LearnHub

Ask The Experts

Directions for Questions 76 to 80 The passage given below is followed by a set of five questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

When I was little, children were bought two kinds of ice cream, sold from those white wagons with the canopies made of silvery metal: either the two-cent cone or the four-cent ice cream pie. The two-cent cone was very small, in fact it could fit comfortably into a child's hand, and it was made by taking the ice cream from its container with a special scoop and piling it on the cone. Granny always suggested I eat only a part of the cone, then throw away the pointed end, because it had been touched by the vendor's hand (though that was the best part, nice and crunchy, and it was regularly eaten in secret, after a pretense of discarding it).

The four-cent pie was made by a special little machine, also silvery, which pressed two disks of sweet biscuit against a cylindrical section of ice cream. First you had to thrust your tongue into the gap between the biscuits until it touched the central nucleus of ice cream; then, gradually, you ate the whole thing, the biscuit surfaces softening as they became soaked in creamy nectar. Granny had no advice to give here: in theory the pies had been touched only by the machine; in practice, the vendor had held them against his hand while giving them to us, but it was impossible to isolate the contaminated area.

I was fascinated, however, by some of my peers, whose parents bought them not a four-cent pie but two two-cent cones. These privileged children advanced proudly with one cone in their right hand and one in their left; and expertly moving their head from side to side, they licked first one, then the other. This liturgy seemed to me so sumptuously enviable, that many times I asked to be allowed to celebrate it. In vain. My elders were inflexible: a four-cent ice, yes; but two two-cent ones, absolutely no.

As anyone can see, neither mathematics nor economy nor dietetics justified this refusal. Nor did hygiene, assuming that in due course the tips of both cones were discarded. The pathetic, and obviously mendacious, justification was that a boy concerned with turning his eyes from one cone to the other was more inclined to stumble over stones, steps, or cracks in the pavement. I dimly sensed that there was another secret justification, cruelly pedagogical, but I was unable to grasp it.

Today, citizen and victim of a consumer society, a civilization of excess and waste (which the society of the thirties was not), I realize that those dear and now departed elders were right. Two two-cent cones instead of one at four cents did not signify squandering, economically speaking, but symbolically they surely did. It was for this precise reason, that I yearned for them: because two ice creams suggested excess. And this was precisely why they were denied me: because they looked indecent, an insult to poverty, a display of fictitious privilege, a boast of wealth. Only spoiled children ate two cones at once, those children who in fairy tales were rightly punished, as Pinocchio was when he rejected the skin and the stalk. And parents who encouraged this weakness, appropriate to little parvenus, were bringing up their children in the foolish theater of "I'd like to but I can't." They were preparing them to turn up at tourist-class cheek-in with a fake Gucci bag bought from a street peddler on the beach at Rimini.

Nowadays the moralist risks seeming at odds with morality, in a world where the consumer civilization now wants even adults to be spoiled, and promises them always something more, from the wristwatch in the box of detergent to the bonus bangle sheathed, with the magazine it accompanies, in a plastic envelope. Like the parents of those ambidextrous gluttons I so envied, the consumer civilization pretends to give more, but actually gives, for four cents, what is worth four cents. You will throw away the old transistor radio to purchase the new one, that boasts an alarm clock as well, but some inexplicable defect in the mechanism will guarantee that the radio lasts only a year. The new cheap car will have leather seats, double side mirrors adjustable from inside, and a paneled dashboard, but it will not last nearly so long as the glorious old Fiat 500, which, even when it broke down, could be started again with a kick.

The morality of the old days made Spartans of us all, while today's morality wants all of us to be Sybarites.

Q. 76. Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?

(1) Today's society is more extravagant than the society of the 1930s.
(2) The act of eating two ice cream cones in akin to a ceremonial process.
(3) Elders rightly suggested that a boy turning eyes from one cone to the other was more likely to fall.
(4) Despite seeming to promise more, the consumer civilization gives away exactly what the thing is worth.
(5) The consumer civilization attempts to spoil children and adults alike.

Ans. The question is which 'cannot' be inferred from the passage. According to the first sentence of the fifth paragraph option "Today, citizen and victim of a consumer society, a civilization of excess and waste …" 1 can be inferred. Option 2 can be inferred from para three 'Liturgy'. The examples given in the second part of the sixth para suggests that option four is true "the consumer civilization pretends to give more, but actually gives for 4 cents, what is worth four cents" and according to the first sentence of para six option 5 is true. The third and the fourth sentences of para four "the pathetic and obviously mendacious justification.." clearly show that the reason stated in option 3 is not what can be inferred from the passage.

Choice (3)

Q. 77. In the passage, the phrase "little parvenus" refers to

(1) naughty midgets
(2) old hags
(3) arrogant people
(4) young upstarts
(5) foolish kids

Ans. The word 'Parvenu' means usually, a person of recent wealth, who pretends to a status that is not his due, in other words, an upstart or "show off" The children with two ice creams one in each hand, are not truly 'parvenus' but is a satirical usage about some one who seeks to make others "envy' him, such as the future 'Fake Gucci bag' bearer.

Choice (4)

Q. 78. The author pined for two-cent cones instead of one four-cent pie because

(1) it made dietetic sense
(2) it suggested intemperance
(3) it was more fun
(4) it had a visual appeal
(5) he was a glutton

Ans. Refer paragraph 5, 2nd sentence, "Two cent cones instead of one at four cents did not signify squandering, economically speaking, but symbolically they surely did. It was for this precise reason, that I yearned for them" Clearly Option 2 is the correct answer.

Choice (2)

Q. 79. What does the author mean by "now a days the moralist risks seeming at odds with morality"?

(1) The moralist of yesterday have become immoral today
(2) The concept of morality has changed over the years
(3) Consumerism is amoral
(4) The risks associated with immorality have gone up
(5) The purist's view of morality is fast becoming popular

Ans. Refer to the first sentence of para six. Nowadays the Moralist risks seeming at odds with morality….." The Author compares the Morality of a Consumerist Today with the Morality of his childhood where children were to be protected from Excess and Greed, even of a symbolic nature. Hence, the Moralist of yester years would be at odds with Morality of today. Obviously it implies that the concept of Morality has changed.

Choice (2)

Q. 80. According to the author, the justification for refusal to let him eat two cones was plausibly

(1) didactic
(2) dietetic
(3) dialectic
(4) diatonic
(5) diastolic

Ans. The stated reason given by the adults for refusing 2 two cent ice creams was obviously a lie (pathetic and obviously mendacious - refer Para 4 Line 2). He Sensed a secret justification, cruelly pedagogical (related to teaching). Hence the Justification was didactic (related to moralistic teaching).

Choice (1)

Directions for Questions 81 to 85: The passage given below is followed by a set of five questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

A remarkable aspect of art of the present century is the range of concepts and ideologies which it embodies. It is almost tempting to see a pattern emerging within the art field - or alternatively imposed upon it a posteriori - similar to that which exists under the umbrella of science where the general term covers a whole range of separate, though interconnecting, activities. Any parallelism is however - in this instance at least - misleading. A scientific discipline develops systematically once its bare tenets have been established, named and categorized as conventions. Many of the concepts of modern art, by contrast, have resulted from the almost accidental meetings of groups of talented individuals at certain times and certain places. The ideas generated by these chance meetings had two - fold consequences. Firstly, a corpus of work would be produced which, in great part, remains as a concrete record of the events. Secondly, the ideas would themselves be disseminated through many different channels of communication - seeds that often bore fruit in contexts far removed from their generation. Not all movements were exclusively concerned with innovation. Surrealism, for instance, claimed to embody a kind of insight which can be present in the art of any period. This claim has been generally accepted so that a sixteenth century painting by Spranger or a mysterious photograph by Atget can legitimately be discussed in surrealist terms. Briefly, then, the concepts of modern art are of many different (often fundamentally different) kinds and resulted from the exposures of painters, sculptors and thinkers to the more complex phenomena of the twentieth century, including our ever increasing knowledge of the thought and products of earlier centuries. Different groups of artists would collaborate in trying to make sense of rapidly changing world of visual and spiritual experience. We should hardly be surprised if no one group succeeded completely, but achievements, through relative, have been considerable. Landmarks have been established - concrete statements of position which give a pattern to a situation which could easily have degenerated into total chaos. Beyond this, new language tools have been created for those who follow - semantic systems which can provide a springboard for furthere xplorations.

The codifying of art is often criticized. Certainly one can understand that artists are wary of being pigeon- holed since they are apt to think of themselves as individuals - sometimes with good reason. The notion of self-expression, however, no longer carries quite the weight it once did; objectivity has its defenders. There is good reason to accept the ideas codified by artists and critics, over the past sixty years or so, as having attained the status of independent existence - an independence which is not without its own value. This time factor is important here. As an art movement slips into temporal perspective, it ceases to be a living organism - becoming, rather, a fossil. This is not to say it becomes useless or uninteresting. Just as a scientist can reconstruct the life of a prehistoric environment from the messages codified into the structure of a fossil, so can an artist decipher whole webs of intellectual and creative possibility from the recorded structure of a 'dead' art movement. The artist can match the creative patterns crystallized into this structure against the potentials and possibilities of his own time. AS T.S Eliot observed, no one starts anything from scratch; however consciously you may try to live in the present, you are still involved with a nexus of behaviour patterns bequeathed from the past. The original and creative person is not someone who ignores these patterns, but someone who is able to translate and develop them so that they confirm more exactly to his - and our - present needs.

Q. 81. Many of the concepts of modern art have been the product of

(1) ideas generated from planned deliberations between artists, painters and thinkers.
(2) the dissemination of ideas through the state and its organizations.
(3) accidental interactions among people blessed with creative muse.
(4) patronage by the rich and powerful that supported art
(5) systematic investigation, codification and conventions.

Ans. Refer to the fifth sentence of para one 'Many of the concepts of modern art …............'

Choice (3)

Q. 82. In the passage, the word 'fossil' can be interpreted as

(1) an art movement that has ceased to remain interesting or useful.
(2) an analogy from the physical world to indicate a historic art movement.
(3) an analogy from the physical world to indicate the barrenness of artistic creations in the past.
(4) an embedded codification of pre-historic life.
(5) an analogy from the physical world to indicate the passing of an era associated with an art movement.

Ans. The author compares the art movements that are 'dead' to 'fossils'. Like with fossils, An Artist can decipher intellectual and creative possibility from the recorded structure of a 'dead' art movement. Hence choice (5).

Fossil here refers to any 'dead' art movement, not necessarily an 'historic' one. Eliminate Option 2.

Option 2 (barrenness of artistic creations in the past) is obviously wrong. Option 4 is unrelated to art and hence is eliminated.

Choice (5)

Q. 83. In the passage, which of the following similarities between science and art may lead to erroneous conclusions?

(1) Both, in general, include a gamut of distinct but interconnecting activities.
(2) Both have movements not necessarily concerned with innovation.
(3) Both depend on collaborations between talented individuals.
(4) Both involve abstract thought and dissemination of ideas.
(5) Both reflect complex priorities of the modern world.

Ans. Refer to the 2nd sentence in paragraph 1. "It is tempting to see a pattern emerging within the art field, similar to science where a general term covers a whole range of separate, though interconnecting activities." But the next sentence says that the connection would be misleading. Hence choice (1).

Choice (1)

Q. 84. The range of concepts and ideologies embodied in the art of the twentieth century is explained by

(1) the existence of movements such as surrealism.
(2) landmarks which give a pattern to the art history of the twentieth century.
(3) new language tools which can be used for further explorations into new areas.
(4) the fast changing world of perceptual and transcendental understandings.
(5) the quick exchange of ideas and concepts enabled by efficient technology.

Ans. Refer Para 1 Line 6 from the end "Different groups of artists would collaborate in trying to make sense of a rapidly changing world of visual and spiritual experience.

Choice (4)

Q. 85. The passage uses an observation by T.S. Eliot to imply that

(1) creative processes are not 'original' because they always borrow from the past.
(2) we always carry forward the legacy of the past.
(3) past behaviours and thought processes recreate themselves in the present and get labeled as 'original'or'creative'.
(4) 'originality' can only thrive in a 'green house' insulated from the past biases.
(5) 'innovations' and 'original thinking' interpret and develop on past thoughts to suit contemporary needs.

Ans. Refer to the last sentence of the passage which explains that these original and creative artists use ideas from earlier eras to develop ideas that correspond to present day situations. Hence option 5 is the correct choice. It is in this context that the author cites TS Eliot.

Choice (5)

Directions for Questions 86 to 90: The passage given below is followed by a set of five questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

To summarize the Classic Maya collapse, we can tentatively identify five strands. I acknowledge, however, that Maya archaeologists still disagree vigorously among themselves-in part, because the different strands evidently varied in importance among different parts of the Maya realm; because detailed archaeological studies are available for only some Maya sites; and because it remains puzzling why most of the Maya heartland remained nearly empty of population and failed to recover after the collapse and after re-growth of forests.

With those caveats, it appears to me that one strand consisted of population growth outstripping available resources: a dilemma similar to the one foreseen by Thomas Malthus in 1798 and being played out today in Rwanda (Chapter 10), Haiti (Chapter 11), and elsewhere. As the archaeologist David Webster succinctly puts it, "Too many farmers grew too many crops on too much of the landscape." Compounding that mismatch between population and resources was the second strand: the effects of deforestation and hillside erosion, which caused a decrease in the amount of useable farmland at a time when more rather than less farmland was needed, and possibly exacerbated by an anthropogenic drought resulting from deforestation, by soil nutrient depletion and other soil problems, and by the struggle to prevent bracken ferns from overrunning the fields.

The third strand consisted of increased fighting, as more and more people fought over fewer resources. Maya warfare, already endemic, peaked just before the collapse. That is not surprising when one reflects that at least 5,000,000 people, perhaps many more, were crammed into an area smaller than the state of Colorado (104,000 square miles). That warfare would have decreased further the amount of land available for agriculture, by creating no-man's lands between principalities where it was now unsafe to farm. Bringing matters to a head was the strand of climate change. The drought at the time of the Classic collapse was not the first drought that the Maya had lived through, but it was the most severe. At the time of previous droughts, there were still uninhabited parts of the Maya landscape, and people at a site affected by drought could save themselves by moving to another site. However, by the time of the Classic collapse the landscape was now full, there was no useful unoccupied land in the vicinity on which to begin anew, and the whole population could not be accommodated in the few areas that continued to have reliable water supplies.

As our fifth strand, we have to wonder why the kings and nobles failed to recognize and solve these seemingly obvious problems undermining their society. Their attention was evidently focused on their short-term concerns of enriching themselves, waging wars, erecting monuments, competing with each other, and extracting enough food from the peasants to support all those activities. Like most leaders throughout human history, the Maya kings and nobles did not heed long-term problems, insofar as they perceived them. We shall return to this theme in Chapter 14.

Finally, while we still have some other past societies to consider in this book before we switch our attention to the modern world, we must already be struck by some parallels between the Maya and the past societies discussed in Chapters 2-4. As on Easter Island, Mangareva, and among the Anasazi, Maya environmental and population problems led to increasing warfare and civil strife. As on Easter Island and at Chaco Canyon, Maya peak population numbers were followed swiftly by political and social collapse. Paralleling the eventual extension of agriculture from Easter Island's coastal lowlands to its uplands, and from the Mimbres floodplain to the hills, Copan's inhabitants also expanded from the floodplain to the more fragile hill slopes, leaving them with a larger population to feed when the agricultural boom in the hills went bust. Like Easter Island chiefs erecting ever larger statues, eventually crowned by pukao, and like Anasazi elite treating themselves to necklaces of 2,000 turquoise beads, Maya kings sought to outdo each other with more and more impressive temples, covered with thicker and thicker plaster- reminiscent in turn of the extravagant conspicuous consumption by modern American CEOs. The passivity of Easter chiefs and Maya kings in the face of the real big threats to their societies completes our list of disquieting parallels.

Q. 86. According to the passage, which of the following best represents the factor that has been cited by the author in the context of Rwanda and Haiti?
(1) Various ethnic groups competing for land and other resources.
(2) Various ethnic groups competing for limited land resources.
(3) Various ethnic groups fighting wit each other.
(4) Various ethnic groups competing for political power.
(5) Various ethnic groups fighting for their identity.

Ans. Refer to para 2 where Rwanda and Haiti are mentioned. This has reference to the first strand, that is population growth outstripping available resources. Since land is the only resource mentioned in this context and is limited in availability for agriculture, choice 2 is better than choice 1.

Choice (2)

Q. 87. By an anthropogenic drought, the author means

(1) A drought caused by lack of rains.
(2) A drought caused due to deforestation.
(3) A drought caused by failure to prevent bracken ferns from overrunning the fields.
(4) A drought caused by actions of human beings.
(5) A drought caused by climate changes.

Ans. 'Anthropogenic' means 'originating in human activity'. Hence anthropogenic drought means a drought caused by the actions of human beings.

Choice (4)

Q. 88. According to the passage, the drought at the time of Maya collapse had a different impact compared to the droughts earlier because

(1) The Maya kings continue to be extravagant when common people were suffering.
(2) It happened at the time of collapse of leadership among Mayas.
(3) It happened when the Maya population had occupied all available land suited for agriculture.
(4) AIt was followed by internecine warfare among Mayans.
(5) Irreversible environmental degradation led to this drought.

p<>. Ans. Refer to the last 6 lines of para 3 which discusses the drought at the time of the classic collapse. At the time of earlier droughts there were uninhabited lands to which people could move but now the landscape was full and there was no useful unoccupied land in the vicinity.

Choice (3)

Q. 89. According to the author, why is it difficult to explain the reasons for Maya collapse?

(1) Copan inhabitants destroyed all records of that period.
(2) The constant deforestation and hillside erosion have wiped out all traces of the Maya kingdom.
(3) Archaeological sites of Mayas do not provide any consistent evidence.
(4) It has not been possible to ascertain which of the factors best explains as to why the Maya civilization collapsed.
(5) At least five million people were crammed into a small area.

Ans. Refer to para 1 - there are five strands that could explain the collapse but there is disagreement among archaeologists in part, because "the different strands evidently varied in importance among different parts of the Mayan Realm".

Choice (4)

Q. 90. Which factor has not been cited as one of the factors causing the collapse of Maya society?

(1) Environmental degradation due to excess population.
(2) Social collapse due to excess population.
(3) Increased warfare among Maya people.
(4) Climate change.
(5) Obsession of Maya population with their own short-term concerns.

Ans. Choice 5 is the answer because it is the rulers and not the people who were obsessed with their own short term concerns (para 4, fifth strand). The other four choices are mentioned in the passage. Choice 1 is in para 2 (strand two). Choices 2 and 3 in para 3 (strand three) and choice 4 in para 3 (strand four).

Choice (5)

Ask The Experts