Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 03 June 2026

There are a lot of small, sincere plays that are also very boring. I won’t name names, because I’m not a complete monster, but, as anyone who frequents the theatre understands, a seventy-five-minute drama with no intermission can last several centuries. So I’ll admit I was nervous when I saw a poster at the Studio Seaview, where “Well, I’ll Let You Go” is now playing,

that described the show as “a fog of grief,” which sounded suspiciously like code for “dignified but dull.” Luckily, that apprehension quickly dissolved as I submerged myself in the patient, meditative focus that is one of the rewards of quiet plays—the sensation of an audience locking in, then submitting, happily, to the story.

“Well, I’ll Let You Go,” written by the actor Bubba Weiler, had a run in Brooklyn last year. It opens on a bare stage decorated with what the script calls “rehearsal versions” of furniture, “not quite right or fully realized.” There are folding chairs and a card table, a reflection of the blanked-out inner life of the show’s protagonist, Maggie (Quincy Tyler Bernstine), a retired schoolteacher who is at sea, unmoored by a personal loss of some kind—and reliant on the people around her to fill in the gaps. Conveniently, there’s another presence lingering onstage: an “Our Town”-ish narrator, played with gentle, appealing authority by Matthew Maher. He tells stories about the characters’ past and the origins of their relationships; he lets us know what people think but don’t say. He also urges us to see Maggie’s space through more generous eyes, by describing a piano that we can’t see, or referring to the card table as a glass-topped showpiece that glints with sunlight at “a weird hour of the day when no one is in the room to see it.”

Then, one by one, guests show up. Maggie—dishevelled, her posture slumped—feels obliged, despite her shock, to be a gracious host, a role that she is both adroit at and phenomenally ill-suited for. She’s a polite person but introverted and skeptical, a doubter in a town full of churchy, community-oriented do-gooders. And, slowly, we realize that what we’re watching isn’t a slice of life but a true-crime story, with Maggie as detective: her husband, Marv, has been killed in a shooting at a community college. Her neighbors see him as a hero, but Maggie doesn’t seem as certain—and the more we eavesdrop, the more unsettling the details appear. Each visitor holds a clue. There’s a sad-sack, conspiracy-minded cousin, whose life Marv and Maggie kept afloat; a bossy funeral director; Marv’s brother (a swaggering Danny McCarthy); his vivacious wife (Amelia Workman), who is also Maggie’s best friend; a former student of Maggie’s who arrives unexpectedly, twitching with nervous apologies (a deeply moving Emily Davis); and, later on, her daughter (Cricket Brown).

Q1. According to the passage, the reference to Nixon and Kissinger's experience in Vietnam is primarily used to illustrate which of the following points regarding the US's current situation in Iran? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The passage draws a direct parallel between Vietnam and Iran, followed by the lesson that "wars are often won or lost not by the ability to inflict pain, but by the capacity to absorb it. Military superiority matters, but endurance matters more." Option 3 accurately captures this concept of endurance. Option 1 is incorrect — the passage states military superiority still matters, but endurance matters more. Option 2 introduces "diplomatic concessions," which is not mentioned in this context. Option 4 is an overgeneralization not supported by the specific analogy. Hence, option 3.Q2. Why does the author argue that the US's historical temptation for "splendid isolation" will be "harder to achieve than many Americans imagine"? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The answer is explicitly stated in the passage — "a country cannot easily detach itself from the world when it remains deeply dependent on its principal adversary for manufacturing capacity, critical inputs, and supply chains." Option 2 perfectly summarizes this structural roadblock to isolationism. Options 1, 3, and 4 mention concepts present in the text but incorrectly link them as the reason why isolation is hard to achieve. Hence, option 2.Q3. Based on the passage, it can be inferred that sliding back from an 'Indo-Pacific' framework to an 'Asia-Pacific' framework would hand China a "significant strategic victory" because: Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The term "Asia-Pacific" historically centers on East Asia, often marginalizing India's role, while "Indo-Pacific" explicitly includes the Indian Ocean and India as a central player. By reverting to "Asia-Pacific," India's strategic importance is diminished, removing a key democratic counterweight to China. Option 1 is incorrect as US-India bilateral ties are stated to be deep and unlikely to change overnight. Options 3 and 4 contain extreme exaggerations and misinterpretations of the text. Hence, option 2.Q4. Which of the following best captures the central theme of the passage? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The first half of the passage discusses the US's shifting global realities — struggles with China, Iran, eroding leadership, and the temptation of isolationism. The second half discusses what this means for India: building resilience, maintaining strong bilateral ties with the US, but also pursuing a "plus one" strategy to diversify. Option 2 perfectly captures this dual narrative. Option 1 ignores India entirely. Option 3 wrongly links India to the Iranian nuclear crisis. Option 4 misrepresents the passage, which explicitly states that the US "remains one of the largest sources of FDI" and that this is not likely to change. Hence, option 2.