Daily Reading Comprehensions For CAT 25 July 2026

On 29 October 1945, the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre emerged alone from the Paris Métro. He was about to deliver a lecture titled ‘L’existentialisme est un humanisme’ (‘Existentialism Is a Humanism’) at the Club Maintenant. No one had any idea it was going to become one of the most famous lectures of the 20th century. As Sartre walked towards the venue, he saw a huge crowd of people gathered outside. He wondered if Communists were protesting him and whether he should go home. He pushed ahead – really only because he’d made a professional commitment.

While the crowd parted for celebrities, no one knew what Sartre looked like. He didn’t tell anyone who he was, and as he slowly nudged his way towards the front, he was jostled about by brutal scrimmages for seats. The room was overheated and overcrowded. Fifteen people collapsed. An hour late, Sartre climbed to the stage to defend existential philosophy against his critics and argue that existentialism is a humanism. He had no notes, his hands remained in his pockets, but he was well prepared. He said what he came to say and then left.

The hosts of Sartre’s lecture, Jacques Calmy and Marc Beigbeder, had a modest budget. They bought simple ads in newspapers. Their wives posted fliers in Latin Quarter bookstores. Calmy worried: ‘With a title like that! Existentialism!’ Just two months earlier, Sartre had publicly stated: ‘My philosophy is a philosophy of existence; I don’t even know what Existentialism is.’ (Still, Simone de Beauvoir writes in her autobiography: ‘In the end, we took the epithet that everyone used for us [existentialism] and used it for our own purposes.’) Along with recent accusations that Sartre’s novel Nausea (1938) was anti-humanist, they hoped the title might at least be a ‘paradoxical provocation’.

The morning after the lecture, Sartre met with Beigbeder at Sartre’s unofficial office, the Café de Flore. Beigbeder apologised for the chaos, and explained that, between advertising, space rental and the damage to club – including 30 broken chairs and a destroyed box office, meaning that they were unable to sell tickets – they were having trouble coming up with the payment they’d promised Sartre. Sartre had read the morning papers over coffee and croissants and interrupted: ‘As for my fee, forget it! Besides, it looks like we were a success!’

One headline read ‘Too Many Attend Sartre Lecture. Heat, Fainting Spells, Police. Lawrence of Arabia an Existentialist’. The papers reported ‘elbow fights’, ‘nonexistential angst’ and ‘a No Exit situation’ where the mob feared ‘dying of suffocation’. Critics accused Sartre of being ‘too scholarly’, but he was charismatic. His ‘cool’, his ‘courage’, his ‘grit’ and the force of his presence were striking.

By the autumn of 1945, the atrocities of the Second World War had been exposed: the gas chambers, the camps, the friend betrayals, and the avalanches of banal evils. Beauvoir, Sartre’s lifelong partner, wrote that people ‘had discovered History in its most terrible form.’

Q1. The third paragraph outlines a highly ironic conceptual paradox regarding the intellectual branding of the historic lecture, which is that: Correct Option 2 … Explanation: The third paragraph highlights that the hosts selected the title "Existentialism Is a Humanism" as a branding hook, yet "just two months earlier, Sartre had publicly stated: 'My philosophy is a philosophy of existence; I don't even know what Existentialism is.'" The defining term of the movement was popularized by co-opting a label the philosopher himself rejected knowing. This aligns perfectly with option 2. Option 1 misstates the financial outcome — they lost ticket revenue. Option 3 invents a false history about Nausea. Option 4 attributes the room's physical heat to an intentional marketing scheme, which is factually incorrect. Hence, option 2.Q2. Based on Simone de Beauvoir's characterization of co-opting an external label ("we took the epithet that everyone used for us... and used it for our own purposes"), which of the following real-world scenarios best exemplifies the exact same strategic behavior? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: Beauvoir explains that "existentialism" was an external epithet — a label that outsiders and critics "used for us." Instead of fighting the classification, they strategically embraced and repurposed it for their own objectives. Option 2 perfectly mirrors this dynamic — an artist takes a reductive, externally imposed label created by critics and leans directly into it, weaponizing it as their own brand. Option 1 is protectionist legal suppression. Option 3 describes total ideological surrender rather than tactical co-optation. Option 4 describes simple self-promotion through deception. Hence, option 2.Q3. Based on the details provided in the fourth and fifth paragraphs, what did Sartre's decision to completely waive his promised speaking fee imply about his perspective on the event? Correct Option 2 … Explanation: When Beigbeder apologizes and explains that structural damages left them unable to pay him, Sartre immediately responds: "As for my fee, forget it! Besides, it looks like we were a success!" This direct linkage — dismissing the lack of money because the morning papers confirmed massive public frenzy — strongly implies that Sartre measured the worth of the night by its explosive cultural impact rather than its monetary yield. Option 1 is the opposite of the text — he was thrilled by the success. Option 3 invents an unmentioned fraud narrative. Option 4 jumps to an absurd conclusion about the train system based on a metaphorical description of the crowd. Hence, option 2.Q4. The author's attitude toward Jean-Paul Sartre's physical presence and delivery style during the chaotic lecture can be best described as: Correct Option 3 … Explanation: Despite the brutal scrimmages, an hour's delay, and an overheated room, the author notes that Sartre climbed the stage "with no notes, his hands remained in his pockets, but he was well prepared." The author adds that while critics called him too scholarly, his "'cool', his 'courage', his 'grit' and the force of his presence were striking." The author relies on documented press accounts to highlight Sartre's charisma and composure, showing a clear stance of objective admiration. Option 1 is too extreme — the author does not treat Sartre as a flawless deity. Option 2 is refuted by the positive descriptors used. Option 4 introduces a sense of despair that does not match the energetic tracking of the lecture's success. Hence, option 3.