Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 09 October 2026

Have you ever been caught off guard by what someone observed about you? Perhaps they described a version of you, or a particular aspect, that didn’t align with your view of yourself. Moments like these can result in a range of feelings, from anxiety and frustration to surprise and curiosity. Often, this other person has pointed out a figurative ‘blind spot’: something about you that you haven’t been able to see clearly.

A friend might casually refer to you as ‘the quiet one’ in the group, even though you’ve never thought of yourself that way. A romantic partner might note, unexpectedly, that you’re quick to agree to what others want. Or a colleague could reveal that people at work find you intimidating. Examples such as these represent blind spots to the extent that they are both surprising to hear and reflect something true about you.

I’ve seen this kind of reveal happen in real time, in a therapy group for students that I run at our college counselling centre. In one session, Nathan* presented in his typical, assured manner, offering support to other group members as they talked about the challenges they were going through. I noticed another member watching him intently and invited her to disclose her thoughts. She expressed feeling ‘useless’ to Nathan. ‘He seems to have it all together,’ she said. ‘We can’t offer him any help.’ Other members nodded in agreement. Nathan seemed surprised, but engaged. He was starting to recognise something about his willingness to be vulnerable – something he had not seen himself.

One classic model for thinking about self-awareness and how it relates to others is the Johari Window. Introduced in 1955 by the psychologists Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham (whose first names, combined, form ‘Johari’), the model describes four quadrants, like four sections of a window.

Everyone has blind spots. After all, we see ourselves and our intentions from the inside out, others experience us from the outside in, and those views cannot be perfectly in sync. Of course, not everyone will perceive you the same way, or with the same clarity, so blind spots are also somewhat subjective. We have to be careful in deciding whose views to take seriously.

As a psychologist, I’ve witnessed the long-term value of facing and understanding the unfamiliar aspects of ourselves. Sometimes, learning about a blind spot is relatively pleasant, even if it’s challenging to wrap your mind around. If you struggle to view yourself positively, you might not see how competent or kind you really are until someone brings it to your attention. In other cases, learning about a blind spot is uncomfortable, and might provoke a defensive response (That can’t be true, I’m not like that…) One of my roles as a therapist is to help clients understand how they might be affecting and coming across to others without their awareness. This can be disarming.

Q1. Based on Paragraphs 1 and 2, what qualifies a personal observation made by an outsider as a genuine "blind spot" rather than a mere subjective opinion or misunderstanding? Correct Option B … Explanation: Paragraph 2 explicitly defines the threshold for a blind spot: examples such as these represent blind spots to the extent that they are both surprising to hear and reflect something true about you. Dual criteria—element of surprise plus underlying truth—are required. Option A highlights a potential emotional reaction (defensiveness), but emotional discomfort alone does not make an observation true or a genuine blind spot. Option C contradicts the core concept of a blind spot, which by definition is something the individual has not seen clearly or known about themselves. Option D falsely restricts blind spots to clinical therapy settings, whereas Paragraph 2 gives everyday examples from friends, partners, and colleagues. Hence, option B. Q2. The author's assertion in Paragraph 5 that "we see ourselves and our intentions from the inside out, others experience us from the outside in, and those views cannot be perfectly in sync" relies on which of the following underlying assumptions? Correct Option D … Explanation: To claim that internal views (intentions) and external experiences (impact) cannot be perfectly in sync, one must assume an inherent structural gap between how a person experiences their own mind from within versus how others observe their actions from the outside. Option A is the exact opposite of the author's premise; if internal intentions always translated perfectly into matching external behavior, there would be no blind spots. Option B assumes intentional deceit, whereas blind spots occur without conscious awareness. Option C makes an unsupported negative assumption about the Johari Window model. Hence, option D. Q3. The Johari Window divides self-awareness into four quadrants based on what is known/unknown to oneself and known/unknown to others. In the clinical case of Nathan (Paragraph 3)—who projected an assured, supportive persona but was unaware that others felt unable to offer him help or vulnerability—which quadrant transition took place during the group session? Correct Option A … Explanation: Prior to the feedback, Nathan's unapproachable self-assurance was known to others in the group (they felt useless around him), but unknown to Nathan himself, placing it square in his Blind Spot quadrant. When the group brought it to his attention and he recognized it, that aspect of his self-awareness moved into the Open/Free quadrant (known to both himself and others). Option B incorrectly describes the Hidden/Facade quadrant (which is known to self, hidden from others; Nathan did not know this about himself). Option C contradicts the text, which states Nathan was engaged and starting to recognize his behavior rather than falling into total denial. Option D falsely accuses Nathan of deliberate plotting or calculated concealment. Hence, option A. Q4. What is the primary rhetorical purpose of including Nathan's story (Paragraph 3) within the broader argument of the passage? Correct Option C … Explanation: Nathan's case study serves as a narrative bridge between the theoretical definition of blind spots (Paragraphs 1–2) and the formal psychological models/value of facing them (Paragraphs 4–6). It grounds the abstract concept in a real-world example of how real-time interpersonal feedback exposes an unexamined aspect of oneself. Option A creates an unmentioned comparison between group and individual therapy formats. Option B misinterprets Nathan's supportive behavior as inherently harmful, missing the nuance that it was his lack of vulnerability that created the blind spot. Option D contradicts the passage's explicit assertion in Paragraph 5 that everyone has blind spots. Hence, option C.