Elitmus Reading Comprehension Quiz-4

Question 1

The conceptions of life and the world which we call „philosophical‟ are a product of two factors: one, inherited religious and ethical conceptions; the other, the sort of investigation which may be called „scientific‟, using this word in its broadest sense. Individual philosophers have differed widely in regard to the proportions in which these two factors entered into their systems, but it is the presence of both, in some degree, that characterizes philosophy. Philosophy' is a word which has been used in many ways, some wider, some narrower. I propose to use it in a very wide sense, which I will now try to explain. Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge-so I should contend-belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a „No man's Land‟, exposed to attack from both sides; this „No Man's Land‟ is philosophy. Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. Is the world divided into mind and matter, and if so, what is mind and what is matter? Is mind subject to matter, or is it possessed of independent powers? Has the universe any unity or purpose? Is it evolving towards some goal? Are there really laws of nature, or do we believe in them only because of our innate love of power? Is man what he seems to the astronomer, a tiny lump of carbon and water impotently crawling on a small and unimportant planet? Or is he what he appears to Hamlet? Is he perhaps both at once? Is there a way of living that is noble and another that is base, or are all ways of living merely futile? If there is a way of living that is noble, in what does it consist, and how shall we achieve it? Must the good be eternal in order to deserve to be valued, or is it worth seeking even if the universe is inexorably moving towards death? Is there such a thing as wisdom, or is what seems such merely the ultimate refinement of folly? To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all to definite; but their definiteness causes “modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy. Why, then, you may ask, waste time on such insoluble problems? To this one may answer as a historian, or as an individual facing the terror of cosmic loneliness. The answer of the historian, in so far as I am capable of giving it, will appear in the course of this work. Ever since men became capable of free speculation, their actions in innumerable important respects, have depended upon their theories as to the world and human life, as to what is good and what is evil. This is as true in the present day as at any former time. To understand an age or a nation, we must understand its philosophy, and to understand its philosophy we must ourselves be in some degree philosophers. There is here a reciprocal causation: the circumstances of men‟s lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances. There is also, however, a more personal answer. Science tells us what we can know, but what we can know is little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we may become insensitive to many things of very great importance. Theology, on the other band, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge, where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to persuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them. To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.  The purpose of philosophy is to

reduce uncertainty and chaos.

help us to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity.

help us to find explanations for uncertainty.

reduce the terror of cosmic loneliness.

Solution: The conclusion statement of the passage is –“To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.” The purpose, therefore, is not to reduce uncertainty; rather, it is to help us deal with uncertainty and hesitation (ambiguity).  

Option 2 also says the same thing.  

Option 3 is quite close to the above idea but it does not any light on dealing with ambiguity.  

Options 1 and 4 can also be ignored even though in option 4 it has been mentioned, but not as the purpose of philosophy.  

Hence, the correct answer is option 2.

Question 2

 

Based on this passage what can be concluded about the relation between philosophy and science?

 

 

The two are antagonistic.

The two are complementary.

There is no relation between the two.

Philosophy derives from science.

Solution: According to the author, philosophy is a perfect blend of science and theology. Hence, they are not antagonistic as stated in option 1 nor are they unrelated as mentioned in option 3.  Philosophy does not derive from science as stated in option 4, but, the author does mean to say that it is the presence of both (theology and science) that characterizes philosophy. Therefore, they are more or less correlative.  

Hence, the correct answer is option 2.

Question 3

 

From reading the passage, what can be concluded about the profession of the author? He is most likely not to be a

historian

philosopher

scientist

theologian

Solution: The author states, “The answer of the historian, in so far as I am capable of giving it, will appear in the course of this work.”  He may be a historian, so, option 1 is eliminated. Philosopher can also be ignored as he is in its favor (the passage is on philosophy!).

When it comes to option 3 and 4, statement in the passage like, “the confident answers of theologians no longer seem as convincing as they did in former centuries.” Makes it clear that the author definitely does not hold a favourable view of theology. Thus, he is not a theologian for sure.  

Hence, the correct answer is option 4.

Question 4

 

According to the author, which of the following statements about the nature of the universe must be definitely true

The universe has unity.

The universe has a purpose.

The universe is evolving towards a goal.

None of the above.

Solution: Options 1, 2 and 3 are questions that the author contemplates. The definiteness of the nature of the universe cannot be established from his or her questions. Rather, they need some logical explanation that supports what he believes, which is nowhere mentioned in the passage. Therefore, options 1, 2 and 3 cannot be considered.  

 

Hence, the correct answer is option 4

Question 5

Fill the gaps in the passage below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each gap. The right words are the ones used by the author. Be guided by the author's overall style and meaning when you choose the answers. Von Neumann and Morgenstern assume a decision framework in which all options are thoroughly considered, each option being independent of the others, with a numerical value derived for the utility of each possible outcome (these outcomes reflecting, in turn, all possible combinations of choices). The decision is then made to maximize the expected utility. ...(26)... such a model reflects major simplifications of the way decisions are made in the real world. Humans are not to process information as quickly and effectively as the model assumes; they tend not to think ...(27)... as easily as the model calls for; they often deal with a particular option without really assessing its ...(28)... and when they do assess alternatives, they may be externally nebulous about their criteria of evaluation.

Regrettably

Firstly

Obviously

Apparently

Solution: The sentence following the first blank reads as ‘humans are not to process information as quickly … they tend not to think’ in short the model does not specifies the way human’s reason. Hence, the word has a negative connotation. Hence obviously and apparently does not fit with the sentence. It has to be ‘regrettably’ as it fits the sentence frame. Apparently and obviously are also synonyms, therefore cannot be used as they hold the same meaning.

Hence, the correct answer is option 1.

Question 6

Fill the gaps in the passage below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each gap. The right words are the ones used by the author. Be guided by the author's overall style and meaning when you choose the answers.

quantitatively

systematically

Scientifically

analytically

Solution: It cannot be said hether the word Von Neumann and Morgenstern is scientific or not. As we do not have any solid evidence for that. There is a possibility of systematic, analytical or quantitative. Since there is a mention of ‘a numerical value’, the word quantitative has a possibility to fit in the sentence frame. Systematic and analytical are also close, but quantitative would be an appropriate choice.  

Hence, the correct answer is option 1

Question 7

Fill the gaps in the passage below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each gap. The right words are the ones used by the author. Be guided by the author's overall style and meaning when you choose the answers.

implications

disadvantages

utility

alternatives

Solution: Implication here refers to an outcome. People may deal with a particular option without really assessing its disadvantages (option 2) or utility (option 3) or implications (option 1) or alternatives (option 4). Even though, all of the options make sense in different ways, however the sentence says, “when they do assess alternatives”. Therefore, ‘alternatives’ word is relatable..  

Hence, the correct answer is option 4.

Question 8

Fill the gaps in the passage below with the most appropriate word from the options given for each gap. The right words are the ones used by the author. Be guided by the author's overall style and meaning when you choose the answers.

implications

disadvantages

utility

alternatives

Implication here refers to an outcome. People may deal with a particular option without really assessing its disadvantages (option 2) or utility (option 3) or implications (option 1) or alternatives (option 4). Even though, all of the options make sense in different ways, however the sentence says, “when they do assess alternatives”. Therefore, ‘alternatives’ word is relatable..   Hence, the correct answer is option 4.

["0","40","60","80","100"]
["Need more practice!","Keep trying!","Not bad!","Good work!","Perfect!"]

Analytics below shows your performance in various Mocks on PrepInsta

Your average Analytics for this Quiz

Rank

-

Percentile

0%

Completed

0/8

Accuracy

0%