Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 11 June 2026

In 1833, the French dramatist and poet Alfred de Musset travelled to Venice with his lover, the novelist best known by her pen name, George Sand. The voyage was meant to ease the tensions of their turbulent relationship but, soon after they arrived, they both fell ill. As Musset’s condition deteriorated, Sand became infatuated with the Italian doctor who treated them. After a series of violent and jealous quarrels, Musset returned to Paris to do what he did best: write.

Drawing on fragments of his correspondence with Sand and on years of inner turmoil, he produced the semi-autobiographical novel Confession of a Child of the Century (1836). The story centres on Octave, who is driven to libertinage and near-madness by a duplicitous lover. Yet his unhappiness stems less from his mistress’s betrayal than from the disillusioned spirit of the age into which he was born. Feelings of melancholy and ennui were so widespread among Musset’s generation that they were grouped under a single diagnosis: le mal du siècle (literally ‘sickness of the century’). Today, many of us feel we are living in unstable times, marked by AI, widening inequality, war and a looming climate catastrophe, among other deeply unsettling realities.

Today, many of us feel we are living in unstable times, marked by AI, widening inequality, war and a looming climate catastrophe, among other deeply unsettling realities. Yet our attitudes towards unhappiness and anxiety often downplay the broader sociopolitical context, placing responsibility on the individual (to practise mindfulness, cultivate work-life balance, and so on). Two hundred years ago, Musset and many of his contemporaries instead blamed the times for the pervasive mood of dissatisfaction and unrest that gripped their generation. They believed that the mal du siècle was shaped less by individual temperament than by far-reaching historical, political and cultural forces. Could we benefit from reframing our current malaise in similar terms?

Musset was not the first to articulate the idea of the mal du siècle. Some decades earlier, François-René de Chateaubriand had expressed his own generation’s malaise, warning of the ‘unsettled state of the passions’, the ‘tedium of the heart’ and the ‘secret inquietude’ of young people whose environment offered no outlet for their intense feelings. ‘With a full heart,’ he sighed, ‘we dwell in an empty world.’ The Romantic novelist Jean Paul helped give conceptual form to a similar idea by popularising the German term Weltschmerz, or world-weariness, the sense that suffering arises from the very order of the world. As the first decades of the 19th century unfolded, a number of other writers, not least Musset’s lover and principal interlocutor Sand, theorised and dramatised the moral malady of their age. Of all the expressions of the mal du siècle, however, the one Musset presented in the story of his alter ego Octave proved the most emblematic and enduring. In the opening chapters of the Confession, Musset offers a panoramic, almost sociological, view outlining his diagnosis of the causes and symptoms of the mal du siècle.

Q1. The author opens with the account of Musset and Sand's Venice trip primarily because: Correct Option 1 … Explanation: The Venice anecdote directly feeds into the novel's genesis and by extension into the concept of mal du siècle. The passage traces a line from personal suffering to literary production to collective diagnosis, showing that private anguish and generational despair were intertwined, not separate. Option 2 misreads the balance — Sand is contextual, not the focus. Option 3 introduces psychological instability as a prerequisite for social diagnosis, which the passage never implies. Option 4 is contradicted by the passage's framing of the novel as drawing on "years of inner turmoil," not merely the Venice episode. Hence, option 1.Q2. The passage draws a pointed contrast between two ways of understanding widespread unhappiness. Which of the following most accurately identifies what is being contrasted? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The contrast is made explicitly in the passage — "our attitudes towards unhappiness and anxiety often downplay the broader sociopolitical context, placing responsibility on the individual... Two hundred years ago, Musset and many of his contemporaries instead blamed the times." This is the passage's central argumentative tension. Option 1 introduces clinical psychology, which the passage never mentions. Option 2 is a contrast within the 19th century, not the passage's main structural opposition. Option 4 treats the French-German distinction as a contrast when the passage uses both concepts to illustrate the same phenomenon. Hence, option 3.Q3. The passage implicitly suggests that contemporary society's approach to mental and emotional wellbeing is inadequate. Which of the following, if true, would most directly challenge this implicit claim? Correct Option 4 … Explanation: The passage's implicit critique is that individualist approaches to unhappiness are insufficient because they ignore structural causes. Option 4 presents real-world evidence that the individualist wellness culture the passage critiques has proliferated massively yet failed to reduce anxiety — most directly engaging with the passage's empirical claims about modernity and challenging the adequacy of its structural reframing argument. Option 2 is an ad hominem against Romantic writers. Option 3 strengthens the passage rather than challenging it. Option 1, while showing individual interventions work in clinical settings, is less direct than option 4 in engaging with the passage's broader societal claim. Hence, option 4.Q4. When the author asks "Could we benefit from reframing our current malaise in similar terms?", the question is best understood as: Correct Option 1 … Explanation: The question lands at the precise hinge between the historical material and the contemporary relevance the author is building toward. The passage has already established the contrast between 19th-century collective framing and modern individualist framing — the question invites the reader to draw their own conclusion while signalling where the author's sympathies lie. Option 2 is too confident — the author uses "could," not "should" or "must." Option 3 misreads the tone; the author is not genuinely agnostic. Option 4 reads a scholarly hedge into what is actually an argumentative invitation to the reader. Hence, option 1.