Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 13 June 2026

Years ago, after a plane trip spent reading Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Notes from the Underground and Weight Watchers magazine, Woody Allen melded the two experiences into a single essay. ‘I am fat,’ it began. ‘I am disgustingly fat. I am the fattest human I know. I have nothing but excess poundage all over my body. My fingers are fat. My wrists are fat. My eyes are fat. (Can you imagine fat eyes?).’ It was 1968, when most of the world’s people were more or less ‘height-weight proportional’ and millions of the rest were starving. Weight Watchers was a new organisation for an exotic new problem. The notion that being fat could spur Russian-novel anguish was good for a laugh.

That, as we used to say during my Californian adolescence, was then. Now, 1968’s joke has become 2013’s truism. For the first time in human history, overweight people outnumber the underfed, and obesity is widespread in wealthy and poor nations alike. The diseases that obesity makes more likely — diabetes, heart ailments, strokes, kidney failure — are rising fast across the world, and the World Health Organisation predicts that they will be the leading causes of death in all countries, even the poorest, within a couple of years. What’s more, the long-term illnesses of the overweight are far more expensive to treat than the infections and accidents for which modern health systems were designed. Obesity threatens individuals with long twilight years of sickness, and health-care systems with bankruptcy.

And so the authorities tell us, ever more loudly, that we are fat — disgustingly, world-threateningly fat. We must take ourselves in hand and address our weakness. After all, it’s obvious who is to blame for this frightening global blanket of lipids: it’s us, choosing over and over again, billions of times a day, to eat too much and exercise too little. What else could it be? If you’re overweight, it must be because you are not saying no to sweets and fast food and fried potatoes. It’s because you take elevators and cars and golf carts where your forebears nobly strained their thighs and calves. How could you do this to yourself, and to society?

Moral panic about the depravity of the heavy has seeped into many aspects of life, confusing even the erudite. Earlier this month, for example, the American evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller expressed the zeitgeist in this tweet: ‘Dear obese PhD applicants: if you don’t have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won’t have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth.’ Businesses are moving to profit on the supposed weaknesses of their customers. Meanwhile, governments no longer presume that their citizens know what they are doing when they take up a menu or a shopping cart. Yesterday’s fringe notions are becoming today’s rules for living — such as New York City’s recent attempt to ban large-size cups for sugary soft drinks, or Denmark’s short-lived tax surcharge on foods that contain more than 2.3 per cent saturated fat, or Samoa Air’s 2013 ticket policy, in which a passenger’s fare is based on his weight because: ‘You are the master of your air ‘fair’, you decide how much (or how little) your ticket will cost.’

Q1. What is the primary purpose of the author's reference to Woody Allen's 1968 essay in the opening paragraph? Correct Option 3 … Explanation: The first paragraph explains how Woody Allen comically blended a Weight Watchers magazine with Dostoyevsky's existential angst at a time when being fat was an "exotic new problem" and the concept was "good for a laugh." The very next sentence states: "Now, 1968's joke has become 2013's truism." The author uses the anecdote to illustrate how what was once an absurd parody has now become a grim reality. Option 1 is an overgeneralization. Option 2 is historically inaccurate — the text states the problem was exotic then. Option 4 misattributes the source of the satire to the organization rather than to Woody Allen. Hence, option 3.Q2. In the third paragraph, the author writes: "After all, it's obvious who is to blame for this frightening global blanket of lipids: it's us... What else could it be?" The author employs this specific phrasing primarily to: Correct Option 2 … Explanation: In paragraph three, the author adopts an exaggerated, accusatory tone, and in the final paragraph clarifies that this perspective is actually a "moral panic about the depravity of the heavy" that is "confusing even the erudite." The phrasing is therefore ironical — the author is mimicking societal judgment, not endorsing it. Option 1 misses the irony completely. Options 3 and 4 take the satirical hyperbole about "noble forebears" literally. Hence, option 2.Q3. Geoffrey Miller's tweet — "Dear obese PhD applicants: if you don't have the willpower to stop eating carbs, you won't have the willpower to do a dissertation. #truth" — most clearly relies on which of the following underlying assumptions? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: Miller's argument draws a direct causal parallel — if you lack the willpower to do X (stop eating carbs), you must automatically lack the willpower to do Y (finish a dissertation). For this logic to hold, it must assume that willpower is a singular, uniform trait and that a perceived failure in dietary discipline perfectly predicts failure in academic discipline. Option 2 precisely maps this assumption. Option 1 is too literal and extreme. Option 3 addresses Miller's professional background but not the logical link of his argument. Option 4 substitutes a biological rationale for what Miller explicitly frames as a psychological "willpower" issue. Hence, option 2.Q4. Which of the following options best captures the main thesis of the passage? Correct Option 1 … Explanation: The text establishes the global shift in obesity numbers, describes the resulting societal judgment and blame shift onto individual willpower, and concludes with how this "moral panic" manifests in academic bias, corporate exploitation, and paternalistic state regulations like soda bans and weight-based pricing. Option 1 neatly binds all these elements together. Option 2 focuses too narrowly on a single supporting detail. Option 3 introduces an unmentioned cause — the food industry eliminating undernourishment. Option 4 focuses only on the specific examples at the end and incorrectly claims the text proves them "ineffective." Hence, option 1.