “self” mean to those who wish to deny its reality? It can only signify an illusion we all participate in, as individuals, societies, and civilizations. So it must also be an important function of the brain, the brain aware of itself as it is modified by the infinite particulars of circumstance, that is, as it is not like others. But this would mean the self is not an illusion at all but a product of the mind at other work than the neuroscientists are inclined to acknowledge. Of course, the physical brain is subject to every sort of impairment, the areas that light up during imaging as surely as any others. Impairments that seem to compromise the sense of self may be taken to demonstrate that it is rooted in the physical brain, that same fleshly monument to provident evolution the neuroscientists admire, selectively. If the physical disruption of the sense of self is taken to prove that the self is an experience created by the physical brain, then there are no better grounds to call its existence into question than there would be to question equilibrium or depth perception. Obviously, there is a conceptual problem here—equilibrium does not “exist” except in the moment-to- moment orientation of an organism to its environment. Say as much of the self, mutatis mutandis, and it is granted the same kind of reality.
A) Equilibrium B) symmetry C) pressure D) emotion
Passage II: I teach an undergraduate class on Nietzsche, a philosopher who has a reputation for captivating young minds. After one class, a student came to see me. There was something bothering her. “Is it OK to be changed by reading a philosopher?” she asked. “I mean, do you get inspired by Nietzsche—do you use him in your life?” You have to be careful about questions like this, and not only because the number of murderers claiming Nietzsche as their inspiration is higher than I would like. What the student usually means is: “Nietzsche mocks careful scholarship: Can I, in his spirit, write my paper however the hell I want and still get a good grade?” In this case, though, the student knew perfectly well how to write a scholarly paper. She wanted to do something else too: be Nietzschean!
Here’s my line, for what it’s worth: you can do whatever you want in life— take inspiration from The Smurfs for all I care—but I’m here to teach you how to read a philosopher, slowly and carefully, which is not an easy thing to do. If you want to be inspired by Nietzsche, you have to read him precisely, to make sure that it is Nietzsche who inspires you—not a preconception or a misappropriation or a scholarly reading, mine or anybody else’s, which is vulnerable to the interpreter’s peculiar agenda or the fashions of the hour. And what if, when you read him carefully, you find that he actually wrote things you think are false, wrong-headed, racist or sexist? It’s not a case of inspiration or careful scholarship, I say: choose both.
Notice: I am implying that if you get inspired by misreading someone, or by swallowing their false claims, then you’re doing something you shouldn’t be doing. Of course, you might get inspired to do great things by ideas that are wrong or questionable. (Nietzsche could have told you that.) Notice too: I work in an intellectual environment in which young people think that applying philosophy to their own lives is something unusual. It is an oft-repeated idea that philosophy in its modern, professional form has become detached from what was, in ancient times, a founding ideal: to teach people how to live well. In today’s university, the emphasis is on the search for the truth about whichever subject lies at hand, regardless of how, if at all, such truths change what you do when you leave the classroom. So while students often report finding philosophy “therapeutic,” they do so in passing, somewhat guiltily. Perhaps they worry that the moment I hear they’re an emotional Nietzsche-user rather than a cold Nietzsche-scrutinizer my opinion of them will fall. Perhaps, against my better judgment, and in spite of being a user myself, they are right.
Professional philosophers don’t present themselves as particularly wise or as people to turn to for advice about how to live. And why should we? That’s not what we were trained for when we were students and it’s not what we promise in the prospectus. I remember, as a student, asking a philosophy professor something about what I should do the following year— whether I should continue with my studies or move on to something else. “That’s not a philosophy question,” she said. “That’s a life question! I can’t answer that.” I know what she meant, now more than ever, having faced such questions myself: you can’t expect knowledge of philosophy to guide you through the big decisions about what to do with your life. But I can’t help wondering whether something has gone astray when “philosophy” questions and “life” questions are so easy to pull apart.
A) I & II B) II & III C) I & III D) All of the above
Statement I can be derived from the lines: It’s not a case of inspiration or careful scholarship, I say: choose both.
Statement II is incorrectly derived from the lines: You have to be careful about questions like this, and not only because the number of murderers claiming Nietzsche as their inspiration is higher than I would like.
Statement III is derived from the lines: Nietzsche who inspires you—not a preconception or a misappropriation or a scholarly reading, mine or anybody else’s, which is vulnerable to the interpreter’s peculiar agenda or the fashions of the hour.
DIRECTIONS for the question 3, 4 & 5: Choose the most logical order of sentences from among the given choices to construct a coherent paragraph.
A) DACB B) ABCD C) CADB D) DBCA
A) CBEAB B) CDEAB C) ABCDE D) ABDCE
A) ECBAD B) CEBDA C) CAEBD D) BDECA
DIRECTIONS for the question 6 & 7: The question consists of a pair of words bearing a certain relationship. From amongst the alternatives, pick up the pair that best illustrates a similar relationship.
A) Morality: Truthfulness B) Character: Values C) Concentration: Students D) Homage: Martyrs
A) Beggar: Donation B) Accident: Hospital C) Teacher: Education D) Refugee: Shelter
DIRECTIONS for the question 8 : Given below are sentences that form a paragraph, identify the sentence(s) or part(s) that is/are incorrect in terms of grammar and usage (including spelling, punctuation and logical consistency). Then, choose the most appropriate option.
A) A, B and C B) B, C and D C) A, C and D D) All of the above
DIRECTIONS for the question 9 & 10: Choose the word from the options which is most Similar in meaning to the given word.
A) Skilled Performer B) Amateur C) Good Person D) Rookie
A) Peace B) Luck C) Joy D) Misfortune