Schlumberger Sample Verbal Questions

Schlumberger’s aptitude test is a part of its recruitment process. The main objective of this test is to assess the mental capabilities and skills of a candidate such as analytical ability, problem solving and decision making skills, comprehension skills, etc. Schlumberger’s aptitude questions revolve around three broad areas – quantitative aptitude, verbal ability and logical reasoning.
In this article, we are providing certain sample verbal aptitude questions asked by Schlumberger:

DIRECTIONS for the question 1 & 2 : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Passage 1
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 that 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 work other 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.

Q. 1 A lament of the author of the passage
  1. neuroscientists are limited to a very narrow framework when it comes to analyzing broad human emotions such as fear
  2. neuroscientists will never be able to see the role of self in the creation of human emotions
  3. neuroscientists have stopped in their tracks and now are only bound to scientific studies and models based on data
  4. neuroscientists are happy to stay within the rigid contours of data and deny the role and relation of an individual with respect to fear
Correct Answer:- D
Explanation:-
The answer can be derived from the lines: 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.
Along with the lines, you need to keep the central idea of the passage in mind, wherein the author is highlighting how
neuroscientists continue to stick to data driven approach and do not recognize individuals and their unique identities while dealing with topics such as fear.
Option 1 is rejected as it is beyond the scope of the passage. The passage mainly talks about fear and is not about broad human emotions.
Option 2 is rejected as it a prediction of the future that we cannot make in the given context.
Option 3 is a judgment that cannot be concluded from the given context. It also misses out on main points of the passage - fear and individuality
Q. 2 According to the author of the passage:
  1. Neuroscientists are inclined to believe that there is no "self."
  2. Neuroscientists are not able to map all impairments of the human mind.
  3. Generalizing human behaviour when it comes to fear means that we have difficulty explaining the variety of human responses to similar situations and stimuli.

A) I & II         B) II & III               C) I & III                                D) All of the above

Correct Answer:- C
Explanation:-
Statement I can be derived from the lines: Neuroscientists seem predisposed to the conclusion that there is no 'self.' Statement II is not related to the passage and is illogical. It simply uses a word in the second paragraph to confuse you.
Statement III is effectively the summary for the first paragraph especially the lines "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.    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." Refinements here referring to "variety of human responses"

DIRECTIONS for the question 3 & 4: Identify the meaning of the idiom/ phrase as used in the sentence.

Q. 3 Stop this beating around the bush, come to the main task.
  1. avoiding the main topic
  2. being too generous
  3. neglecting his job
  4. making money unfairly
Correct Answer:- A
Explanation:-
“Beating around the bush” is to avoid the main topic.
Q. 4 The die is cast and nothing can be done now.
  1. The game has been played
  2. There has been a failure
  3. The effect has worn out 
  4. The decision has been taken
Correct Answer:- D
Explanation:-
The given idiom means 'A process is past the point of no return' , therefore the answer is option 4.

DIRECTIONS for the question 5 & 6: In the sentence given below some idioms have been used. Choose the option corresponding to the sentence in which the idiom is incorrect or inappropriate.

Q.5
  1. He seems like a good egg. I'll take a chance on him
  2. I do not want to put all my eggs in one basket and only invest money in real estate
  3. If the computer problems continue, then the software giant will have egg on its face
  4. John wouldn't have done the dangerous experiment if his brother hadn't egged him
Correct Answer:- D
Explanation:-
Option 4. Egg someone on is the correct idiom which means to encourage, urge, or dare someone to continue doing something, usually something unwise A good egg - a good and dependable person.
To put all your eggs in one basket - to risk losing everything by putting all your efforts or all your money into one plan or one course of action
To have egg on your face (informal) - to seem stupid because of something you have done
Q.6
  1. He stood his ground against his adversary.          
  2. This suitcase has stood me in good stead in my travels.
  3. It stands to reason that the rich never have justice done to them in plays and stories; for the people who write are poor.
  4. The figures which he quoted were shown to be incorrect, and this took the corners off his argument.
Correct Answer:- D
Explanation:-
Option 4 is the answer
In first sentence " stood his ground" means -maintained his position.(correct) In 2nd sentence " stood me in good" means- proved me useful.(correct)
In 3rd sentence " stands to reason" means - it is quite clear (correct)
In 4th sentence " took the corners off"( incorrect usage) should be replaced by "took the edge off"- means to make something ineffective.

DIRECTIONS for the question 7 & 8: Fill in the blank with the right options provided.

Q. 7 He doesn't work with hands he works ________the machine.
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 3

A) with                 B) by      C) at       D) on

Correct Answer:- C
Explanation:-
The correct preposition is 'at'. 'At' is used as a preposition of place where you are to do something typical (study, watch a film, work).
Q. 8 At the orders of the administration all illegal buildings were _________

A) razed               B) Dupe                                C) Encroached                   D) Defaced

Correct Answer:- A
Explanation:-
Raze means to tear down; demolish; level to the ground .Dupe is person who is easily deceived or fooled. Encroach is to trespass upon the property, domain, or rights of another, especially stealthily or by gradual advances.
Defaced means to mar the surface or appearance of; disfigure: The use of "illegal buildings" in the question is suggestive of the fact that these buildings were built without considering the guidelines of the Government. So, order will be carried out to demolish these structures. So, the most appropriate option will be 1(raze)

DIRECTIONS for the question 9 & 10: In each of the following question, out of the given group of wordings, choose one appropriately spelled.

Q.9

A) Conscience   B) Conscence     C) Consious        D) Conscence

Correct Answer:- A
Explanation:-
Conscience is the correct spellings
Q.10

A) Embarrassment          B) Embbarassment          C) Embarrazzment           D) Embarrasement

Correct Answer:- A
Explanation:-
'Embarrassment' is the correct word
Rate Us
Views:1080