CAT 50 Day Streak – Day 2
30 questions across VARC, DILR & QA · +3 for a correct answer · −1 for a wrong MCQ · no negative marking for TITA
VARC · Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension
Q1 – Q10 0/10In most great debates, many possible stances are reduced to two options in a hurry. In American politics, we often frame all debates as “Democrats versus Republicans” and proceed to label every policy or action as belonging to one of those factions. Anybody else, particularly those in the middle, is quickly swept aside and forgotten. According to a new study, this tendency is not only common but is so ingrained in our thinking that you can make a formula to describe it. “We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down.” – Aneurin Bevan.
A team of researchers at the Santa Fe Institute studied the system using a commonly applied model to try to “solve” for where social boundaries appear on a political scale. The researchers added cognitive and social components — which often drive people into an “us vs. them” style of thinking — to the model’s equations. They hypothesised that people would devise measurable camps of “us” and “them” which would appear in the models. Those who don’t fit cleanly into these roles would tend to be overlooked. The model’s results were compared to data from 1980s surveys, which included questions about respondents’ feelings toward members of other political groups, to verify accuracy. Importantly, during that decade, many people were asked about political independents in the centre, deemed “inbetweeners” by the researchers, as well as about their stance on members of other parties.
Though one might suspect that people viewed those in the middle as potential allies, the tendency to divide the world into two buckets simply excludes those in the middle. The model predicted, and the surveys from the 80s confirmed, that both those on the left and right viewed centrists unfavourably. Lead author Vicky Chuqiao Yang explained the unfortunate situation of these centrists: “By being ‘inbetweeners,’ independents are viewed as unfavourably as the other party by both sides, and left out. So Independents get the worst of both worlds, and there are downstream consequences.”
The authors speculate that this phenomenon could cause those in the middle to drift towards the extremes in hopes of avoiding the ills of being in the middle. Over time, this could lead to a highly polarised society, as nobody is left in the middle at all. These findings are not necessarily limited to politics. The model could be applied to how society views people of indeterminate race or who do not fit cleanly into categories of sexuality, for example. Additionally, because group labels evolve, we should see the formation of entirely new groups and in-betweeners. In the study, the authors note that the model was limited for exactly this reason and hope that future studies will expand on the concept.
The last paragraph says marginalised centrists may “drift towards the extremes”, which “could lead to a highly polarised society, as nobody is left in the middle at all.” That is option A.
B is the opposite of the passage’s warning. C has no support, since centrists are described as excluded, not organising. D contradicts the predicted polarisation.
Being left out of political debates over a long period is concrete evidence that independents are “swept aside and forgotten”. D directly supports the marginalisation claim.
A is about numbers, not treatment. B shows centrists are trusted, which weakens the claim. C is about centrists’ private views, not how others treat them.
The framework says “inbetweeners” who fit neither camp are viewed unfavourably by both sides. Hybrid employees, distrusted by both onsite and remote colleagues, are an exact parallel.
A and C show the middle group being favoured, the opposite of the model. D has no two-camp division at all.
The passage says the model’s results were compared to the 1980s surveys “to verify accuracy”, and that “the model predicted, and the surveys from the 80s confirmed” the finding. The data validated the model’s predictions.
A and B reverse the order: the hypothesis came from the researchers, not the data. D is wrong because “inbetweeners” is the researchers’ label, not a variable supplied by the data.
- Though the sack of Troy has been dated to 1184 BC, the Homeric epics were composed and perhaps written down in the eighth or seventh century.
- With a few slips, he was, for instance, very careful not to impose iron on his Bronze Age heroes.
- Such historical scrupulosity, however, misses the point.
- Homer shows himself acutely aware of the gap between his own day and the period about which he was singing.
- For most of them – Sarpedon, Patroclus, Achilles, Ajax – it was a death rendered still more grim by being met at a young age and far from home.
The coherent paragraph is 1 → 4 → 2 → 3:
- 1: There is a time gap between the fall of Troy and the composition of the epics.
- 4: Homer was aware of that gap.
- 2: “For instance”, he avoided giving iron to Bronze Age heroes.
- 3: “Such historical scrupulosity” sums up 2 and pivots with “however”.
Sentence 5 talks about the heroes’ deaths. “Them” has no antecedent, and the topic has nothing to do with Homer’s historical accuracy.
- The COVID-19 pandemic simply accelerated a trend: many of us are now more intimately connected to smartphones than to non-mediated relationships with people.
- It is much easier, at least ostensibly, to live in isolation from other people.
- Today, thanks mostly to our technologies, people are taking the second path through life much of the time.
- Today, we are rapidly becoming ‘tech-vexed’ – my word for the gradual yet relentless seduction of computerised life.
- The net result of this insular life is that relationships with ourselves and others take on a new hue.
The coherent paragraph is 4 → 1 → 3 → 5:
- 4: Introduces the author’s term “tech-vexed”, the seduction of computerised life.
- 1: COVID-19 accelerated this trend of being more connected to smartphones than to people.
- 3: “Thanks mostly to our technologies”, people take the second, mediated path.
- 5: “The net result of this insular life” concludes.
Sentence 2 is a general remark about how easy isolation is. It says nothing about technology, so it doesn’t fit the paragraph’s thread of technology-driven living.
The passage makes two points: science has no evidence either way about the afterlife, and the one certainty, death, gives life “vital energy”. A captures both.
B says science has “disproven” the afterlife, but the passage says there is no evidence either way. C invents an agreement between religion and science. D claims the metaphysical is proven, which the passage never says.
The first half of the paragraph is about customer service agents. From blank 3 onwards it is about pricing (competitor behaviour, real-time repricing). “Retail pricing wars never stop” is the topic sentence that introduces this shift, so it belongs at blank 3.
Blanks 1 and 2 sit inside the customer-service discussion. Blank 4 would split the repricing explanation after the topic has already been introduced.
- It looks, counterintuitively, as if the future is what determines the motion of the body in the past.
- In classical mechanics, for example, there is something called the Lagrangian formulation, which holds that, when moving between two separate points, A and B, a physical body will take the most efficient path.
- This does not look like the layer-cake model because, in order for the physical body to take the path of maximal efficiency, point B, which lies in the future, needs to be determined in advance.
- In the case of general relativity, there are good reasons for doing this, but in other cases the challenge to the layer-cake model becomes harder to dismiss.
The order runs like this:
- 4: Opens the idea that, outside general relativity, the challenge to the layer-cake model is “harder to dismiss”.
- 2: “In classical mechanics, for example” gives one such other case, the Lagrangian formulation.
- 3: Explains why this doesn’t fit the layer-cake model: point B must be fixed in advance.
- 1: Draws the counterintuitive conclusion that the future seems to determine the past.
- H. floresiensis made stone tools and hunted diminutive elephants, whose own small size stands as another example of insular dwarfism.
- In fact, its size conforms to the ecological principle of insular dwarfism, which predicts that animals reduce their body size when their population’s range is limited to a small island environment.
- The isolation of H. floresiensis likely contributed to its small brains and stature.
- How H. floresiensis arrived at its namesake island is still unknown.
The order runs like this:
- 3: Isolation likely caused the species’ small brain and stature.
- 2: “In fact, its size” fits the principle of insular dwarfism.
- 1: The dwarf elephants it hunted are “another example” of insular dwarfism.
- 4: Closes with an open question: how it reached the island is unknown.
DILR · Data Interpretation & Logical Reasoning
Q11 – Q20 0/10Eleven people from five societies (Amrapali, Ekansh, Rangoli, Symphony, Trident) own cars of various brands (Honda, Skoda, Ford, Toyota). Each person belongs to one of these societies. One person can have more than one car of any brand. The information about the vehicles owned by these 11 people is given in the table below.
| Persons | Honda | Skoda | Ford | Toyota |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ambuj | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Bindu | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Chetan | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dhanu | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Edwin | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Farhat | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Geeta | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Harry | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Ishmeet | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Jashn | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Kanta | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
The number of cars owned by these people, society-wise, is also given:
| Society | Honda | Skoda | Ford | Toyota |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amrapali | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Ekansh | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Rangoli | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Symphony | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Trident | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
Write each person and society as (Honda, Skoda, Ford, Toyota).
Honda owners. Bindu, Chetan and Jashn own 2 each, and Ambuj and Kanta own 1 each. Rangoli needs 1 Honda (Ambuj or Kanta). Amrapali needs 3, so it gets one 2-Honda person plus Ambuj or Kanta. Ekansh and Symphony (2 each) get one 2-Honda person each. Trident has no Honda owners.
- Symphony (2,1,1,2). With Bindu, the remainder (0,1,1,1) can’t be formed. With Jashn, the remainder (0,1,0,2) can’t be formed. With Chetan, the remainder (0,1,1,2) is Edwin. So Symphony = Chetan + Edwin.
- Ekansh (2,1,3,2). With Bindu, the remainder (0,1,3,1) is impossible. So it is Jashn + (0,1,2,2), which is either Farhat or Geeta + Harry.
- Trident (0,1,2,2) gets whichever of Farhat / Geeta + Harry is left.
- Amrapali (3,2,4,1) has Bindu. Adding Ambuj would give 2 Toyotas, so it takes Kanta, and the remainder (0,1,3,0) is Dhanu.
- Rangoli (1,3,2,1) = Ambuj + Ishmeet.
| Society | Members |
|---|---|
| Amrapali | Bindu, Kanta, Dhanu |
| Ekansh | Jashn + (Farhat or Geeta & Harry) |
| Rangoli | Ambuj, Ishmeet |
| Symphony | Chetan, Edwin |
| Trident | (Geeta & Harry) or Farhat |
Chetan lives in Symphony.
Ekansh is either Jashn + Farhat (2 people) or Jashn + Geeta + Harry (3 people). Both fit (2,1,3,2), so the answer is 2 or 3.
Amrapali = Bindu (2,0,0,1) + Kanta (1,1,1,0) + Dhanu (0,1,3,0) = (3,2,4,1). That is 3 people.
Rangoli = Ambuj (1,1,1,1) + Ishmeet (0,2,1,0) = (1,3,2,1). Bindu is in Amrapali, Edwin in Symphony, and Harry in Ekansh or Trident. The answer is Ambuj.
- A: Geeta and Harry are always together, so this is always true.
- B: Farhat and Geeta are always in different societies, so this is always true.
- C: Chetan is in Symphony and Dhanu in Amrapali, so this is always false.
- D: If Geeta is in Trident, it is true. If Geeta is in Ekansh with Jashn, it is false. It may be correct.
The annual incomes (in lakh Rs.) of six ladies – Gayatri, Heena, Ishani, Jyoti, Kavya and Lekha – are 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 16, in no particular order. Each of them saves a different percentage of her annual income among 10%, 20%, 25%, 35%, 40% and 60%, and invests it in a different scheme among Stocks, PPF, Mutual Funds, FOREX, NPS and Crypto, in no particular order. It is also known that:
- Ishani saves 25% of her annual income while Heena invests in NPS.
- The lady who saves 40% does not invest in PPF.
- The average annual income of Gayatri, Heena and Jyoti is Rs. 6 lakhs.
- The lady who earns the highest saves Rs. 5.6 lakhs and invests it in FOREX.
- The annual income of Kavya is the least among the six. She saves 1/12th of the amount saved by the lady who invests in Mutual Funds.
- The sum of the annual incomes of the lady who invests in Stocks and the lady who saves 20% is equal to the sum of the annual incomes of Gayatri and the lady who saves 60%.
- Highest income is 16, with 5.6 saved, so 35% in FOREX. Kavya has the least income, 3.
- G + H + J = 18 from {4, 6, 8, 10, 16}, which forces {4, 6, 8}. So Ishani and Lekha are 10 and 16. Ishani saves 25%, so Ishani = 10 and Lekha = 16.
- Kavya saves 10%, 20%, 40% or 60% of 3, i.e. 0.3, 0.6, 1.2 or 1.8. The Mutual Funds lady saves 12 times that: 3.6, 7.2, 14.4 or 21.6. Only 3.6 is achievable (60% of 6). So Kavya saves 10% and the income-6 lady saves 60% in Mutual Funds.
- Incomes 4 and 8 take 20% and 40%. Heena (NPS) is 4 or 8.
- Last clue: Stocks income + 20%-saver’s income = Gayatri + 6. Gayatri can’t be the 60% lady herself (they are named separately), so Gayatri = 8 or 4. Gayatri = 4 fails. With Gayatri = 8, we need Stocks + 20%-saver = 14, which is 10 + 4. So Ishani is in Stocks, 4 saves 20%, and Gayatri (8) saves 40%.
- Heena = 4 (20%, NPS) and Jyoti = 6 (60%, MF). Gayatri’s 40% can’t go to PPF, so Gayatri is in Crypto and Kavya in PPF.
| Lady | Income (lakh) | Saves % | Savings (lakh) | Scheme |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gayatri | 8 | 40% | 3.2 | Crypto |
| Heena | 4 | 20% | 0.8 | NPS |
| Ishani | 10 | 25% | 2.5 | Stocks |
| Jyoti | 6 | 60% | 3.6 | Mutual Funds |
| Kavya | 3 | 10% | 0.3 | PPF |
| Lekha | 16 | 35% | 5.6 | FOREX |
Kavya saves 0.3 lakh = Rs. 30,000.
From the solved table (see Q16), Gayatri earns 8 lakh and saves 40% (Rs. 3.2 lakh).
From the last clue, Stocks income + 20%-saver’s income (4) = Gayatri (8) + 60%-saver (6) = 14. So the Stocks investor earns 10, which is Ishani. She invests in Stocks.
Total = 3.2 + 0.8 + 2.5 + 3.6 + 0.3 + 5.6 = Rs. 16 lakhs.
Gayatri invests in Crypto and saves 3.2 lakh. Jyoti (3.6) and Lekha (5.6) save more, so the answer is 2.
QA · Quantitative Ability
Q21 – Q30 0/104x = 22x = 125 = 53, and 8y = 23y = 5, so 53 = 29y.
So 22x = 29y, which gives 2x = 9y.
(2x − y)/y = (9y − y)/y = 8.
The equation says xy = 1260. For a fixed product, the sum x + y is smallest when the two factors are closest to √1260 ≈ 35.5.
1260 = 35 × 36, so the minimum x + y = 35 + 36 = 71.
The ratio of the kth terms equals the ratio of the sums with n = 2k − 1. For k = 12, n = 23.
(3 × 23 + 8) : (7 × 23 + 15) = 77 : 176 = 7 : 16.
4-digit numbers: the first digit must be 6, 7 or 8, giving 3 × 4 × 3 × 2 = 72.
5-digit numbers: all of them exceed 6000, giving 5! = 120.
Total = 72 + 120 = 192.
Let the common radius be r. The melted volume is 0.75 × (4/3)πr3 = πr3.
This fills the cone: (1/3)πr2h = πr3, so h = 3r.
h : r = 3 : 1.
After the first pour: cup 1 has 1.25 coffee, and cup 2 has 1.25 coffee + 2.5 cream = 3.75.
Half of cup 2 (1.875) goes back, carrying 0.625 coffee and 1.25 cream.
Cup 1 now holds 1.875 coffee + 1.25 cream = 3.125. The cream fraction is 1.25 / 3.125 = 2/5.
DE lies on line CD, which is parallel to AB, so triangles FDE and FAB are similar.
DF : FA = DE : AB = 4 : 16 = 1 : 4. Since AD = BC = 10, DF = 10 × 1/5 = 2.
(The 120° angle isn’t needed.)
N has exactly two prime factors: N = paqb. Then N2 = p2aq2b has (2a + 1)(2b + 1) = 77 = 7 × 11 factors, so a = 3 and b = 5.
Factors of N = (3 + 1)(5 + 1) = 24.
Anshul gets 1.08P. Amod gets 10% compounded half-yearly, i.e. 5% per half-year: (1.05)2P = 1.1025P.
Difference: 0.0225P = 2700, so P = Rs 1,20,000.
A “big” day (10) forces two days of at most 5, giving 20 over 3 days. Three days of 7 give 21. So eating 7 every day beats using big days in the middle.
The exception is the last day: a 10 on day 20 has no following days to penalise. The best plan is 7 × 19 + 10 = 133 + 10 = 143.
Putting the 10 on day 19 instead gives 126 + 10 + 5 = 141, which is lower.
Correct: 0 · Wrong: 0 · Accuracy: 0%
Keep the streak alive. See you tomorrow for Day 3.



