Passage:

When Europeans, beginning with Columbus, entered the New World in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, there were a number of things they didn’t pause to appreciate before commencing with the
pillaging. One is that they had happened upon a rare and precious natural experiment. The ancestor of
native Americans had migrated from northeast Asia during the late Stone Age, the ‘Upper Paleolithic’.
Then, around 10,000 B.C., with the climate warming, the land they’d walked across was deluged by the
Bering Sea. The Old World and the New World were now two distinct petri dishes for cultural evolution.
Any basic trends inherent in the process should be evident in both.

The experiment wasn’t perfect. Certainly by 2,000 B.C., and possibly earlier, the Eskimos (also known as
the Inuit) had boats. Though paddling across the Bering Sea wasn’t the kind of thing you would do for
weekend recreation, and travel from one Alaskan village to another was often arduous, there now
existed the theoretical possibility for innovations to move glacially from Asia into North America. Still, for
most of prehistory, cultural changes in the New World appear to have been indigenous, and even during
the last few thousand years, contact with the Old World was tenuous. The two hemispheres, west and
east, are the closest things to huge, independent examples of ongoing cultural change that this planet
has to offer.

There is one other reason that primitive American cultures are so enlightening. As of Columbus’s voyage,
they had an advantage over primitive Eurasian societies as objects of study. Namely, they still existed;
they had not been steamrolled by the expansion of Old World civilizations. And, though Columbus and
other Europeans tried to make up for lost time with their own steamrolling, they were not wholly
effective. Observed and recorded in the New World was an unprecedented array of cultures, with
diverse technologies and social structures. From this diversity a few basic patterns emerge, patterns that
turn out to be consistent with the archaeological remains of those steamrolled Old World cultures.
Native American cultures thus offer unique evidence of the universal impetus toward cultural
complexity.
Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

What is the ‘natural experiment’ the author is talking about in this passage?

Options:

1.

The independent cultural development of the Old World and the New

2.

The cultures of the New World that were not affected by Old World civilizations

3.

The migration of native Americans from northeast Asia thousands of years ago

4.

The slow movement of innovations from Asia to North America from 2,000 B.C. onwards

Explanation:

The author talks of [4] only as a ‘theoretical possibility’, not as something that actually happened. So it
cannot be considered the ‘natural experiment’ in question. The author brings up New World cultures
that were not affected by Old World civilizations only in the last paragraph, whereas he talks about the
‘natural experiment’ right from the beginning, so [2] is unlikely to be true. [3] is not the experiment in
question, but rather the event that led up to it. The ‘natural experiment’ that the author refers to in this
passage is the following: ‘The Old World and the New World were now two distinct petri dishes for
cultural evolution. Any basic trends inherent in the process should be evident in both.’ This is
paraphrased in [1]. Hence, [1].

Passage:

When Europeans, beginning with Columbus, entered the New World in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, there were a number of things they didn’t pause to appreciate before commencing with the
pillaging. One is that they had happened upon a rare and precious natural experiment. The ancestor of
native Americans had migrated from northeast Asia during the late Stone Age, the ‘Upper Paleolithic’.
Then, around 10,000 B.C., with the climate warming, the land they’d walked across was deluged by the
Bering Sea. The Old World and the New World were now two distinct petri dishes for cultural evolution.
Any basic trends inherent in the process should be evident in both.

The experiment wasn’t perfect. Certainly by 2,000 B.C., and possibly earlier, the Eskimos (also known as
the Inuit) had boats. Though paddling across the Bering Sea wasn’t the kind of thing you would do for
weekend recreation, and travel from one Alaskan village to another was often arduous, there now
existed the theoretical possibility for innovations to move glacially from Asia into North America. Still, for
most of prehistory, cultural changes in the New World appear to have been indigenous, and even during
the last few thousand years, contact with the Old World was tenuous. The two hemispheres, west and
east, are the closest things to huge, independent examples of ongoing cultural change that this planet
has to offer.

There is one other reason that primitive American cultures are so enlightening. As of Columbus’s voyage,
they had an advantage over primitive Eurasian societies as objects of study. Namely, they still existed;
they had not been steamrolled by the expansion of Old World civilizations. And, though Columbus and
other Europeans tried to make up for lost time with their own steamrolling, they were not wholly
effective. Observed and recorded in the New World was an unprecedented array of cultures, with
diverse technologies and social structures. From this diversity a few basic patterns emerge, patterns that
turn out to be consistent with the archaeological remains of those steamrolled Old World cultures.
Native American cultures thus offer unique evidence of the universal impetus toward cultural
complexity.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

What is the author’s attitude towards Columbus and the European conquerors of the New World?

Options:

1.

He laments their inattentiveness and ineffectiveness.

2.

He denounces them for destroying New World cultures.

3.

He condemns their destructive ways in sarcastic asides.

4.

He mentions their actions in purely neutral terms.

Explanation:

According to the author, Columbus and the European conquerors of the New World ‘didn’t pause to
appreciate [a number of things] before commencing with the pillaging’, and ‘tried to make up for lost
time with their own steamrolling [of New World cultures]’. These are not neutral terms – the author is
clearly criticizing the actions of these conquerors. So [4] is incorrect. The ‘ineffectiveness’ in question is
the fact that these conquerors were not wholly successful in ‘steamrolling’ New World cultures, so it is
hardly something to be ‘lamented’. So [1] is wrong as well. While [2] and [3] are both by and large
correct, [3] is a better answer, as it mentions the author’s sarcastic tone, as well as the fact that his
criticism is mostly indirect. Hence, [3].

Next

Passage:

When Europeans, beginning with Columbus, entered the New World in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, there were a number of things they didn’t pause to appreciate before commencing with the
pillaging. One is that they had happened upon a rare and precious natural experiment. The ancestor of
native Americans had migrated from northeast Asia during the late Stone Age, the ‘Upper Paleolithic’.
Then, around 10,000 B.C., with the climate warming, the land they’d walked across was deluged by the
Bering Sea. The Old World and the New World were now two distinct petri dishes for cultural evolution.
Any basic trends inherent in the process should be evident in both.

The experiment wasn’t perfect. Certainly by 2,000 B.C., and possibly earlier, the Eskimos (also known as
the Inuit) had boats. Though paddling across the Bering Sea wasn’t the kind of thing you would do for
weekend recreation, and travel from one Alaskan village to another was often arduous, there now
existed the theoretical possibility for innovations to move glacially from Asia into North America. Still, for
most of prehistory, cultural changes in the New World appear to have been indigenous, and even during
the last few thousand years, contact with the Old World was tenuous. The two hemispheres, west and
east, are the closest things to huge, independent examples of ongoing cultural change that this planet
has to offer.

There is one other reason that primitive American cultures are so enlightening. As of Columbus’s voyage,
they had an advantage over primitive Eurasian societies as objects of study. Namely, they still existed;
they had not been steamrolled by the expansion of Old World civilizations. And, though Columbus and
other Europeans tried to make up for lost time with their own steamrolling, they were not wholly
effective. Observed and recorded in the New World was an unprecedented array of cultures, with
diverse technologies and social structures. From this diversity a few basic patterns emerge, patterns that
turn out to be consistent with the archaeological remains of those steamrolled Old World cultures.
Native American cultures thus offer unique evidence of the universal impetus toward cultural
complexity.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

What does the author mean when he claims that ‘the experiment wasn’t perfect’?

Options:

1.

The Eskimos did not have boats until around 2,000 B.C., so travelling from the New World to the Old was
not feasible until then.

2.

The Old World and the New were not completely independent from 2,000 B.C. onwards, because the
possibility of travelling from the latter to the former existed.

3.

Though the Eskimos had boats from 2,000 B.C. onwards, they weren’t likely to paddle across the Bering
Sea, so innovations from Asia did not reach North America.

4.

Since the Eskimos had boats from 2,000 B.C. onwards, they could travel from one Alaskan village to
another, and thus innovations moved glacially through North America.
Explanation:

The ‘experiment’ that the author talks about throughout this passage is the independent cultural
evolution of the Old World and the New. For the experiment to be valid, the two populations would have
to remain separate, with no chance of travel or contact between them. The fact that the Eskimos had
boats from 2,000 B.C. onwards meant that they could, in theory, cross the Bering Sea and travel to Asia.
Thus, the two populations could interact, which meant that ‘the experiment wasn’t perfect’. This is what
is stated in [2]. Option [1] wrongly implies the opposite, i.e. that the invention of boats made the
experiment perfect. [3] misinterprets the point about the boats. [4] does not talk about contact between
Asia and America at all, and is thus irrelevant. Hence, [2].

PreviousNext

Passage:

The idea of consciousness has intrigued philosophers for centuries, but it has resisted a simple definition,
even to this day. The philosopher David Chalmers has catalogued more than twenty thousand papers
written on the subject; nowhere in science have so many devoted so much to create so little consensus.
The seventeenth-century thinker Gottfried Leibniz once wrote, ‘If you could blow the brain up to the size
of a mill and walk about inside, you would not find consciousness.’

Some philosophers doubt that a theory of consciousness is even possible. They claim that consciousness
can never be explained since an object can never understand itself, so we don’t even have the mental
firepower to solve this perplexing question. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker writes, ‘We cannot see
ultraviolet light. We cannot mentally rotate an object in the fourth dimension. And perhaps we cannot
solve conundrums like free will and sentience.’

In fact, for most of the twentieth century, one of the dominant theories of psychology, behaviourism,
denied the importance of consciousness entirely. Behaviourism is based on the idea that only the
objective behaviour of animals and people is worthy of study, not the subjective, internal states of the
mind.

Others have given up trying to define consciousness, and try simply to describe it. Psychiatrist Giulio
Tononi has said, ‘Everybody knows what consciousness is: it is what abandons you every night when you
fall into dreamless sleep and returns the next morning when you wake up.’

Although the nature of consciousness has been debated for centuries, there has been little resolution.
Given that physicists created many of the inventions that have made the explosive advancements in
brain science possible, perhaps physics may help in re-examining this ancient question.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

The point of the quote by Gottfried Leibniz is that:

Options:

1.

Consciousness is found in a microscopic area of the human brain.

2.

Consciousness does not reside in any specific part of the human brain.
3.

The human brain is not responsible for generating consciousness.

4.

Consciousness can never be understood by the human brain.

Explanation:

Refer to the last sentence of the first paragraph. The quote by Gottfried Leibniz states that one would not
find consciousness even if one could go inside the brain and walk around. [4] has no particular
connection to this idea at all, so it can be ruled out at once. If [3] were true, then there is no reason why
the size of the brain would be relevant at all, so this option can be ruled out. Since the quote talks of
‘blowing the brain up to the size of a mill’, which is clearly hypothetical, then if [1] were true, the brain
could just as easily be ‘blown up’ even further until the microscopic part where consciousness resides
could be seen with the naked eye. So [1] cannot be the point. The most likely point of the quote is that
the source of consciousness cannot be pinpointed in the brain, so looking for it even in a hypothetically
enlarged brain would be futile. Hence, [2].

PreviousNext

Passage:

The idea of consciousness has intrigued philosophers for centuries, but it has resisted a simple definition,
even to this day. The philosopher David Chalmers has catalogued more than twenty thousand papers
written on the subject; nowhere in science have so many devoted so much to create so little consensus.
The seventeenth-century thinker Gottfried Leibniz once wrote, ‘If you could blow the brain up to the size
of a mill and walk about inside, you would not find consciousness.’

Some philosophers doubt that a theory of consciousness is even possible. They claim that consciousness
can never be explained since an object can never understand itself, so we don’t even have the mental
firepower to solve this perplexing question. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker writes, ‘We cannot see
ultraviolet light. We cannot mentally rotate an object in the fourth dimension. And perhaps we cannot
solve conundrums like free will and sentience.’

In fact, for most of the twentieth century, one of the dominant theories of psychology, behaviourism,
denied the importance of consciousness entirely. Behaviourism is based on the idea that only the
objective behaviour of animals and people is worthy of study, not the subjective, internal states of the
mind.

Others have given up trying to define consciousness, and try simply to describe it. Psychiatrist Giulio
Tononi has said, ‘Everybody knows what consciousness is: it is what abandons you every night when you
fall into dreamless sleep and returns the next morning when you wake up.’

Although the nature of consciousness has been debated for centuries, there has been little resolution.
Given that physicists created many of the inventions that have made the explosive advancements in
brain science possible, perhaps physics may help in re-examining this ancient question.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

According to Giulio Tononi, consciousness is:

Options:

1.

What you lose when you fall asleep.

2.

What you have when you are awake or dreaming.

3.

The state of being awake and aware.

4.

The state of being aware of the world around you.

Explanation:

Refer to Giulio Tononi’s quote in paragraph 4. At first glance it might seem as if [1] is the obvious answer.
But a closer reading of his statement shows that he thinks that consciousness is not just what abandons
you every night when you fall asleep, but more specifically, ‘dreamless sleep’. The implication is that
Tononi thinks that you are conscious when either awake or when asleep and dreaming. Hence, [2].

PreviousNext

Passage:

The idea of consciousness has intrigued philosophers for centuries, but it has resisted a simple definition,
even to this day. The philosopher David Chalmers has catalogued more than twenty thousand papers
written on the subject; nowhere in science have so many devoted so much to create so little consensus.
The seventeenth-century thinker Gottfried Leibniz once wrote, ‘If you could blow the brain up to the size
of a mill and walk about inside, you would not find consciousness.’
Some philosophers doubt that a theory of consciousness is even possible. They claim that consciousness
can never be explained since an object can never understand itself, so we don’t even have the mental
firepower to solve this perplexing question. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker writes, ‘We cannot see
ultraviolet light. We cannot mentally rotate an object in the fourth dimension. And perhaps we cannot
solve conundrums like free will and sentience.’

In fact, for most of the twentieth century, one of the dominant theories of psychology, behaviourism,
denied the importance of consciousness entirely. Behaviourism is based on the idea that only the
objective behaviour of animals and people is worthy of study, not the subjective, internal states of the
mind.

Others have given up trying to define consciousness, and try simply to describe it. Psychiatrist Giulio
Tononi has said, ‘Everybody knows what consciousness is: it is what abandons you every night when you
fall into dreamless sleep and returns the next morning when you wake up.’

Although the nature of consciousness has been debated for centuries, there has been little resolution.
Given that physicists created many of the inventions that have made the explosive advancements in
brain science possible, perhaps physics may help in re-examining this ancient question.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.
Question:

Which of the following would Steven Pinker agree with?

Options:

1.

There are some inherent limitations to the human brain.

2.

The importance of consciousness is overstated in modern psychology.

3.

Consciousness cannot be explained, as it is beyond the purview of science.

4.

Philosophical problems should not be approached in the same way as physical ones.

Explanation:

There is no suggestion that Steven Pinker believes [2] (which is a tenet of behaviourism, as mentioned in
the third paragraph). Pinker simply suggests that understanding consciousness is beyond the abilities of
human beings, not that it is beyond the purview of science – so [3] is incorrect as well. Given that the
quote by Pinker uses an analogy with physical limitations like being unable to see ultraviolet light to
suggest that being able to understand consciousness may be impossible, it is unlikely that he would
agree with [4]. Only [1] is correct: the quote by Pinker mentions some limitations in human beings’
abilities, and suggests that understanding consciousness is a similar limitation. Hence, [1].

PreviousNext

Passage:
In game theory, a zero-sum game is an interaction in which one party’s gain equals the other party’s loss
– the sum of their gains and losses is zero. (More accurately, it is constant across all combinations of their
courses of action.) Sports matches are quintessential examples of zero-sum games: winning isn’t
everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. A nonzero-sum game is an interaction in which
some combinations of actions provide a net gain (positive sum) or loss (negative sum) to the two
participants. The trading of surpluses, as when herders and farmers exchange wool and milk for grain
and fruit, is a quintessential example, as is the trading of favours, as when people take turns baby-sitting
each other’s children.

In a zero-sum game, a rational actor seeking the greatest gain for himself or herself will necessarily be
seeking the maximum loss for the other actor. In a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor
may benefit the other actor with the same choice that benefits himself or herself. More colloquially,
positive-sum games are called win-win situations and are captured in the cliché ‘Everybody wins’. This
family of concepts – zero-sum, nonzero-sum, positive-sum, negative-sum, constant-sum and variable-
sum games – was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern when they invented the
mathematical theory of games in 1944.

Once people are thrown together in an interaction, their choices don’t determine whether they are in a
zero- or nonzero-sum game; the game is a part of the world they live in. But by neglecting some of the
options on the table, people may perceive that they are in a zero-sum game when in fact they are in a
nonzero-sum game. Moreover, they can change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum. For
these reasons, when people become aware of the game-theoretic structure of their interaction (that is,
whether it is positive-, negative-, or zero-sum), they can make choices that bring them valuable
outcomes – like safety, harmony or prosperity – without their having to become more virtuous or noble.

Some examples: Squabbling colleagues or relatives agree to swallow their pride, take their losses, or
lump it to enjoy the resulting comity rather than absorbing the costs of continual bickering in hopes of
prevailing in a battle of wills. Two parties in a negotiation split the difference in their initial bargaining
positions to ‘get to yes’. Divorcing spouses realize they can reframe their negotiations: from each trying
to get the better of the other while enriching the lawyers, to trying to keep as much money as possible
for the two of themselves. Populaces recognize that economic middlemen are not social parasites whose
prosperity comes at the expense of their hosts, but positive-sum-game creators who enrich everyone at
once. Countries recognize that international trade doesn’t benefit their trading partner to their own
detriment but benefits them both and turn away from beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism to open
economies which (as classical economists noted) make everyone richer and (as political scientists have
recently shown) discourage war and genocide. Warring countries lay down their arms and split the peace
dividend rather than pursuing Pyrrhic victories.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

The author’s opinion of game theory is that:

Options:

1.

It has some fascinating concepts, but it is not very applicable to real life.

2.

It provides useful concepts that can help people make decisions in real life.

3.

It is an interesting theory that can help people realize that winning isn’t everything.

4.

It is an intriguing theory, but one that has both positive and negative effects on real life.

Explanation:
The last paragraph of the passage provides numerous examples of the application of game theory to real
life, so [1] is clearly wrong. Game theory itself has no negative effects on real life, at least as far as can be
inferred from this passage; the negative situations (such as zero-sum or negative-sum games) mentioned
in the passage are pre-existing situations that are merely described by game theory, not created by it. So
[4] is ruled out as well. Both [2] and [3] are correct in themselves, but [2], which states the more general
benefit of game theory, is a more comprehensive answer. Hence, [2].

PreviousNext

Passage:

In game theory, a zero-sum game is an interaction in which one party’s gain equals the other party’s loss
– the sum of their gains and losses is zero. (More accurately, it is constant across all combinations of their
courses of action.) Sports matches are quintessential examples of zero-sum games: winning isn’t
everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. A nonzero-sum game is an interaction in which
some combinations of actions provide a net gain (positive sum) or loss (negative sum) to the two
participants. The trading of surpluses, as when herders and farmers exchange wool and milk for grain
and fruit, is a quintessential example, as is the trading of favours, as when people take turns baby-sitting
each other’s children.

In a zero-sum game, a rational actor seeking the greatest gain for himself or herself will necessarily be
seeking the maximum loss for the other actor. In a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor
may benefit the other actor with the same choice that benefits himself or herself. More colloquially,
positive-sum games are called win-win situations and are captured in the cliché ‘Everybody wins’. This
family of concepts – zero-sum, nonzero-sum, positive-sum, negative-sum, constant-sum and variable-
sum games – was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern when they invented the
mathematical theory of games in 1944.
Once people are thrown together in an interaction, their choices don’t determine whether they are in a
zero- or nonzero-sum game; the game is a part of the world they live in. But by neglecting some of the
options on the table, people may perceive that they are in a zero-sum game when in fact they are in a
nonzero-sum game. Moreover, they can change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum. For
these reasons, when people become aware of the game-theoretic structure of their interaction (that is,
whether it is positive-, negative-, or zero-sum), they can make choices that bring them valuable
outcomes – like safety, harmony or prosperity – without their having to become more virtuous or noble.

Some examples: Squabbling colleagues or relatives agree to swallow their pride, take their losses, or
lump it to enjoy the resulting comity rather than absorbing the costs of continual bickering in hopes of
prevailing in a battle of wills. Two parties in a negotiation split the difference in their initial bargaining
positions to ‘get to yes’. Divorcing spouses realize they can reframe their negotiations: from each trying
to get the better of the other while enriching the lawyers, to trying to keep as much money as possible
for the two of themselves. Populaces recognize that economic middlemen are not social parasites whose
prosperity comes at the expense of their hosts, but positive-sum-game creators who enrich everyone at
once. Countries recognize that international trade doesn’t benefit their trading partner to their own
detriment but benefits them both and turn away from beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism to open
economies which (as classical economists noted) make everyone richer and (as political scientists have
recently shown) discourage war and genocide. Warring countries lay down their arms and split the peace
dividend rather than pursuing Pyrrhic victories.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

Imagine the following scenario: A war between two countries, A and B, results in an official victory for A
and defeat for B, but with thousands of people dead in both countries, and their lands devastated. In
terms of game theory, such an interaction between A and B would best be called:

Options:
1.

A zero-sum game.

2.

A constant-sum game.

3.

A variable-sum game.

4.

A negative-sum game.

Explanation:

At first glance, the fact that one side won while the other lost suggests that the interaction between A
and B was a zero-sum game. However, given that both sides suffered significant losses, the sum of their
losses is not zero, but rather negative. So this is an interaction in which both parties are worse off at the
end: a nonzero-sum game, or more precisely, a negative-sum game. Please note that the terms ‘constant-
sum game’ and ‘variable-sum game’ are not defined in the passage, so it is not possible to infer whether
they too could apply to this scenario. Hence, [4].

PreviousNext

Passage:

In game theory, a zero-sum game is an interaction in which one party’s gain equals the other party’s loss
– the sum of their gains and losses is zero. (More accurately, it is constant across all combinations of their
courses of action.) Sports matches are quintessential examples of zero-sum games: winning isn’t
everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. A nonzero-sum game is an interaction in which
some combinations of actions provide a net gain (positive sum) or loss (negative sum) to the two
participants. The trading of surpluses, as when herders and farmers exchange wool and milk for grain
and fruit, is a quintessential example, as is the trading of favours, as when people take turns baby-sitting
each other’s children.
In a zero-sum game, a rational actor seeking the greatest gain for himself or herself will necessarily be
seeking the maximum loss for the other actor. In a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor
may benefit the other actor with the same choice that benefits himself or herself. More colloquially,
positive-sum games are called win-win situations and are captured in the cliché ‘Everybody wins’. This
family of concepts – zero-sum, nonzero-sum, positive-sum, negative-sum, constant-sum and variable-
sum games – was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern when they invented the
mathematical theory of games in 1944.

Once people are thrown together in an interaction, their choices don’t determine whether they are in a
zero- or nonzero-sum game; the game is a part of the world they live in. But by neglecting some of the
options on the table, people may perceive that they are in a zero-sum game when in fact they are in a
nonzero-sum game. Moreover, they can change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum. For
these reasons, when people become aware of the game-theoretic structure of their interaction (that is,
whether it is positive-, negative-, or zero-sum), they can make choices that bring them valuable
outcomes – like safety, harmony or prosperity – without their having to become more virtuous or noble.

Some examples: Squabbling colleagues or relatives agree to swallow their pride, take their losses, or
lump it to enjoy the resulting comity rather than absorbing the costs of continual bickering in hopes of
prevailing in a battle of wills. Two parties in a negotiation split the difference in their initial bargaining
positions to ‘get to yes’. Divorcing spouses realize they can reframe their negotiations: from each trying
to get the better of the other while enriching the lawyers, to trying to keep as much money as possible
for the two of themselves. Populaces recognize that economic middlemen are not social parasites whose
prosperity comes at the expense of their hosts, but positive-sum-game creators who enrich everyone at
once. Countries recognize that international trade doesn’t benefit their trading partner to their own
detriment but benefits them both and turn away from beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism to open
economies which (as classical economists noted) make everyone richer and (as political scientists have
recently shown) discourage war and genocide. Warring countries lay down their arms and split the peace
dividend rather than pursuing Pyrrhic victories.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

From this passage, we can infer that in a positive-sum game:

Options:

1.

Both parties always win, as long as they both make rational decisions.

2.

Both parties can win if they make rational, not self-interested decisions.

3.

Both parties can win, even if they both make self-interested decisions.

4.

Both parties cannot win, as they both seek to benefit themselves.

Explanation:

Refer to paragraph 2, where the difference between zero-sum games and positive-sum games is
explained. Option [4] can be ruled out immediately, as it describes a zero-sum game, not a positive-sum
one. According to the author, ‘in a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor may benefit the
other actor’. So it is not that a positive-sum game ensures that ‘everybody wins’, but rather that it makes
it possible for everybody to win. So [1], which claims that both parties ‘always’ win, cannot be inferred.
The definition of a positive-sum game suggests that making self-interested decisions may benefit both
parties, so the second half of [2] is incorrect, and only [3] can correctly be inferred. Hence, [3].
PreviousNext

Passage:

In game theory, a zero-sum game is an interaction in which one party’s gain equals the other party’s loss
– the sum of their gains and losses is zero. (More accurately, it is constant across all combinations of their
courses of action.) Sports matches are quintessential examples of zero-sum games: winning isn’t
everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. A nonzero-sum game is an interaction in which
some combinations of actions provide a net gain (positive sum) or loss (negative sum) to the two
participants. The trading of surpluses, as when herders and farmers exchange wool and milk for grain
and fruit, is a quintessential example, as is the trading of favours, as when people take turns baby-sitting
each other’s children.

In a zero-sum game, a rational actor seeking the greatest gain for himself or herself will necessarily be
seeking the maximum loss for the other actor. In a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor
may benefit the other actor with the same choice that benefits himself or herself. More colloquially,
positive-sum games are called win-win situations and are captured in the cliché ‘Everybody wins’. This
family of concepts – zero-sum, nonzero-sum, positive-sum, negative-sum, constant-sum and variable-
sum games – was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern when they invented the
mathematical theory of games in 1944.

Once people are thrown together in an interaction, their choices don’t determine whether they are in a
zero- or nonzero-sum game; the game is a part of the world they live in. But by neglecting some of the
options on the table, people may perceive that they are in a zero-sum game when in fact they are in a
nonzero-sum game. Moreover, they can change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum. For
these reasons, when people become aware of the game-theoretic structure of their interaction (that is,
whether it is positive-, negative-, or zero-sum), they can make choices that bring them valuable
outcomes – like safety, harmony or prosperity – without their having to become more virtuous or noble.
Some examples: Squabbling colleagues or relatives agree to swallow their pride, take their losses, or
lump it to enjoy the resulting comity rather than absorbing the costs of continual bickering in hopes of
prevailing in a battle of wills. Two parties in a negotiation split the difference in their initial bargaining
positions to ‘get to yes’. Divorcing spouses realize they can reframe their negotiations: from each trying
to get the better of the other while enriching the lawyers, to trying to keep as much money as possible
for the two of themselves. Populaces recognize that economic middlemen are not social parasites whose
prosperity comes at the expense of their hosts, but positive-sum-game creators who enrich everyone at
once. Countries recognize that international trade doesn’t benefit their trading partner to their own
detriment but benefits them both and turn away from beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism to open
economies which (as classical economists noted) make everyone richer and (as political scientists have
recently shown) discourage war and genocide. Warring countries lay down their arms and split the peace
dividend rather than pursuing Pyrrhic victories.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

Which of the following statements would the author agree with?

i] Sports matches should be banned, as they involve one party necessarily losing.

ii] The concepts of game theory have a wide application in a variety of fields.

iii] Sometimes conflicts are caused because people don’t realize what kind of game they are in.

Options:
1.

[i] and [ii]

2.

[i] and [iii]

3.

[ii] and [iii]

4.

[i], [ii] and [iii]

Explanation:

Statement [ii] can be easily inferred from the variety of examples of the application of game theory given
in the last paragraph. [iii] can be inferred from the second sentence of paragraph 3. So the author would
agree with both of these. However, he would not necessarily agree with [i]: just because sports matches
are examples of zero-sum games, that doesn’t mean that they are bad or that they should be banned.
Hence, [3].

PreviousNext

Passage:

In game theory, a zero-sum game is an interaction in which one party’s gain equals the other party’s loss
– the sum of their gains and losses is zero. (More accurately, it is constant across all combinations of their
courses of action.) Sports matches are quintessential examples of zero-sum games: winning isn’t
everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. A nonzero-sum game is an interaction in which
some combinations of actions provide a net gain (positive sum) or loss (negative sum) to the two
participants. The trading of surpluses, as when herders and farmers exchange wool and milk for grain
and fruit, is a quintessential example, as is the trading of favours, as when people take turns baby-sitting
each other’s children.
In a zero-sum game, a rational actor seeking the greatest gain for himself or herself will necessarily be
seeking the maximum loss for the other actor. In a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor
may benefit the other actor with the same choice that benefits himself or herself. More colloquially,
positive-sum games are called win-win situations and are captured in the cliché ‘Everybody wins’. This
family of concepts – zero-sum, nonzero-sum, positive-sum, negative-sum, constant-sum and variable-
sum games – was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern when they invented the
mathematical theory of games in 1944.

Once people are thrown together in an interaction, their choices don’t determine whether they are in a
zero- or nonzero-sum game; the game is a part of the world they live in. But by neglecting some of the
options on the table, people may perceive that they are in a zero-sum game when in fact they are in a
nonzero-sum game. Moreover, they can change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum. For
these reasons, when people become aware of the game-theoretic structure of their interaction (that is,
whether it is positive-, negative-, or zero-sum), they can make choices that bring them valuable
outcomes – like safety, harmony or prosperity – without their having to become more virtuous or noble.

Some examples: Squabbling colleagues or relatives agree to swallow their pride, take their losses, or
lump it to enjoy the resulting comity rather than absorbing the costs of continual bickering in hopes of
prevailing in a battle of wills. Two parties in a negotiation split the difference in their initial bargaining
positions to ‘get to yes’. Divorcing spouses realize they can reframe their negotiations: from each trying
to get the better of the other while enriching the lawyers, to trying to keep as much money as possible
for the two of themselves. Populaces recognize that economic middlemen are not social parasites whose
prosperity comes at the expense of their hosts, but positive-sum-game creators who enrich everyone at
once. Countries recognize that international trade doesn’t benefit their trading partner to their own
detriment but benefits them both and turn away from beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism to open
economies which (as classical economists noted) make everyone richer and (as political scientists have
recently shown) discourage war and genocide. Warring countries lay down their arms and split the peace
dividend rather than pursuing Pyrrhic victories.
Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

The last paragraph provides examples of:

Options:

1.

Former zero-sum or negative-sum games that are now nonzero-sum ones.

2.

Former nonzero-sum or negative-sum games that are now positive-sum ones.

3.

Apparently nonzero-sum games that can be turned into zero-sum or positive-sum ones.

4.

Apparently zero-sum or negative-sum games that can be turned into positive-sum ones.

Explanation:

Refer to the last two paragraphs: in the penultimate paragraph, the author claims that people ‘can
change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum’; in the last paragraph, he provides multiple
examples of how this can be done in some common real-world scenarios. More precisely, he provides
examples of how interactions can be turned into positive-sum games (‘everybody wins’ scenarios). Note
that the term ‘nonzero-sum game’ can refer to both positive-sum and negative-sum games. So options
like [1], [2] and [3], which imply that nonzero-sum games are different from positive-sum/negative-sum
games, are incorrect. Only [4] correctly describes the examples given in the last paragraph. Hence, [4].
PreviousNext

Passage:

In game theory, a zero-sum game is an interaction in which one party’s gain equals the other party’s loss
– the sum of their gains and losses is zero. (More accurately, it is constant across all combinations of their
courses of action.) Sports matches are quintessential examples of zero-sum games: winning isn’t
everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. A nonzero-sum game is an interaction in which
some combinations of actions provide a net gain (positive sum) or loss (negative sum) to the two
participants. The trading of surpluses, as when herders and farmers exchange wool and milk for grain
and fruit, is a quintessential example, as is the trading of favours, as when people take turns baby-sitting
each other’s children.

In a zero-sum game, a rational actor seeking the greatest gain for himself or herself will necessarily be
seeking the maximum loss for the other actor. In a positive-sum game, a rational, self-interested actor
may benefit the other actor with the same choice that benefits himself or herself. More colloquially,
positive-sum games are called win-win situations and are captured in the cliché ‘Everybody wins’. This
family of concepts – zero-sum, nonzero-sum, positive-sum, negative-sum, constant-sum and variable-
sum games – was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern when they invented the
mathematical theory of games in 1944.

Once people are thrown together in an interaction, their choices don’t determine whether they are in a
zero- or nonzero-sum game; the game is a part of the world they live in. But by neglecting some of the
options on the table, people may perceive that they are in a zero-sum game when in fact they are in a
nonzero-sum game. Moreover, they can change the world to make their interaction nonzero-sum. For
these reasons, when people become aware of the game-theoretic structure of their interaction (that is,
whether it is positive-, negative-, or zero-sum), they can make choices that bring them valuable
outcomes – like safety, harmony or prosperity – without their having to become more virtuous or noble.
Some examples: Squabbling colleagues or relatives agree to swallow their pride, take their losses, or
lump it to enjoy the resulting comity rather than absorbing the costs of continual bickering in hopes of
prevailing in a battle of wills. Two parties in a negotiation split the difference in their initial bargaining
positions to ‘get to yes’. Divorcing spouses realize they can reframe their negotiations: from each trying
to get the better of the other while enriching the lawyers, to trying to keep as much money as possible
for the two of themselves. Populaces recognize that economic middlemen are not social parasites whose
prosperity comes at the expense of their hosts, but positive-sum-game creators who enrich everyone at
once. Countries recognize that international trade doesn’t benefit their trading partner to their own
detriment but benefits them both and turn away from beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism to open
economies which (as classical economists noted) make everyone richer and (as political scientists have
recently shown) discourage war and genocide. Warring countries lay down their arms and split the peace
dividend rather than pursuing Pyrrhic victories.

Direction:

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each
question.

Question:

Game theory may be applicable in all of the following situations, EXCEPT:

Options:

1.

A farmer trying to decide which crops to plant in his field.

2.

A child offering to share her lunch with her classmate.

3.
A man trying to negotiate with his boss in order to get a raise.

4.

Two neighbours trying to decide who owns a strip of land between their properties.

Explanation:

In this passage, game theory is said to be about interactions between two parties; it can be inferred from
all the examples given that both parties are individual human beings or groups. So option [1], which
involves only one human being, who does not interact with any other person, is unlikely to involve game
theory. Note that we need not explain precisely how game theory would be used to resolve the
situations in the remaining options, just show that it is indeed applicable to these situations – which it is,
since all of the situations involve negotiations or disputes between two human beings. Hence, [1].

PreviousNext

Direction:

Four alternative summaries are given below each text. Choose the option that best captures the essence
of the text and enter its number in the box provided below.

Question:

If you were trapped down a well, what would your dog do? Would it run to get help, or would it wander
off to sniff a tree? If you own a trained rescue dog it would probably get help, but what about an average
dog? Would it figure out what to do in an emergency situation? To find out, researchers arranged for
twelve dog owners to pretend to have a heart attack while walking their dogs through an open field. The
owners all performed the exact same actions. When they reached a pre-designated point in the field,
marked by a target painted on the ground, they began breathing heavily, coughed, gasped, clutched their
arm, fell over and then lay motionless on the ground. The dogs – from a variety of breeds, including
collies, German shepherds, rottweilers and poodles – didn’t do much to promote the theory of canine
intelligence. They spent some time nuzzling and pawing their owners before taking the opportunity to
roam around aimlessly.

1] Apart from trained rescue dogs, most dogs are not intelligent enough to know how to fetch help for
their owners in
 an emergency.

2] Ordinary dogs are not very intelligent, as can be seen from an experiment in which they didn’t know
what to do in

an emergency; however, they can be trained to get help.

3] An experiment to find out what dogs would do in an emergency situation showed that they are not
intelligent

enough to know how to get help for their owners.

4] Dogs do not know what to do in an emergency, as can be seen when their owners have a heart attack,
while their

dogs simply roam around instead of fetching help.

[quizky-text]
Options:

1.

2.

3.

4.

Explanation:

The majority of this paragraph describes an experiment undertaken to find out what dogs would do in an
emergency. Neither [1] nor [4] mentions this experiment; in fact, [4] implies that the emergency
situation was a genuine one. So neither is a correct summary of this paragraph. The fact that dogs can be
trained to respond to emergencies is mentioned only as an aside; it is not the focus of the paragraph. So
[2], which gives it undue importance, is not a suitable summary either. Only [3] correctly and
comprehensively summarizes the paragraph. Hence, [3].

PreviousNext

Direction:

The sentences given in each question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each
sentence is labelled with a number. Enter in the box provided below the most logical order of sentences
to construct a coherent paragraph.

Note: Use the virtual keyboard provided to enter your answer.

Question:
[quizky-text]

Options:

1. 25413

2. 12345

3. 23451

4. 34125

Explanation:

Statement 2 introduces the topic of the paragraph: the source and quality of diamonds in the past. 5
mentions an original standard for judging diamonds; 4 specifies what the standard was (‘water’); and 1
states that modern diamonds don’t have ‘water’. So the 5-4-1 link is clear. The paragraph ends with 3,
which states what the contemporary standards for judging diamond quality are, adjusted for the poorer
quality diamonds now available. Hence, 25413.

PreviousNext

tatus

Direction:

The sentences given in each question, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Each
sentence is labelled with a number. Enter in the box provided below the most logical order of sentences
to construct a coherent paragraph.

Note: Use the virtual keyboard provided to enter your answer.

Question:

[quizky-text]

Options:

1.

43512

2.

34125

3.

32451

4.

12345

Explanation:

Given that 4 is the only standalone statement, and that it provides a general introduction to the issue
discussed in the rest of the statements, it has to be the first statement. 3, which introduces the author
Haruki Murakami and his novel (which forms the subject of the rest of the sentences), has to be the next
sentence in the sequence. 5, which states the main idea of the novel, follows logically from 3. 5 and 1 are
strongly linked: 5 talks about a positive aspect of the novel, while 1 mentions the negative aspects, while
connecting to 5 with the word ‘but’. 2 concludes the discussion by proving the point introduced in 3: that
despite the fact that a successful author (Haruki Murakami in this case) ‘got things wrong’ (i.e. wrote a
poor novel), ‘not much’ happened – i.e. the book was financially successful and Haruki Murakami
remained a respected author. Hence, 43512.

PreviousNext

Direction:

Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful
and coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and enter it in the
box provided below.

Note: Use the virtual keyboard provided to enter your answer.

Question:

[quizky-text]

Options:

1. 1

2. 2
3. 3

4. 4

Explanation:

Four of these sentences say something positive about online education: 3 forms a general introduction
to the topic; 4 explains why 3 is true; 2 mentions a particular method used by online education; and 5
elaborates on that method. 1 does not fit into this context, as the uncertain tone of its first half does not
fit with the highly positive and enthusiastic tone of the rest of the sentences. Hence, 1.

PreviousNext

Direction:

Five sentences related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a meaningful
and coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out. Choose its number as your answer and enter it in the
box provided below.

Note: Use the virtual keyboard provided to enter your answer.

Question:

[quizky-text]

Options:
1.

2.

3.

4.

Explanation:

Four out of these five sentences are about the ancient Persian civilization: 2 introduces it, 3 talks about
its success, and 5 and 1 together provide one of the reasons for this success. 4, on the other hand, isn’t
about the Persian civilization per se, but rather about how a Greek emperor adopted Persian customs.
Thus, it does not quite fit into the sequence. Hence, 4.

PreviousNext