Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 13 October 2026

When I was about 15, alone in the flat one afternoon, I sneaked into my mother’s writing desk and found a small pocket calendar from 1946 pushed to the back of a drawer. I had grown up with my mother and her parents, not knowing who my biological father was, or how I had come about; the question was simply never asked. I turned, with a kind of dread, to the entries from nine months before I was born. In mid-March there was an ordinary note – ‘Party at the Academic Association’; she was training as a laboratory technician in Lund and liked the students’ company – and on the following day, in her hand, five words: ‘God, what have I done!’ I still remember the shock of standing there with the diary, half-guilty for trespassing on her private papers, and saying aloud, over and over: ‘That’s me – that’s me. What have you done? I’m a mistake.’

For half a century, the scene stayed as it was: fixed, private, finished. Then, about a decade ago, I posted it – to several hundred old acquaintances and strangers – on Facebook. I was in doubt; I felt faint embarrassment at making it public, but this was itself part of what I wanted to examine. Why was it shameful? What did the shame tell me about myself? And would saying it out loud, to strangers, do anything to drain the memory of its sting? The answers came from my readers, and one of them showed me something I could not have seen on my own.

Betty, a friend from the years we were postdocs together at Stanford, had heard me tell the story in person long ago, and she said the written version was missing something: my voice, the intonation and the look on my face. What look, I asked – had I played it for sympathy, had I ironised it? ‘Absolutely flat,’ she wrote. ‘No affect. A Max von Sydow deadpan. But yes, you ironised.’ I had not known that about myself: that I’d delivered the central wound of my origins with no expression at all and turned it into a dry joke.

That discovery, prompted by a reader’s response, was one of the first signs that writing one’s life in public could change how memory and narrative take shape. Writing an autobiography or memoir was traditionally a solitary undertaking. Authors worked through papers, memories and past events largely on their own, occasionally consulting family, friends or colleagues. Only after years of private work would the manuscript reach the public. Readers encountered the finished account, with little sense of the revisions, doubts and shifts in understanding that had shaped it.

Social media has fundamentally disrupted these conditions. By publishing sequential episodes of my life every few days, however, I have turned my autobiographical drafts into a continuing dialogue with my readers. Their real-time responses have made me reconsider how I understand my professional achievements, my personal relationships and myself.

Q1. Based on Paragraphs 1 and 3, what did the author infer about their own psychological defense mechanism upon receiving Betty's feedback on Facebook? Correct Option C … Explanation: Paragraph 3 explains Betty's observation that when telling the story, the author used a "Max von Sydow deadpan" with no affect, and ironised it. The author reflects that they had not known that about themselves: that they had delivered the central wound of their origins with no expression at all and turned it into a dry joke. This reveals a self-protective defense mechanism (irony and emotional detachment) used to cope with the central wound. Option A claims the mother deliberately left the diary, which is unsupported speculation. Option B absurdly takes Betty's reference to the actor "Max von Sydow" as a literal biological father. Option D overstates the effect of social media, which the author raised as a tentative question about whether saying it out loud would drain the memory of its sting, not a guaranteed absolute result. Hence, option C. Q2. The contrast drawn in Paragraphs 4 and 5—between traditional autobiography and publishing sequential life episodes on social media—relies on which of the following underlying assumptions? Correct Option A … Explanation: Paragraphs 4 and 5 contrast the traditional solitary undertaking (where readers encounter a finished product after years of private work) with social media publishing (a continuing dialogue where real-time reader responses cause the author to reconsider personal achievements and self-understanding). This relies on the assumption that real-time reader interaction fundamentally alters the creative and cognitive process of memoir drafting. Option B brings in an unmentioned assumption about the comparative literary expertise of social media readers vs. professional editors. Option C claims traditional memoirs are inherently untruthful, which is an extreme, unsupported generalization. Option D shifts the focus to commercial book sales, which are not discussed in the text. Hence, option A. Q3. How did Betty's comment alter the author's understanding of their own storytelling technique when converting spoken memory into written narrative? Correct Option D … Explanation: Betty pointed out that the written version lacked the deadpan, no-affect delivery the author used in person. The author admits they had not known that about themselves. This exposed a gap between the author's internal experience of the story and the subconscious emotional detachment (irony) that external readers and listeners observed. Option A contradicts Betty's point that the written version was missing the voice and facial expression present in person. Option B contradicts Paragraph 5, which embraces social media dialogue as a valuable tool for life writing. Option C misidentifies what was missing; the post was missing vocal tone and affect, not the factual mention of the party. Hence, option D. Q4. What is the primary function of the opening scene (Paragraph 1), where the 15-year-old author finds the mother's 1946 pocket calendar? Correct Option B … Explanation: Paragraph 1 establishes the core central wound of the author's origin story. Paragraphs 2–5 then track how this exact scene, kept private for 50 years, was transformed when posted publicly on social media, using it as the primary case study to argue that public writing and reader dialogue alter memory and self-understanding. Option A misinterprets a passing detail about the mother's career into the central purpose of the paragraph. Option C reduces a nuanced reflection on memory into a moralistic lecture about desk privacy. Option D treats the personal calendar as a generic historical artifact rather than a deeply emotional memoir anchor. Hence, option B.