4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4
Scorecard (ScoreCard.jsp?sid=aaaNjQqM2hK177HOzndPyThu Aug 31 23:15:17 IST
2023&qsetId=LYdyXMVqdP4=&qsetName=4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4)
Accuracy (AccSelectGraph.jsp?sid=aaaNjQqM2hK177HOzndPyThu Aug 31 23:15:17 IST
2023&qsetId=LYdyXMVqdP4=&qsetName=4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4)
Qs Analysis (QsAnalysis.jsp?sid=aaaNjQqM2hK177HOzndPyThu Aug 31 23:15:17 IST
2023&qsetId=LYdyXMVqdP4=&qsetName=4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4)
Video Attempt / Solution (VideoAnalysis.jsp?sid=aaaNjQqM2hK177HOzndPyThu Aug 31 23:15:17
IST 2023&qsetId=LYdyXMVqdP4=&qsetName=4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4)
Solutions (Solution.jsp?sid=aaaNjQqM2hK177HOzndPyThu Aug 31 23:15:17 IST
2023&qsetId=LYdyXMVqdP4=&qsetName=4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4)
Bookmarks (Bookmarks.jsp?sid=aaaNjQqM2hK177HOzndPyThu Aug 31 23:15:17 IST
2023&qsetId=LYdyXMVqdP4=&qsetName=4 RCs in 30 minutes - 4)
Section-1
Sec 1
Directions for Questions 1 to 4:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
We’re still begging to be both fooled and enlightened. Humans love a spectacle. Out of all the players in
the material world, I think the glass is the ultimate trickster. Although glass can illuminate rooms and
lives, it can distort reality and obscure the truth. Much like photography can appear as a record of true
events while cropping out essential context; glass sharpens our vision but not necessarily our
understanding.
Contemporary life relies on glass more than most of us realise; it’s not just in our windshields and
windows; it’s also in the fibre-optic cables that run under our feet, pulsing with meaning. “Right now,
we’re looking at each other via glass screens,” Mauro said during our interview, making me intensely
aware of the tenuous nature of our connection. We spoke over Zoom, a service that allows people to
video chat over the Internet, using our respective laptops in our rooms hundreds of miles apart. He
continued, “We wouldn’t have information screens without glass. All this is being transmitted via a light
signal through really thin pieces of glass called fibre optics.” Without glass, he said, we wouldn’t have
modern architecture, artificial lighting, natural lighting, cars, and, most crucially, so much information.
Mauro stresses the benefits of glass. It enables us to store vaccines, examine cells, and gaze at the
stars. But he argues that glass is, like all technology, “neutral” at its core. “When I think about fibre
optics, I think about all the good things it’s done to enable communication, but it’s also done a lot of
harm,” he said. People use social media to “spread lies and hate.”
We use glass to tell our individual truths, but we can also use it to create false narratives. I wouldn’t
have been able to get the coronavirus vaccine without glass vials, but we also wouldn’t have seen such
rapid-fire spread of anti-vaccine propaganda if we didn’t have glass screens in our pockets. Without
glass tubes, German glassblower Heinrich Geissler wouldn’t have been able to observe cathode rays,
Ernest Rutherford wouldn’t have been able to discover the power contained in an atom’s nucleus, and
we wouldn’t have nuclear reactors or bombs. We wouldn’t know that when an atomic bomb goes off, it
has the power to turn sand into glass, raining asteroid-like shards on the ground for people to find
decades later. Maybe we wouldn’t be so uncertain, so unstable in our convictions.
While I agree with much of what Mauro says, I don’t know if glass is truly neutral or if any technology
can be said to be neutral. I think calling it neutral is a shorthand, like calling glass a solid. It’s far more
ambiguous than that. Technology isn’t inert. It’s not a stone; it’s a language. And like a language, we
must accept its many uses. We can say prayers; we can tell lies. Sometimes, we do it in the same
breath.
But that’s human history. It’s a chain of events, one leading to another, sometimes ending in disaster,
sometimes in beauty. Looking at it from one angle, it can appear full of beauty, prisms of colour dancing
across aeons. From another, it’s so much hellfire.
Q.1 [11944334]
Each of the following principles, if true, adds credence to the arguments presented in the passage
EXCEPT:
1
Principle of Dual Nature: Everything, including technology and materials like glass, serves both
positive and negative purposes.
2 Principle of Technological Neutrality: Technologies are tools without inherent moral standing; their
impact is determined by how humans use them.
3 Principle of Infallibility: Technology, upon its inception, inescapably leads to outcomes that are
desirable and in line with expectations.
4 Principle of Perception: The technologies we use can influence not just what we see or learn but
also our perception of reality.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 3
Correct Answer: (3) Principle of Infallibility
 Answer key/Solution
Explanation: In the passage, the author discusses how technology, particularly glass, can have both
positive and negative outcomes, which directly contradicts the Principle of Infallibility. This principle
assumes that technology invariably leads to desirable and expected outcomes. The passage uses
examples like the spread of misinformation and hate through social media and the creation of nuclear
weapons to demonstrate that technology can lead to unwanted and unpredictable results. Therefore,
this principle is not supported by the arguments presented in the passage.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) Principle of Dual Nature: The passage explicitly states that glass can illuminate rooms and distort
reality, demonstrating the dual nature of technology. This is consistent with the Principle of Dual
Nature, making it incorrect for this question.
(2) Principle of Technological Neutrality: The author presents technology as a neutral tool whose
impact is determined by its usage. This aligns directly with the Principle of Technological Neutrality,
making it incorrect for this question.
(4) Principle of Perception: The author discusses how glass sharpens our vision but not our
understanding and how it can create false narratives. These arguments suggest that technology, like
glass, can influence our perception of reality, which supports the Principle of Perception. Therefore,
this principle is incorrect for this question.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 1 to 4:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
We’re still begging to be both fooled and enlightened. Humans love a spectacle. Out of all the players in
the material world, I think the glass is the ultimate trickster. Although glass can illuminate rooms and
lives, it can distort reality and obscure the truth. Much like photography can appear as a record of true
events while cropping out essential context; glass sharpens our vision but not necessarily our
understanding.
Contemporary life relies on glass more than most of us realise; it’s not just in our windshields and
windows; it’s also in the fibre-optic cables that run under our feet, pulsing with meaning. “Right now,
we’re looking at each other via glass screens,” Mauro said during our interview, making me intensely
aware of the tenuous nature of our connection. We spoke over Zoom, a service that allows people to
video chat over the Internet, using our respective laptops in our rooms hundreds of miles apart. He
continued, “We wouldn’t have information screens without glass. All this is being transmitted via a light
signal through really thin pieces of glass called fibre optics.” Without glass, he said, we wouldn’t have
modern architecture, artificial lighting, natural lighting, cars, and, most crucially, so much information.
Mauro stresses the benefits of glass. It enables us to store vaccines, examine cells, and gaze at the
stars. But he argues that glass is, like all technology, “neutral” at its core. “When I think about fibre
optics, I think about all the good things it’s done to enable communication, but it’s also done a lot of
harm,” he said. People use social media to “spread lies and hate.”
We use glass to tell our individual truths, but we can also use it to create false narratives. I wouldn’t
have been able to get the coronavirus vaccine without glass vials, but we also wouldn’t have seen such
rapid-fire spread of anti-vaccine propaganda if we didn’t have glass screens in our pockets. Without
glass tubes, German glassblower Heinrich Geissler wouldn’t have been able to observe cathode rays,
Ernest Rutherford wouldn’t have been able to discover the power contained in an atom’s nucleus, and
we wouldn’t have nuclear reactors or bombs. We wouldn’t know that when an atomic bomb goes off, it
has the power to turn sand into glass, raining asteroid-like shards on the ground for people to find
decades later. Maybe we wouldn’t be so uncertain, so unstable in our convictions.
While I agree with much of what Mauro says, I don’t know if glass is truly neutral or if any technology
can be said to be neutral. I think calling it neutral is a shorthand, like calling glass a solid. It’s far more
ambiguous than that. Technology isn’t inert. It’s not a stone; it’s a language. And like a language, we
must accept its many uses. We can say prayers; we can tell lies. Sometimes, we do it in the same
breath.
But that’s human history. It’s a chain of events, one leading to another, sometimes ending in disaster,
sometimes in beauty. Looking at it from one angle, it can appear full of beauty, prisms of colour dancing
across aeons. From another, it’s so much hellfire.
Q.2 [11944334]
Which one of the following best describes the comparison between technology and language made in
the passage?
1
Like language, technology aids in enhancing and expanding the communicability of humanity.
2
Like language, technology has a built-in predisposition towards being beneficial or harmful.
3
Like language, technology can be leveraged for both constructive and detrimental purposes.
4
Like language, technology has multiple uses depending on the need to address an issue.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 3
Correct Answer: (3) Like language, technology can be leveraged for both
constructive and detrimental purposes.
 Answer key/Solution
Explanation: The author directly compares technology to language, stating, “It’s not a stone; it’s a
language.” He goes on to say that we can use language (and, by extension, technology) to say prayers
or tell lies, highlighting the dual use of technology. This means that technology, like language, can be
used for both beneficial and harmful purposes, which aligns with the third answer choice.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) While technology, like language, does enhance communication, the passage does not specifically
focus on this aspect, making it incorrect for this question.
(2) The passage refutes the idea that technology has an inherent predisposition towards being
beneficial or harmful. Instead, it presents technology as neutral and its effects as dependent on
usage. Therefore, this answer choice is incorrect.
(4) The passage does not specifically state that technology has multiple uses depending on the need
to address an issue. Thus, this answer choice is not supported by the text.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 1 to 4:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
We’re still begging to be both fooled and enlightened. Humans love a spectacle. Out of all the players in
the material world, I think the glass is the ultimate trickster. Although glass can illuminate rooms and
lives, it can distort reality and obscure the truth. Much like photography can appear as a record of true
events while cropping out essential context; glass sharpens our vision but not necessarily our
understanding.
Contemporary life relies on glass more than most of us realise; it’s not just in our windshields and
windows; it’s also in the fibre-optic cables that run under our feet, pulsing with meaning. “Right now,
we’re looking at each other via glass screens,” Mauro said during our interview, making me intensely
aware of the tenuous nature of our connection. We spoke over Zoom, a service that allows people to
video chat over the Internet, using our respective laptops in our rooms hundreds of miles apart. He
continued, “We wouldn’t have information screens without glass. All this is being transmitted via a light
signal through really thin pieces of glass called fibre optics.” Without glass, he said, we wouldn’t have
modern architecture, artificial lighting, natural lighting, cars, and, most crucially, so much information.
Mauro stresses the benefits of glass. It enables us to store vaccines, examine cells, and gaze at the
stars. But he argues that glass is, like all technology, “neutral” at its core. “When I think about fibre
optics, I think about all the good things it’s done to enable communication, but it’s also done a lot of
harm,” he said. People use social media to “spread lies and hate.”
We use glass to tell our individual truths, but we can also use it to create false narratives. I wouldn’t
have been able to get the coronavirus vaccine without glass vials, but we also wouldn’t have seen such
rapid-fire spread of anti-vaccine propaganda if we didn’t have glass screens in our pockets. Without
glass tubes, German glassblower Heinrich Geissler wouldn’t have been able to observe cathode rays,
Ernest Rutherford wouldn’t have been able to discover the power contained in an atom’s nucleus, and
we wouldn’t have nuclear reactors or bombs. We wouldn’t know that when an atomic bomb goes off, it
has the power to turn sand into glass, raining asteroid-like shards on the ground for people to find
decades later. Maybe we wouldn’t be so uncertain, so unstable in our convictions.
While I agree with much of what Mauro says, I don’t know if glass is truly neutral or if any technology
can be said to be neutral. I think calling it neutral is a shorthand, like calling glass a solid. It’s far more
ambiguous than that. Technology isn’t inert. It’s not a stone; it’s a language. And like a language, we
must accept its many uses. We can say prayers; we can tell lies. Sometimes, we do it in the same
breath.
But that’s human history. It’s a chain of events, one leading to another, sometimes ending in disaster,
sometimes in beauty. Looking at it from one angle, it can appear full of beauty, prisms of colour dancing
across aeons. From another, it’s so much hellfire.
Q.3 [11944334]
Glass is identified as each of the following EXCEPT:
1
a cornerstone of contemporary existence
2
a conveyor of reality and misrepresentation
3
a facilitator of scientific exploration
4
a catalyst for uniform understanding.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 4
Correct Answer: 4) a catalyst for uniform understanding
 Answer key/Solution
Explanation: The passage never presents glass as a catalyst for uniform understanding. Rather, it talks
about how glass can both illuminate reality and obscure truth, suggesting that it leads to varied
understandings, not uniform ones. Therefore, this is the correct answer.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) The passage highlights how modern life heavily relies on glass, suggesting that it is a cornerstone
of contemporary existence. Therefore, this answer choice is incorrect.
(2) The author mentions that glass can illuminate rooms and distort reality, suggesting that it acts as a
conveyor of reality and misrepresentation. Hence, this answer choice is incorrect.
(3) The passage refers to the use of glass in scientific exploration, such as in the observation of
cathode rays and the examination of cells. This aligns with the idea that glass is a facilitator of
scientific exploration, making this answer choice incorrect.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 1 to 4:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
We’re still begging to be both fooled and enlightened. Humans love a spectacle. Out of all the players in
the material world, I think the glass is the ultimate trickster. Although glass can illuminate rooms and
lives, it can distort reality and obscure the truth. Much like photography can appear as a record of true
events while cropping out essential context; glass sharpens our vision but not necessarily our
understanding.
Contemporary life relies on glass more than most of us realise; it’s not just in our windshields and
windows; it’s also in the fibre-optic cables that run under our feet, pulsing with meaning. “Right now,
we’re looking at each other via glass screens,” Mauro said during our interview, making me intensely
aware of the tenuous nature of our connection. We spoke over Zoom, a service that allows people to
video chat over the Internet, using our respective laptops in our rooms hundreds of miles apart. He
continued, “We wouldn’t have information screens without glass. All this is being transmitted via a light
signal through really thin pieces of glass called fibre optics.” Without glass, he said, we wouldn’t have
modern architecture, artificial lighting, natural lighting, cars, and, most crucially, so much information.
Mauro stresses the benefits of glass. It enables us to store vaccines, examine cells, and gaze at the
stars. But he argues that glass is, like all technology, “neutral” at its core. “When I think about fibre
optics, I think about all the good things it’s done to enable communication, but it’s also done a lot of
harm,” he said. People use social media to “spread lies and hate.”
We use glass to tell our individual truths, but we can also use it to create false narratives. I wouldn’t
have been able to get the coronavirus vaccine without glass vials, but we also wouldn’t have seen such
rapid-fire spread of anti-vaccine propaganda if we didn’t have glass screens in our pockets. Without
glass tubes, German glassblower Heinrich Geissler wouldn’t have been able to observe cathode rays,
Ernest Rutherford wouldn’t have been able to discover the power contained in an atom’s nucleus, and
we wouldn’t have nuclear reactors or bombs. We wouldn’t know that when an atomic bomb goes off, it
has the power to turn sand into glass, raining asteroid-like shards on the ground for people to find
decades later. Maybe we wouldn’t be so uncertain, so unstable in our convictions.
While I agree with much of what Mauro says, I don’t know if glass is truly neutral or if any technology
can be said to be neutral. I think calling it neutral is a shorthand, like calling glass a solid. It’s far more
ambiguous than that. Technology isn’t inert. It’s not a stone; it’s a language. And like a language, we
must accept its many uses. We can say prayers; we can tell lies. Sometimes, we do it in the same
breath.
But that’s human history. It’s a chain of events, one leading to another, sometimes ending in disaster,
sometimes in beauty. Looking at it from one angle, it can appear full of beauty, prisms of colour dancing
across aeons. From another, it’s so much hellfire.
Q.4 [11944334]
Which of the following best describes what the passage is trying to do?
1
to explore the deceptive nature of glass and technology
2
to highlight the various uses of glass in contemporary life
3
to emphasise the neutral and ambiguous nature of technology
4
to provoke deliberation on the complex aspects of human history
Solution:
Correct Answer : 3
Correct Answer: (3) to emphasise the neutral and ambiguous nature of
technology
 Answer key/Solution
Explanation: The primary objective of the passage is to reflect on the nature of technology,
emphasising its neutrality and ambiguity. The author argues that glass, as an example of technology,
can be used for beneficial or harmful purposes, depending on its application. This aligns directly with
the third answer choice.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) Although the passage does discuss deception (like how glass can obscure truth), this is not its
main focus. Therefore, this answer choice is incorrect.
(2) While the passage does highlight various uses of glass (like in fibre-optic cables and the storage of
vaccines), its main focus is not on these applications but on the nature of technology as a whole.
Therefore, this answer choice is incorrect.
(4) The passage does mention historical events and phenomena—like the development of fibre optics,
the discovery of nuclear power, and the use of glass in scientific and technological advancements.
However, the primary focus of the passage is not about human history as a whole, but rather it’s an
exploration of the multifaceted role and impact of technology.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 5 to 8:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
The concept of masculinity is complex, having various definitions, historical roots, and logical
approaches and the commonsense definitions of the term tend to fall into one of four approaches:
essentialist, positivist, normative, or semiotic. Essentialist definitions single out a core characteristic,
usually a biological trait such as sex, and develop their account of masculinity based on this essential
characteristic. Positivist social science attempts to provide an objective account of masculinity based
on what men actually “are.” Normative definitions recognise some of the internal contradictions found in
various forms of masculinity and instead posit a standard for men to attain—what men ought to be.
Semiotic approaches focus on symbolic understandings of masculinity and place it in relation to
femininity, in effect defining it as not femininity. . . .
All four types of definitions suffer from flaws. . . . Essentialist approaches are problematic because the
choice of what characteristic is essential to masculinity is arbitrary (and is not essential at all).
Positivist approaches, while claiming to be neutral and objective, nevertheless assume that people
already have been sorted into the categories “men” and “women” and then proceed to measure the
differences between these putatively distinct groups. In so doing, they never ask the really important
questions about how gender itself is constituted in and through gendered social relations. Normative
approaches tend to think of masculinity as a role to which men aspire. However, men rarely meet the
complex restrictions of such roles. Semiotic approaches are the most sophisticated and often form the
basis for important works in feminist geography and cultural studies, but they still tend to focus too
heavily on the textual and discursive aspects of social life.
In response to the pitfalls in these definitions, social theorists who study gender have developed a more
critical definition of masculinity. . . . Connell, for example, suggested that masculinity should be
understood more broadly as a set of practices by which men and women locate themselves in gender
relations, articulate with that place in gender, and produce gendered effects on others and themselves.
This kind of definition is important because it allows us to understand the temporal contingency of
masculinity. However, it fails to account for the geographic specificity of different masculinities. . . .
Here is where geographers have made important contributions to understanding the concept. Indeed,
given the importance of context in the construction of masculinity, it should be very clear that
masculinity is both temporally and geographically contingent. In other words, time and space make for
different masculinities.
Thus, it is much more helpful to think not of singular masculinity but rather of multiple masculinities. In
addition, any one masculinity, as a product of practice, can be simultaneously positioned in differently
structured relationships. Accordingly, masculinities always are complex and contradictory; they are
highly contingent, unstable, contested spaces within gender relations. This is why we speak of
hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. . . . Hegemonic masculinities conform to dominant social
relations, even when it goes against individuals’ best interests. Subordinate masculinities diverge from
these ideals and may challenge them. . . . It is this paradoxical stability and instability of masculinities,
and especially the importance of context for understanding how masculinities are constructed, that
makes it important to understand their geographic character.
Q.5 [11944334]
All of the following is not inferred from the passage EXCEPT:
1
biological traits alone are not enough to provide a comprehensive understanding of masculinity.
2
masculinity is usually oppressive, forcing individuals to conform to dominant societal norms.
3
the concept of masculinity cannot be studied objectively through different theoretical approaches.
4
masculinity should be understood as an ineffective way to categorise non-feminine gender.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 1
Correct Answer: (1) Biological traits alone are not enough to provide a
comprehensive understanding of masculinity.
 Answer key/Solution
The passage discusses how essentialist definitions of masculinity that rely solely on biological traits
are not sufficient to fully understand the complexity of masculinity. This implies that a comprehensive
understanding of masculinity requires more than just considering biological traits, aligning with option
(1).
Statement (2) oversimplifies the passage’s nuanced discussion of masculinity and power dynamics.
The passage does not claim that masculinity is “usually oppressive” but rather notes that certain
forms of masculinity, specifically hegemonic masculinities, can conform to dominant societal norms,
sometimes against individuals’ best interests.
Statement (3) is contradicted by the passage, which discusses multiple theoretical approaches to
studying masculinity, including essentialist, positivist, normative, and semiotic approaches.
Statement (4) misrepresents the passage’s discussion of masculinity and femininity. The passage
does not argue that masculinity is an “ineffective way to categorise non-feminine gender.” Instead, it
suggests that masculinity is complex and multifaceted, varying in relation to femininity, time, space,
and social relations.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 5 to 8:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
The concept of masculinity is complex, having various definitions, historical roots, and logical
approaches and the commonsense definitions of the term tend to fall into one of four approaches:
essentialist, positivist, normative, or semiotic. Essentialist definitions single out a core characteristic,
usually a biological trait such as sex, and develop their account of masculinity based on this essential
characteristic. Positivist social science attempts to provide an objective account of masculinity based
on what men actually “are.” Normative definitions recognise some of the internal contradictions found in
various forms of masculinity and instead posit a standard for men to attain—what men ought to be.
Semiotic approaches focus on symbolic understandings of masculinity and place it in relation to
femininity, in effect defining it as not femininity. . . .
All four types of definitions suffer from flaws. . . . Essentialist approaches are problematic because the
choice of what characteristic is essential to masculinity is arbitrary (and is not essential at all).
Positivist approaches, while claiming to be neutral and objective, nevertheless assume that people
already have been sorted into the categories “men” and “women” and then proceed to measure the
differences between these putatively distinct groups. In so doing, they never ask the really important
questions about how gender itself is constituted in and through gendered social relations. Normative
approaches tend to think of masculinity as a role to which men aspire. However, men rarely meet the
complex restrictions of such roles. Semiotic approaches are the most sophisticated and often form the
basis for important works in feminist geography and cultural studies, but they still tend to focus too
heavily on the textual and discursive aspects of social life.
In response to the pitfalls in these definitions, social theorists who study gender have developed a more
critical definition of masculinity. . . . Connell, for example, suggested that masculinity should be
understood more broadly as a set of practices by which men and women locate themselves in gender
relations, articulate with that place in gender, and produce gendered effects on others and themselves.
This kind of definition is important because it allows us to understand the temporal contingency of
masculinity. However, it fails to account for the geographic specificity of different masculinities. . . .
Here is where geographers have made important contributions to understanding the concept. Indeed,
given the importance of context in the construction of masculinity, it should be very clear that
masculinity is both temporally and geographically contingent. In other words, time and space make for
different masculinities.
Thus, it is much more helpful to think not of singular masculinity but rather of multiple masculinities. In
addition, any one masculinity, as a product of practice, can be simultaneously positioned in differently
structured relationships. Accordingly, masculinities always are complex and contradictory; they are
highly contingent, unstable, contested spaces within gender relations. This is why we speak of
hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. . . . Hegemonic masculinities conform to dominant social
relations, even when it goes against individuals’ best interests. Subordinate masculinities diverge from
these ideals and may challenge them. . . . It is this paradoxical stability and instability of masculinities,
and especially the importance of context for understanding how masculinities are constructed, that
makes it important to understand their geographic character.
Q.6 [11944334]
“…time and space make for different masculinities.” Which one of the following is the best interpretation
of the sentence?
1
Masculinity is paradoxical due to the inherent instability because of the geographical space-time
continuum.
2 The definition of masculinity varies depending on the linkage between subjective and collective
experiences.
3
Masculinity, as perceived by geographers, depends upon their own perception of space and time.
4 The concept of masculinity is not universal but contingent upon the historical and geographical
context.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 4
Correct Answer: (4) The concept of masculinity is not universal but
contingent upon the historical and geographical context.
 Answer key/Solution
This interpretation aligns with the passage’s emphasis that definitions and understandings of
masculinity change over time (historical context) and vary depending on location or culture
(geographical context).
(1) It incorrectly brings in the concept of a space-time continuum, which is irrelevant to this
sociological discussion.
(2) This interpretation introduces the idea of subjective and collective experiences, which are not
directly mentioned in the original sentence. The original sentence specifically emphasises the role of
time and space in shaping different masculinities.
(3) It inaccurately ascribes the variability of masculinity to individual perceptions of geographers,
while the passage speaks about societal and contextual differences.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 5 to 8:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
The concept of masculinity is complex, having various definitions, historical roots, and logical
approaches and the commonsense definitions of the term tend to fall into one of four approaches:
essentialist, positivist, normative, or semiotic. Essentialist definitions single out a core characteristic,
usually a biological trait such as sex, and develop their account of masculinity based on this essential
characteristic. Positivist social science attempts to provide an objective account of masculinity based
on what men actually “are.” Normative definitions recognise some of the internal contradictions found in
various forms of masculinity and instead posit a standard for men to attain—what men ought to be.
Semiotic approaches focus on symbolic understandings of masculinity and place it in relation to
femininity, in effect defining it as not femininity. . . .
All four types of definitions suffer from flaws. . . . Essentialist approaches are problematic because the
choice of what characteristic is essential to masculinity is arbitrary (and is not essential at all).
Positivist approaches, while claiming to be neutral and objective, nevertheless assume that people
already have been sorted into the categories “men” and “women” and then proceed to measure the
differences between these putatively distinct groups. In so doing, they never ask the really important
questions about how gender itself is constituted in and through gendered social relations. Normative
approaches tend to think of masculinity as a role to which men aspire. However, men rarely meet the
complex restrictions of such roles. Semiotic approaches are the most sophisticated and often form the
basis for important works in feminist geography and cultural studies, but they still tend to focus too
heavily on the textual and discursive aspects of social life.
In response to the pitfalls in these definitions, social theorists who study gender have developed a more
critical definition of masculinity. . . . Connell, for example, suggested that masculinity should be
understood more broadly as a set of practices by which men and women locate themselves in gender
relations, articulate with that place in gender, and produce gendered effects on others and themselves.
This kind of definition is important because it allows us to understand the temporal contingency of
masculinity. However, it fails to account for the geographic specificity of different masculinities. . . .
Here is where geographers have made important contributions to understanding the concept. Indeed,
given the importance of context in the construction of masculinity, it should be very clear that
masculinity is both temporally and geographically contingent. In other words, time and space make for
different masculinities.
Thus, it is much more helpful to think not of singular masculinity but rather of multiple masculinities. In
addition, any one masculinity, as a product of practice, can be simultaneously positioned in differently
structured relationships. Accordingly, masculinities always are complex and contradictory; they are
highly contingent, unstable, contested spaces within gender relations. This is why we speak of
hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. . . . Hegemonic masculinities conform to dominant social
relations, even when it goes against individuals’ best interests. Subordinate masculinities diverge from
these ideals and may challenge them. . . . It is this paradoxical stability and instability of masculinities,
and especially the importance of context for understanding how masculinities are constructed, that
makes it important to understand their geographic character.
Q.7 [11944334]
It can be reasonably inferred from the passage that the flaw common to the four definitions of
masculinity— essentialist, positivist, normative, or semiotic—can be best summed up as which one of
the following?
1
They all have a non-contextual approach.
2
They all excessively focus on discursive aspects
3
They all create unrealistic expectations.
4
They all position one gender against another.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 1
Correct Answer – (1) They all have a non-contextual approach.
 Answer key/Solution
Explanation: The passage emphasises that all four definitions of masculinity (essentialist, positivist,
normative, and semiotic) share a common flaw of failing to consider the contextual nature of
masculinity. They overlook the importance of historical, social, and geographic contexts in
understanding and constructing masculinity. This aligns with the idea that they all have a noncontextual approach.
Incorrect Answers:
(2) While the semiotic approach is specifically mentioned as focusing on textual and discursive
aspects, the other approaches (essentialist, positivist, normative) do not necessarily share this
specific emphasis. Therefore, this option is not the best inference.
(3) While the normative approach is mentioned as creating unrealistic expectations, this flaw is not
explicitly attributed to the other three approaches (essentialist, positivist, semiotic). Therefore, this
option does not accurately capture the common flaw shared by all four definitions.
(4) This statement is not explicitly stated or implied in the passage as a common flaw shared by all
four definitions of masculinity. While it is acknowledged that different masculinities may challenge or
conform to dominant social relations, it is not the central flaw discussed in the passage.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 5 to 8:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
The concept of masculinity is complex, having various definitions, historical roots, and logical
approaches and the commonsense definitions of the term tend to fall into one of four approaches:
essentialist, positivist, normative, or semiotic. Essentialist definitions single out a core characteristic,
usually a biological trait such as sex, and develop their account of masculinity based on this essential
characteristic. Positivist social science attempts to provide an objective account of masculinity based
on what men actually “are.” Normative definitions recognise some of the internal contradictions found in
various forms of masculinity and instead posit a standard for men to attain—what men ought to be.
Semiotic approaches focus on symbolic understandings of masculinity and place it in relation to
femininity, in effect defining it as not femininity. . . .
All four types of definitions suffer from flaws. . . . Essentialist approaches are problematic because the
choice of what characteristic is essential to masculinity is arbitrary (and is not essential at all).
Positivist approaches, while claiming to be neutral and objective, nevertheless assume that people
already have been sorted into the categories “men” and “women” and then proceed to measure the
differences between these putatively distinct groups. In so doing, they never ask the really important
questions about how gender itself is constituted in and through gendered social relations. Normative
approaches tend to think of masculinity as a role to which men aspire. However, men rarely meet the
complex restrictions of such roles. Semiotic approaches are the most sophisticated and often form the
basis for important works in feminist geography and cultural studies, but they still tend to focus too
heavily on the textual and discursive aspects of social life.
In response to the pitfalls in these definitions, social theorists who study gender have developed a more
critical definition of masculinity. . . . Connell, for example, suggested that masculinity should be
understood more broadly as a set of practices by which men and women locate themselves in gender
relations, articulate with that place in gender, and produce gendered effects on others and themselves.
This kind of definition is important because it allows us to understand the temporal contingency of
masculinity. However, it fails to account for the geographic specificity of different masculinities. . . .
Here is where geographers have made important contributions to understanding the concept. Indeed,
given the importance of context in the construction of masculinity, it should be very clear that
masculinity is both temporally and geographically contingent. In other words, time and space make for
different masculinities.
Thus, it is much more helpful to think not of singular masculinity but rather of multiple masculinities. In
addition, any one masculinity, as a product of practice, can be simultaneously positioned in differently
structured relationships. Accordingly, masculinities always are complex and contradictory; they are
highly contingent, unstable, contested spaces within gender relations. This is why we speak of
hegemonic and subordinate masculinities. . . . Hegemonic masculinities conform to dominant social
relations, even when it goes against individuals’ best interests. Subordinate masculinities diverge from
these ideals and may challenge them. . . . It is this paradoxical stability and instability of masculinities,
and especially the importance of context for understanding how masculinities are constructed, that
makes it important to understand their geographic character.
Q.8 [11944334]
Which one of the following is not a valid inference?
1
Subordinate masculinities diverge from dominant ideals and may challenge or contest prevailing
norms and expectations of masculinity.
2 The individual agency is what ultimately determines the results of masculinity, and one of those
results is the paradoxical instability of masculinities.
3 Hegemonic masculinities conform to dominant social norms and power structures, even when they
may not align with the best interests of individuals.
4 Connell proposed a critical definition of masculinity, highlighting the importance of practices and
gender relations in shaping masculinity and producing gendered effects.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 2
Correct Answer - (2) The individual agency is what ultimately determines
the results of masculinity, and one of those results is the paradoxical
instability of masculinities.
 Answer key/Solution
Explanation: This is not a valid inference because it misrepresents the complexity of the paradoxical
stability and instability of masculinities. While the individual agency can play a role, the stability and
instability of masculinities are also influenced by social, cultural, and power dynamics, as well as
contextual factors. The passage emphasises the importance of understanding how time, space, and
gender relations shape masculinities, highlighting the multifaceted nature of their construction.
Therefore, the inference that individual agency alone determines the results is not supported by the
passage.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) This is a valid inference based on the passage. The passage discusses how subordinate
masculinities differ from hegemonic or dominant masculinities and can challenge or contest the
prevailing norms and expectations associated with masculinity.
(3) This is a valid inference based on the passage. The passage mentions the concept of hegemonic
masculinities, which conform to the dominant social norms and power structures, even if it goes
against the best interests of individuals.
(4) This is a valid inference based on the passage. The passage explicitly mentions Connell’s critical
definition of masculinity, which emphasises the significance of practices, gender relations, and their
effects on shaping masculinity.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 9 to 12:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
“Methodological naturalism” is the idea that when it comes to scientific inquiry, religious beliefs should
not play a role. It emphasises that scientists can research and study natural phenomena without a
specific religious stance. . . . This concept interests philosophers of religion because some argue that
methodological naturalism does not necessarily lead to atheism or agnosticism. . . .
When we discuss adopting a methodologically naturalist attitude towards the relationship between
philosophy and science, it means viewing both disciplines as aiming to understand and explain the
natural world through empirical investigation. In other words, they seek knowledge based on
observations and evidence from the natural world. . . .
While methodological naturalists acknowledge that there are differences between philosophy and
science, they consider these differences to be relatively minor. They argue that the variations lie more in
the specific questions each discipline addresses rather than in fundamentally distinct approaches.
Philosophical inquiries often deal with general and abstract questions. While scientists may focus on
topics like viruses, electrons, or stars, philosophers explore spatiotemporal continuants, properties,
causation, and time—foundational categories that shape our understanding of the natural world. . . .
Another characteristic of philosophical questions is their tendency to involve theoretical complexities.
Our thinking can support different lines of thought that lead to conflicting conclusions. Progress in
philosophy necessitates untangling these complexities, including unearthing implicit assumptions that
may have gone unnoticed.
However, resolving philosophical issues does not often rely on acquiring new observational data. . . .
The usual predicament in philosophy is that we have ample observational data but are uncertain about
the best way to accommodate them. Nonetheless, methodological naturalists argue that a posteriori
synthetic theories—theories constructed based on empirical evidence and observations—remain the
goal of philosophy. Even if the construction of such theories does not involve new observational
findings, unravelling the theoretical complexities surrounding general categories can still lead to a
posteriori synthetic theories. . . .
From the perspective of methodological naturalism, philosophical views are considered synthetic
claims that are accountable to overall a posteriori observational evidence. However, there is an apparent
objection to this view, particularly concerning the role of intuitions in philosophy. . . . Philosophical views
are typically assessed by testing them against intuitive judgments about possible cases rather than
relying on a posteriori observational data. For example, the description theory of names is challenged by
intuitions about Kripke’s imagined counterexamples, while the tripartite theory of knowledge is
evaluated based on intuitive reactions to Gettier cases. At first glance, this suggests that philosophy is
primarily concerned with analysing everyday concepts rather than constructing synthetic theories. It
relies on intuitions about possible cases to uncover the implicit structure in our concepts. This reliance
on intuitions argues that philosophy employs a priori methods—using logic and analysis to investigate
questions—to yield analytic conclusions. . . .
Methodological naturalists can respond to this challenge in several ways: they can question the extent
to which intuitions truly play a central role in philosophy; they can examine whether, even if intuitions do
play a role, they are genuinely a priori intuitions; they can dispute whether these intuitions, even if a
priori, genuinely lead to analytic conclusions. . . . These different responses can be considered to
address the tension between methodological naturalism and the role of intuitions in philosophy.
Q.9 [11944334]
Which of the following sequence of words/phrases best describes the flow of arguments in the
passage?
1
Methodical naturalism. philosophy and science; theoretical complexities; observational data
2
Methodical naturalism; philosophy and science; synthetic claims; a posteriori conclusions
3
Methodical naturalism; religious beliefs; philosophy and science; synthetic theories
4
Methodical naturalism; philosophical inquiries; a posteriori synthetic theories; role of intuition
Solution:
Correct Answer : 4
Correct Answer - (4) “Methodical naturalism; philosophical inquiries; a
posteriori synthetic theories; role of intuition.”
 Answer key/Solution
Option (4) best capture the flow of arguments in the passage.
• “Methodical naturalism” - This term introduces the primary concept that the passage explores: an
approach to science and philosophy that emphasises empirical investigation of the natural world, free
from religious considerations.
• “Philosophical inquiries” - This phrase shows the discussion transitioning into the realm of
philosophy and its relation to science under a methodological naturalist approach, including the types
of questions addressed by each discipline.
• “A posteriori synthetic theories” - This phrase underscores the argument that, despite the
differences between philosophy and science, the ultimate goal of philosophy under a methodological
naturalist view is to construct theories based on empirical evidence and observations.
• “Role of intuition” - The final phrase signifies the discussion turning to a significant challenge to
methodological naturalism in philosophy—the use of intuition in forming philosophical views—which
appears to contrast with the empirical, a posteriori method of knowledge acquisition favoured by
methodological naturalism.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) This sequence fails to capture the key element of “a posteriori synthetic theories,” which are a
major point in the passage’s discussion about the goal of philosophy under methodological
naturalism. It also doesn’t mention the role of intuition, which forms a critical part of the argument.
(2) This sequence does not mention “intuition,” which is a key point of discussion in the passage. The
passage makes a significant point about the role of intuition in philosophy, contrasting it with the
empirical, a posteriori methodology favoured by methodological naturalism. The methodological
naturalist’s response to this challenge forms a critical part of the argument presented in the text.
(3) This sequence is incorrect because, while the passage does mention religious beliefs in the
context of defining methodological naturalism, the flow of the argument doesn’t hinge on religious
beliefs. It primarily discusses the approach of methodological naturalism in relation to philosophy and
science, the aim of a posteriori synthetic theories, and the role of intuition. This option also lacks a
mention of “philosophical inquiries” and the “role of intuition.”
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 9 to 12:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
“Methodological naturalism” is the idea that when it comes to scientific inquiry, religious beliefs should
not play a role. It emphasises that scientists can research and study natural phenomena without a
specific religious stance. . . . This concept interests philosophers of religion because some argue that
methodological naturalism does not necessarily lead to atheism or agnosticism. . . .
When we discuss adopting a methodologically naturalist attitude towards the relationship between
philosophy and science, it means viewing both disciplines as aiming to understand and explain the
natural world through empirical investigation. In other words, they seek knowledge based on
observations and evidence from the natural world. . . .
While methodological naturalists acknowledge that there are differences between philosophy and
science, they consider these differences to be relatively minor. They argue that the variations lie more in
the specific questions each discipline addresses rather than in fundamentally distinct approaches.
Philosophical inquiries often deal with general and abstract questions. While scientists may focus on
topics like viruses, electrons, or stars, philosophers explore spatiotemporal continuants, properties,
causation, and time—foundational categories that shape our understanding of the natural world. . . .
Another characteristic of philosophical questions is their tendency to involve theoretical complexities.
Our thinking can support different lines of thought that lead to conflicting conclusions. Progress in
philosophy necessitates untangling these complexities, including unearthing implicit assumptions that
may have gone unnoticed.
However, resolving philosophical issues does not often rely on acquiring new observational data. . . .
The usual predicament in philosophy is that we have ample observational data but are uncertain about
the best way to accommodate them. Nonetheless, methodological naturalists argue that a posteriori
synthetic theories—theories constructed based on empirical evidence and observations—remain the
goal of philosophy. Even if the construction of such theories does not involve new observational
findings, unravelling the theoretical complexities surrounding general categories can still lead to a
posteriori synthetic theories. . . .
From the perspective of methodological naturalism, philosophical views are considered synthetic
claims that are accountable to overall a posteriori observational evidence. However, there is an apparent
objection to this view, particularly concerning the role of intuitions in philosophy. . . . Philosophical views
are typically assessed by testing them against intuitive judgments about possible cases rather than
relying on a posteriori observational data. For example, the description theory of names is challenged by
intuitions about Kripke’s imagined counterexamples, while the tripartite theory of knowledge is
evaluated based on intuitive reactions to Gettier cases. At first glance, this suggests that philosophy is
primarily concerned with analysing everyday concepts rather than constructing synthetic theories. It
relies on intuitions about possible cases to uncover the implicit structure in our concepts. This reliance
on intuitions argues that philosophy employs a priori methods—using logic and analysis to investigate
questions—to yield analytic conclusions. . . .
Methodological naturalists can respond to this challenge in several ways: they can question the extent
to which intuitions truly play a central role in philosophy; they can examine whether, even if intuitions do
play a role, they are genuinely a priori intuitions; they can dispute whether these intuitions, even if a
priori, genuinely lead to analytic conclusions. . . . These different responses can be considered to
address the tension between methodological naturalism and the role of intuitions in philosophy.
Q.10 [11944334]
“…the description theory of names is challenged by intuitions about Kripke’s imagined counterexamples,
while the tripartite theory of knowledge is evaluated based on intuitive reactions to Gettier cases.”
Which of the following best describes the primary purpose of this statement?
1
To suggest that the description theory of names and the tripartite theory of knowledge are both
prominent theories in philosophy.
2 To illustrate how intuition often plays a central role in philosophical investigations, which can
seemingly challenge the approach of methodological naturalism.
3 To question whether intuitive judgments in philosophy are truly based on rational reflection,
independent of any empirical or experiential input.
4 To explain that the tripartite theory of knowledge, which states that knowledge is justified true
belief, is evaluated based on intuitive reactions.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 2
Correct Answer – (2) “To illustrate how intuition often plays a central role
in philosophical investigations, which can seemingly challenge the
approach of methodological naturalism.”
 Answer key/Solution
This statement uses specific examples from philosophy (the description theory of names and the
tripartite theory of knowledge) to demonstrate a broader point about the role of intuition in
philosophical arguments and investigations. In both examples, philosophical theories are challenged
based on intuitive judgments about hypothetical scenarios rather than empirical evidence. This
illustrates a potential conflict between philosophy’s frequent reliance on intuition and the empirical, a
posteriori approach advocated by methodological naturalism, a point that is key to the argument
developed in the passage.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) While the sentence does mention these theories, the primary purpose isn’t to emphasise their
prominence in philosophy. The theories are used as examples to highlight how intuition often plays a
role in philosophical investigations.
(3) This option strays from the actual purpose. The passage does not delve into the rationality or
independence of intuitive judgments, but rather it uses them as examples to highlight the contrast
between philosophy’s use of intuition and methodological naturalism’s empirical approach.
(4) This option focuses narrowly on the tripartite theory of knowledge, and while the statement does
mention this, the primary purpose is broader: to show how intuition can play a central role in
philosophical investigations, potentially challenging the approach of methodological naturalism.
Each of these options misses the core argument that the statement is making about the role of
intuition in philosophy and its relationship to methodological naturalism.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 9 to 12:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
“Methodological naturalism” is the idea that when it comes to scientific inquiry, religious beliefs should
not play a role. It emphasises that scientists can research and study natural phenomena without a
specific religious stance. . . . This concept interests philosophers of religion because some argue that
methodological naturalism does not necessarily lead to atheism or agnosticism. . . .
When we discuss adopting a methodologically naturalist attitude towards the relationship between
philosophy and science, it means viewing both disciplines as aiming to understand and explain the
natural world through empirical investigation. In other words, they seek knowledge based on
observations and evidence from the natural world. . . .
While methodological naturalists acknowledge that there are differences between philosophy and
science, they consider these differences to be relatively minor. They argue that the variations lie more in
the specific questions each discipline addresses rather than in fundamentally distinct approaches.
Philosophical inquiries often deal with general and abstract questions. While scientists may focus on
topics like viruses, electrons, or stars, philosophers explore spatiotemporal continuants, properties,
causation, and time—foundational categories that shape our understanding of the natural world. . . .
Another characteristic of philosophical questions is their tendency to involve theoretical complexities.
Our thinking can support different lines of thought that lead to conflicting conclusions. Progress in
philosophy necessitates untangling these complexities, including unearthing implicit assumptions that
may have gone unnoticed.
However, resolving philosophical issues does not often rely on acquiring new observational data. . . .
The usual predicament in philosophy is that we have ample observational data but are uncertain about
the best way to accommodate them. Nonetheless, methodological naturalists argue that a posteriori
synthetic theories—theories constructed based on empirical evidence and observations—remain the
goal of philosophy. Even if the construction of such theories does not involve new observational
findings, unravelling the theoretical complexities surrounding general categories can still lead to a
posteriori synthetic theories. . . .
From the perspective of methodological naturalism, philosophical views are considered synthetic
claims that are accountable to overall a posteriori observational evidence. However, there is an apparent
objection to this view, particularly concerning the role of intuitions in philosophy. . . . Philosophical views
are typically assessed by testing them against intuitive judgments about possible cases rather than
relying on a posteriori observational data. For example, the description theory of names is challenged by
intuitions about Kripke’s imagined counterexamples, while the tripartite theory of knowledge is
evaluated based on intuitive reactions to Gettier cases. At first glance, this suggests that philosophy is
primarily concerned with analysing everyday concepts rather than constructing synthetic theories. It
relies on intuitions about possible cases to uncover the implicit structure in our concepts. This reliance
on intuitions argues that philosophy employs a priori methods—using logic and analysis to investigate
questions—to yield analytic conclusions. . . .
Methodological naturalists can respond to this challenge in several ways: they can question the extent
to which intuitions truly play a central role in philosophy; they can examine whether, even if intuitions do
play a role, they are genuinely a priori intuitions; they can dispute whether these intuitions, even if a
priori, genuinely lead to analytic conclusions. . . . These different responses can be considered to
address the tension between methodological naturalism and the role of intuitions in philosophy.
Q.11 [11944334]
Each of the following can be ascribed to the views of methodological naturalism EXCEPT:
1
philosophy and science both aim to understand the natural world.
2
philosophy doesn’t often rely on new observational data.
3
philosophy and science try to decipher the synthetic world
4
the differences between philosophy and science are minor.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 3
Correct Answer – (3) “philosophy and science try to decipher the
synthetic world.”
 Answer key/Solution
The passage never mentions a “synthetic world.” Rather, methodological naturalism is described as
viewing both philosophy and science as disciplines that aim to understand the natural world through
empirical investigation. The term “synthetic world” doesn’t align with the principles or the terminology
used in the context of methodological naturalism as described in the passage.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) This option is aligned with methodological naturalism. as explained in the passage. It is stated that
adopting a methodologically naturalist attitude means viewing both disciplines as aiming to
understand and explain the natural world through empirical investigation.
(2) This is indeed a view ascribed to methodological naturalism in the passage. The passage states,
“resolving philosophical issues does not often rely on acquiring new observational data.”
(4) This option is consistent with the passage’s depiction of methodological naturalism. According to
the passage, methodological naturalists consider the differences between philosophy and science to
be relatively minor and argue that the variations lie more in the specific questions each discipline
addresses rather than fundamentally distinct approaches.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 9 to 12:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
“Methodological naturalism” is the idea that when it comes to scientific inquiry, religious beliefs should
not play a role. It emphasises that scientists can research and study natural phenomena without a
specific religious stance. . . . This concept interests philosophers of religion because some argue that
methodological naturalism does not necessarily lead to atheism or agnosticism. . . .
When we discuss adopting a methodologically naturalist attitude towards the relationship between
philosophy and science, it means viewing both disciplines as aiming to understand and explain the
natural world through empirical investigation. In other words, they seek knowledge based on
observations and evidence from the natural world. . . .
While methodological naturalists acknowledge that there are differences between philosophy and
science, they consider these differences to be relatively minor. They argue that the variations lie more in
the specific questions each discipline addresses rather than in fundamentally distinct approaches.
Philosophical inquiries often deal with general and abstract questions. While scientists may focus on
topics like viruses, electrons, or stars, philosophers explore spatiotemporal continuants, properties,
causation, and time—foundational categories that shape our understanding of the natural world. . . .
Another characteristic of philosophical questions is their tendency to involve theoretical complexities.
Our thinking can support different lines of thought that lead to conflicting conclusions. Progress in
philosophy necessitates untangling these complexities, including unearthing implicit assumptions that
may have gone unnoticed.
However, resolving philosophical issues does not often rely on acquiring new observational data. . . .
The usual predicament in philosophy is that we have ample observational data but are uncertain about
the best way to accommodate them. Nonetheless, methodological naturalists argue that a posteriori
synthetic theories—theories constructed based on empirical evidence and observations—remain the
goal of philosophy. Even if the construction of such theories does not involve new observational
findings, unravelling the theoretical complexities surrounding general categories can still lead to a
posteriori synthetic theories. . . .
From the perspective of methodological naturalism, philosophical views are considered synthetic
claims that are accountable to overall a posteriori observational evidence. However, there is an apparent
objection to this view, particularly concerning the role of intuitions in philosophy. . . . Philosophical views
are typically assessed by testing them against intuitive judgments about possible cases rather than
relying on a posteriori observational data. For example, the description theory of names is challenged by
intuitions about Kripke’s imagined counterexamples, while the tripartite theory of knowledge is
evaluated based on intuitive reactions to Gettier cases. At first glance, this suggests that philosophy is
primarily concerned with analysing everyday concepts rather than constructing synthetic theories. It
relies on intuitions about possible cases to uncover the implicit structure in our concepts. This reliance
on intuitions argues that philosophy employs a priori methods—using logic and analysis to investigate
questions—to yield analytic conclusions. . . .
Methodological naturalists can respond to this challenge in several ways: they can question the extent
to which intuitions truly play a central role in philosophy; they can examine whether, even if intuitions do
play a role, they are genuinely a priori intuitions; they can dispute whether these intuitions, even if a
priori, genuinely lead to analytic conclusions. . . . These different responses can be considered to
address the tension between methodological naturalism and the role of intuitions in philosophy.
Q.12 [11944334]
Which of the following, if true, does not aid methodological naturalists’ response to the challenge of the
philosophy’s reliance on a priori methods?
1
Cross-cultural Intuition Research: that reveals a consistency in intuitive reactions to philosophical
problems across diverse cultural backgrounds.
2 Neuroscience Research on the Origin of Intuitions: that reveals intuitions are found to arise from
the subconscious processing of experiences.
3 Cognitive Bias and Intuition: that reveals empirical evidence of significant cognitive biases in
intuition.
4 Historical Analysis of Philosophical Progress: that reveals philosophical breakthroughs correlate
more with empirical discoveries than intuition.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 1
Correct Answer – (1) “Cross-cultural Intuition Research: that reveals a
consistency in intuitive reactions to philosophical problems across
diverse cultural backgrounds.”
 Answer key/Solution
This research, if true, does not aid methodological naturalists in their response to the challenge of
philosophy’s reliance on a priori methods. Instead, it seems to support the centrality of intuition in
philosophy, suggesting that intuitions are universal across different cultural and experiential
backgrounds. This would potentially counter the argument made by methodological naturalists that
intuitions might be influenced by empirical experiences and cultural context.
Incorrect Answers:
(2) This research, if true, would aid methodological naturalists because it suggests that intuitions are
not entirely a priori but are shaped by empirical experiences (subconscious processing of
experiences). It supports the argument that empirical evidence has a role in forming intuitions,
aligning with the methodological naturalists’ belief in empirically-grounded philosophy.
(3) If it were demonstrated that cognitive biases significantly influence intuition, this would also aid
methodological naturalists. It could be used to argue that intuitions are not reliable or objective, which
might decrease their perceived importance in philosophical analysis and support a more empirical,
evidence-based approach.
(4) If it were shown that philosophical breakthroughs correlate more with empirical discoveries than
intuition, this would strongly support the stance of methodological naturalists. It directly aligns with
their belief that philosophy should be more aligned with empirical science and less reliant on a priori
reasoning or intuition.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 13 to 16:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
Both the social science and technological paradigms appear to have their problematic existence and
tendency. The social science paradigm tends to emphasise policy reform, law-making and law
enforcement as its main locus and focus, thereby concentrating on preventing the occurrence of crimes
that have already been committed or existed. It tends to solve the signs and symptoms of the crime but
not uproot its causes. The technological paradigm, on the other hand, places more emphasis on
technological and innovative dimensions as its main thesis as a way of solving the riddle of cybercrime,
which necessarily prevent the occurrence of crime which has not yet existed . . . . It detects solutions to
the causes of cybercrime without diagnosing its symptoms. The hurling challenge, therefore, is first to
bridge the common differences underlying between causes and effects, the antecedents and
consequents and the causes and symptoms of cyber crimes, specifically that of the free speech, free
expression and free press doctrine and the behaviour exhibited that goes along with it with that of the
laws and policies which regulates it. The blurred distinctions between what is good or bad. . .may be
eradicated by first identifying and defining the cybercriminal behaviour and actions that constitute
cybercrime with the utmost consideration and respect to the constitutional rights, liberties and
freedoms of a cyber individual and citizen. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the fact that
individual users should and do take responsibility for their actions and, rather controversially, in light of
some of the security reports, the Internet is remarkably ordered if you consider the sheer number of
users and the volume of transactions that take place on it. . . .
Second, through the empowerment and strengthening process of democratising the participation of the
stakeholders between and among the social science and technological paradigm to consult further,
deliberate, discuss and consolidate their varied interpretations and applications on cybercrime
prevention with a paramount goal to share a common language and vision on how to regulate
cybercrime. Several stakeholders are concerned with the control of cybercrime, and each has its own
perspective and preferences. For successful control, they all must cooperate and share the necessary
responsibilities.
Third, discovering and recognising that symptoms of cyber crimes do exist and reversibly provide a
strong linkage with its causes in finding the coherent structures, systems, processes and policies which
may be promulgated and enforced in solving cybercrime. Another reasonable prediction would be that
the Internet will become not only the number-one means of communicating, conducting business,
socialising, entertaining, and just living, but indeed will handle a huge majority of such interactions; thus,
failure to establish and enforce some basic ground rules will likely lead to socioeconomic disaster. . . .
As new communication technologies continue to be developed, novel ways of exploiting such
technologies for nefarious purposes will undoubtedly develop. It is the responsibility of relevant social
control systems to keep pace with those that use electronic mediums, particularly computers,
cyberspace, and cellular phones, to victimise others by successfully preventing or responding to such
instances.
Q.13 [11944334]
“The hurling challenge, therefore, is first to bridge the common differences underlying between causes
and effects, the antecedents and consequents and the causes and symptoms of cyber crimes,
specifically that of the free speech, free expression and free press doctrine and the behaviour exhibited
that goes along with it with that of the laws and policies which regulates it.” Which one of the following
best captures the essence of this sentence?
1
If we need to get meaningful solutions to address cybercrime, we need to understand the
motivations that lead to the act of cybercrimes.
2 The disparities between underlying factors that contribute to the occurrence and consequences of
cybercrimes need to be reconciled.
3 The cause and effect of cybercrimes can be identified as the doctrine of free speech and the
behaviours of individuals, respectively.
4 Cybercrime typically results from the interplay between free speech, free expression, free press
doctrine, and legal framework.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 2
Correct Answer - (2) The disparities between underlying factors that
contribute to the occurrence and consequences of cybercrimes need to
be reconciled.
 Answer key/Solution
This option reflects the main idea of the sentence, which highlights the need to bridge the differences
between the causes and effects of cybercrimes. It acknowledges the existence of disparities or
differences between the underlying factors that lead to cybercrimes and the resulting consequences
or outcomes of those crimes. By reconciling these disparities, it becomes possible to better
understand and address cybercrimes effectively.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) focuses solely on understanding the motivations behind cybercrimes as a means to find solutions.
While understanding motivations is important, it doesn’t capture the broader context of reconciling
differences between causes and effects, antecedents and consequents, and the causes and
symptoms of cybercrimes that the original sentence discusses.
(3) simplifies the cause-and-effect relationship of cybercrimes to solely the doctrine of free speech
and the behaviours of individuals. However, the original sentence implies a more complex interplay
between causes, effects, antecedents, consequents, and the relationship between cybercrimes and
free speech doctrine, without specifying one as the cause and the other as the effect.
(4) suggests that cybercrime typically arises from the interplay between free speech, free expression,
free press doctrine, and the legal framework. While these elements may be involved in the context of
cybercrime, the original sentence does not exclusively state that cybercrime typically results from this
interplay. It highlights the need to bridge the differences underlying causes, effects, antecedents,
consequents, causes, and symptoms, without assigning a specific causal relationship to these
elements.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 13 to 16:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
Both the social science and technological paradigms appear to have their problematic existence and
tendency. The social science paradigm tends to emphasise policy reform, law-making and law
enforcement as its main locus and focus, thereby concentrating on preventing the occurrence of crimes
that have already been committed or existed. It tends to solve the signs and symptoms of the crime but
not uproot its causes. The technological paradigm, on the other hand, places more emphasis on
technological and innovative dimensions as its main thesis as a way of solving the riddle of cybercrime,
which necessarily prevent the occurrence of crime which has not yet existed . . . . It detects solutions to
the causes of cybercrime without diagnosing its symptoms. The hurling challenge, therefore, is first to
bridge the common differences underlying between causes and effects, the antecedents and
consequents and the causes and symptoms of cyber crimes, specifically that of the free speech, free
expression and free press doctrine and the behaviour exhibited that goes along with it with that of the
laws and policies which regulates it. The blurred distinctions between what is good or bad. . .may be
eradicated by first identifying and defining the cybercriminal behaviour and actions that constitute
cybercrime with the utmost consideration and respect to the constitutional rights, liberties and
freedoms of a cyber individual and citizen. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the fact that
individual users should and do take responsibility for their actions and, rather controversially, in light of
some of the security reports, the Internet is remarkably ordered if you consider the sheer number of
users and the volume of transactions that take place on it. . . .
Second, through the empowerment and strengthening process of democratising the participation of the
stakeholders between and among the social science and technological paradigm to consult further,
deliberate, discuss and consolidate their varied interpretations and applications on cybercrime
prevention with a paramount goal to share a common language and vision on how to regulate
cybercrime. Several stakeholders are concerned with the control of cybercrime, and each has its own
perspective and preferences. For successful control, they all must cooperate and share the necessary
responsibilities.
Third, discovering and recognising that symptoms of cyber crimes do exist and reversibly provide a
strong linkage with its causes in finding the coherent structures, systems, processes and policies which
may be promulgated and enforced in solving cybercrime. Another reasonable prediction would be that
the Internet will become not only the number-one means of communicating, conducting business,
socialising, entertaining, and just living, but indeed will handle a huge majority of such interactions; thus,
failure to establish and enforce some basic ground rules will likely lead to socioeconomic disaster. . . .
As new communication technologies continue to be developed, novel ways of exploiting such
technologies for nefarious purposes will undoubtedly develop. It is the responsibility of relevant social
control systems to keep pace with those that use electronic mediums, particularly computers,
cyberspace, and cellular phones, to victimise others by successfully preventing or responding to such
instances.
Q.14 [11944334]
According to the passage, why does the author argue that failing to establish basic ground rules for
internet interactions could lead to a socioeconomic disaster?
1
The author is concerned that without ground rules, the Internet will become an anarchic space,
potentially stifling technological advancement and economic growth.
2 The author posits that the absence of ground rules may heighten vulnerability to exploitation and
cybercrime, negatively impacting individuals, businesses, and society due to our increasing dependence
on the Internet for various functions.
3 The author suggests that without ground rules, there’s a potential to exacerbate the digital divide,
leaving those without internet literacy vulnerable and economically disadvantaged.
4 The author fears that without ground rules, there would be an increase in online censorship and
surveillance, potentially restricting personal freedoms and democratic participation.
Solution:
 Answer key/Solution
Correct Answer : 2
Correct Answer - (2) The author posits that the absence of ground rules
may heighten vulnerability to exploitation and cybercrime, negatively
impacting individuals, businesses, and society due to our increasing dependence on the Internet for
various functions.
This is the most accurate reflection of the author’s argument. The passage emphasises the potential
for exploitation and cybercrime in an environment without clear guidelines and regulations. It points
out how this could negatively impact various sectors of society, given the increasing reliance on the
Internet.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) This option may seem plausible because an unregulated internet could potentially lead to chaos,
which might stifle advancement and growth. However, the passage does not specifically connect the
lack of ground rules to stifling technological advancement or economic growth. The emphasis is more
on the potential for cybercrime and exploitation in an unregulated space.
(3) While the digital divide is a significant concern in discussions about internet regulation, the author
does not specifically raise this issue in relation to the lack of ground rules for internet interactions.
The focus is more on the potential for cybercrime and less on issues of access and literacy.
(4) While censorship and surveillance are critical concerns in discussions of internet regulation, the
author does not specifically connect these issues with a lack of ground rules in the passage. The
primary focus is on preventing exploitation and cybercrime.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 13 to 16:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
Both the social science and technological paradigms appear to have their problematic existence and
tendency. The social science paradigm tends to emphasise policy reform, law-making and law
enforcement as its main locus and focus, thereby concentrating on preventing the occurrence of crimes
that have already been committed or existed. It tends to solve the signs and symptoms of the crime but
not uproot its causes. The technological paradigm, on the other hand, places more emphasis on
technological and innovative dimensions as its main thesis as a way of solving the riddle of cybercrime,
which necessarily prevent the occurrence of crime which has not yet existed . . . . It detects solutions to
the causes of cybercrime without diagnosing its symptoms. The hurling challenge, therefore, is first to
bridge the common differences underlying between causes and effects, the antecedents and
consequents and the causes and symptoms of cyber crimes, specifically that of the free speech, free
expression and free press doctrine and the behaviour exhibited that goes along with it with that of the
laws and policies which regulates it. The blurred distinctions between what is good or bad. . .may be
eradicated by first identifying and defining the cybercriminal behaviour and actions that constitute
cybercrime with the utmost consideration and respect to the constitutional rights, liberties and
freedoms of a cyber individual and citizen. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the fact that
individual users should and do take responsibility for their actions and, rather controversially, in light of
some of the security reports, the Internet is remarkably ordered if you consider the sheer number of
users and the volume of transactions that take place on it. . . .
Second, through the empowerment and strengthening process of democratising the participation of the
stakeholders between and among the social science and technological paradigm to consult further,
deliberate, discuss and consolidate their varied interpretations and applications on cybercrime
prevention with a paramount goal to share a common language and vision on how to regulate
cybercrime. Several stakeholders are concerned with the control of cybercrime, and each has its own
perspective and preferences. For successful control, they all must cooperate and share the necessary
responsibilities.
Third, discovering and recognising that symptoms of cyber crimes do exist and reversibly provide a
strong linkage with its causes in finding the coherent structures, systems, processes and policies which
may be promulgated and enforced in solving cybercrime. Another reasonable prediction would be that
the Internet will become not only the number-one means of communicating, conducting business,
socialising, entertaining, and just living, but indeed will handle a huge majority of such interactions; thus,
failure to establish and enforce some basic ground rules will likely lead to socioeconomic disaster. . . .
As new communication technologies continue to be developed, novel ways of exploiting such
technologies for nefarious purposes will undoubtedly develop. It is the responsibility of relevant social
control systems to keep pace with those that use electronic mediums, particularly computers,
cyberspace, and cellular phones, to victimise others by successfully preventing or responding to such
instances.
Q.15 [11944334]
“Second, through the empowerment and strengthening process of democratising the participation of
the stakeholders between and among the social science and technological paradigm to consult further,
deliberate, discuss and consolidate their varied interpretations and applications on cybercrime
prevention with a paramount goal to share a common language and vision on how to regulate
cybercrime.” Each of the following regarding this excerpt can be inferred as true, EXCEPT:
1
it assumes that the stakeholders are willing to engage in finding solutions to prevent cybercrime.
2 it assumes that stakeholders have diverse perspectives and interpretations of cybercrime
prevention.
3
it assumes that there exists at least some plausible shared vision on how to regulate cybercrime.
4 it assumes that other solutions than stakeholder participation will likely be ineffective in handling
cybercrimes.
Solution:
Correct Answer : 4
Correct Answer - (4) it assumes that other solutions than stakeholder
participation will likely be ineffective in handling cybercrimes.
 Answer key/Solution
The excerpt emphasises the importance of engaging stakeholders in the process of deliberating,
discussing, and consolidating varied interpretations and applications of cybercrime prevention.
However, it does not explicitly infer that other solutions would be ineffective. It does suggest the
necessity of stakeholders’ participation, but it does not discount the possibility of other effective
solutions to cybercrime beyond stakeholder participation.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) This option is inferred to be true because the excerpt specifically advocates for the involvement of
these stakeholders in a democratic, consultative process aimed at addressing cybercrime. This
implies a willingness on their part to engage and contribute to finding solutions.
(2) This option is inferred to be true because the excerpt mentions the need to “consolidate their
varied interpretations and applications on cybercrime prevention.” This suggests that the stakeholders
are anticipated to bring a wide range of perspectives to the table, which must be integrated to create a
comprehensive approach.
(3) This option is inferred to be true because the excerpt’s goal is for these stakeholders to eventually
“share a common language and vision on how to regulate cybercrime.” This implies that despite their
differences, there’s an underlying belief that these stakeholders can find some shared ground in
addressing cybercrime.
Bookmark
FeedBack
Directions for Questions 13 to 16:
The following passage is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best option for each question.
Both the social science and technological paradigms appear to have their problematic existence and
tendency. The social science paradigm tends to emphasise policy reform, law-making and law
enforcement as its main locus and focus, thereby concentrating on preventing the occurrence of crimes
that have already been committed or existed. It tends to solve the signs and symptoms of the crime but
not uproot its causes. The technological paradigm, on the other hand, places more emphasis on
technological and innovative dimensions as its main thesis as a way of solving the riddle of cybercrime,
which necessarily prevent the occurrence of crime which has not yet existed . . . . It detects solutions to
the causes of cybercrime without diagnosing its symptoms. The hurling challenge, therefore, is first to
bridge the common differences underlying between causes and effects, the antecedents and
consequents and the causes and symptoms of cyber crimes, specifically that of the free speech, free
expression and free press doctrine and the behaviour exhibited that goes along with it with that of the
laws and policies which regulates it. The blurred distinctions between what is good or bad. . .may be
eradicated by first identifying and defining the cybercriminal behaviour and actions that constitute
cybercrime with the utmost consideration and respect to the constitutional rights, liberties and
freedoms of a cyber individual and citizen. Furthermore, we must not lose sight of the fact that
individual users should and do take responsibility for their actions and, rather controversially, in light of
some of the security reports, the Internet is remarkably ordered if you consider the sheer number of
users and the volume of transactions that take place on it. . . .
Second, through the empowerment and strengthening process of democratising the participation of the
stakeholders between and among the social science and technological paradigm to consult further,
deliberate, discuss and consolidate their varied interpretations and applications on cybercrime
prevention with a paramount goal to share a common language and vision on how to regulate
cybercrime. Several stakeholders are concerned with the control of cybercrime, and each has its own
perspective and preferences. For successful control, they all must cooperate and share the necessary
responsibilities.
Third, discovering and recognising that symptoms of cyber crimes do exist and reversibly provide a
strong linkage with its causes in finding the coherent structures, systems, processes and policies which
may be promulgated and enforced in solving cybercrime. Another reasonable prediction would be that
the Internet will become not only the number-one means of communicating, conducting business,
socialising, entertaining, and just living, but indeed will handle a huge majority of such interactions; thus,
failure to establish and enforce some basic ground rules will likely lead to socioeconomic disaster. . . .
As new communication technologies continue to be developed, novel ways of exploiting such
technologies for nefarious purposes will undoubtedly develop. It is the responsibility of relevant social
control systems to keep pace with those that use electronic mediums, particularly computers,
cyberspace, and cellular phones, to victimise others by successfully preventing or responding to such
instances.
Q.16 [11944334]
Which one of the following, if it were to be true, is the author likely not to endorse?
1
increasing funding and resources for research and development in cybersecurity to anticipate and
respond to novel forms of cybercrime
2 establishing laws and regulations that are adaptable and flexible, allowing them to evolve with new
communication technologies
3 proposing that technology users bear the primary responsibility for their cybersecurity by regularly
updating their systems and practising safe Internet use
4 prioritising education and awareness initiatives to help the general public understand potential
cyber threats and how to protect themselves
Solution:
Correct Answer : 3
Correct Answer - (3) proposing that technology users bear the primary
responsibility for their cybersecurity by regularly updating their systems
and practising safe Internet use.
 Answer key/Solution
While the author would likely agree that individual users have some responsibility for their own
cybersecurity, the author emphasises a multi-pronged, cooperative approach to dealing with
cybercrime that involves various stakeholders (including tech companies, government agencies, and
legal bodies). Therefore, the idea of users bearing primary responsibility will not align with the
author’s broader view on the issue, and this will likely not get the author’s endorsement.
Incorrect Answers:
(1) Based on the passage, the author is likely to endorse this action, as it emphasises the necessity of
keeping pace with new communication technologies and their potential for exploitation.
(2) This is in line with the author’s emphasis on the importance of social control systems keeping up
with the pace of those who use electronic mediums to commit cybercrimes.
(4) The author’s emphasis is on the cooperative involvement of various stakeholders and the evolution
of laws and social control systems to keep pace with new technologies. While public education could
conceivably align with this broader approach to cybercrime prevention, the author does not directly
discuss this aspect. Thus, it can be stated that the author may or may not endorse this particular
initiative. Since the question specifically asks something the author likely does not endorse, this
option is not the correct answer.
Bookmark
FeedBack