CAT VA-RC 2021 Slot 2: RC Passage 1

📘 What’s Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?

📝 Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
✅ Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
🔍 In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
📚 Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.



RC Passage

Direction for the questions 1 to 4: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question. It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything. Philosopher Michael Williams writes: ‘Is it possible to obtain knowledge at all? This problem is pressing because there are powerful arguments, some very ancient, for the conclusion that it is not . . . Scepticism is the skeleton in Western rationalism’s closet’. While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge. For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.

That is all quite serious-sounding but so also are the rattlings of the skeleton: that is, the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-inthemselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-theyare-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect. Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you ‘know’ something or anything at all - at least not, he may add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive ‘knowledge’.

There are a number of ways to handle this situation. The most common is to ignore it. Most people outside the academy - and, indeed, most of us inside it - are unaware of or unperturbed by the philosophical scandal of knowledge and go about our lives without too many epistemic anxieties. We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates. And we examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously, usually depending on what seems to be at stake for ourselves and/or other people and what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or making our beliefs credible to others (look, it’s right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist).

RC Line-wise Explanation

Paragraph 1

"It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy."

Explanation: People often say that the biggest issue in philosophy is understanding what knowledge truly is.

"The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything."

Explanation: The problem lies in philosophy’s struggle to explain how we can confidently say we know something at all.

"Philosopher Michael Williams writes: ‘Is it possible to obtain knowledge at all? This problem is pressing because there are powerful arguments, some very ancient, for the conclusion that it is not . . . Scepticism is the skeleton in Western rationalism’s closet’."

Explanation: Philosopher Michael Williams emphasizes the importance of this issue, noting that skepticism about knowledge has long challenged Western thinking.

"While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge."

Explanation: Though this issue might seem irrelevant to most people, philosophers argue it’s important if we take knowledge seriously.

"For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion…"

Explanation: They explain that without a solid basis for knowledge, we can’t separate true knowledge from false beliefs or fantasies.

"…then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable."

Explanation: If our knowledge is unreliable, everyday decisions like taking medicine or judging crimes might be baseless and unreasonable.

Paragraph 2

"That is all quite serious-sounding but so also are the rattlings of the skeleton: that is, the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything…"

Explanation: This concern sounds important, and the skeptic’s argument—that we can't be sure we know anything—adds to the seriousness.

"…at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality…"

Explanation: Especially if we define knowledge as accurately picturing how reality truly is.

"…and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions."

Explanation: And if we think of reality as existing independently of how we perceive or think about it.

"For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken…"

Explanation: The skeptic argues that if reality exists beyond our perception, we can’t really know it.

"(we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it),"

Explanation: We can't directly observe or imagine a reality that exists separately from our mental processes.

"…we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect."

Explanation: Hence, we can't check if our thoughts about reality actually match what reality is like in itself.

"Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you ‘know’ something or anything at all - at least not, he may add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive ‘knowledge’."

Explanation: So, the skeptic insists that if you define knowledge this way, you can't ever truly be sure you know anything.

Paragraph 3

"There are a number of ways to handle this situation. The most common is to ignore it."

Explanation: One way to deal with this problem is simply to overlook or dismiss it.

"Most people outside the academy - and, indeed, most of us inside it - are unaware of or unperturbed by the philosophical scandal of knowledge and go about our lives without too many epistemic anxieties."

Explanation: Most people, including many scholars, don’t worry much about these philosophical concerns and live without stressing over knowledge doubts.

"We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them…"

Explanation: We believe what we do based on how we came to know it—for example, personal observation or word-of-mouth.

"(I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me)"

Explanation: Examples include seeing something ourselves, hearing it on the news, or being told by someone.

"…and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates."

Explanation: We also feel more confident in our beliefs if people we trust or respect also believe the same things.

"And we examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously…"

Explanation: Depending on the situation, we may question, explain, or defend our beliefs to different degrees.

"…usually depending on what seems to be at stake for ourselves and/or other people and what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or making our beliefs credible to others…"

Explanation: How much effort we make to justify our beliefs depends on what's at risk and what evidence or support we have.

"(look, it’s right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist)."

Explanation: Examples of this include showing proof, using logic, or referencing expertise.

RC Paragraph Explanation

Paragraph 1 Summary

Philosophers highlight a major issue: how can we be certain of what we know? This problem, rooted in skepticism, questions the very basis of knowledge and its role in making justified decisions in daily life.

Paragraph 2 Summary

Skeptics argue that if knowledge means accurately understanding a reality that exists independently of our minds, then we can never be sure we truly know anything because we can’t compare our ideas to reality itself.

Paragraph 3 Summary

Most people ignore these philosophical worries and rely on social validation and personal experience to form and defend their beliefs, adjusting their confidence depending on context and stakes.

RC Quick Table Summary
Paragraph NumberMain Idea
Paragraph 1Philosophy struggles to explain how we can truly know anything, raising real-world concerns.
Paragraph 2Skeptics argue we can't know reality if it exists outside our perception.
Paragraph 3Most people deal with this issue by relying on experience, authority, and social agreement.

RC Questions

Ques 1. The author discusses all of the following arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:

Correct Answer: (C) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: Option A The skeptic's argument posits a fundamental uncertainty regarding our ability to truly "know" anything. To elaborate, when we conceive of knowledge as the accurate mental mapping or representation of the real world, doubts arise. The skeptic insists that we can't be fully confident in this mental mapping. This skepticism becomes even more pronounced when we consider that "reality" is defined as the state of things as they exist objectively, without being tainted or altered by human perception, ideas, or linguistic description. The proponents of Option B argue for the critical need to establish a firm foundation for what we term as "knowledge." They suggest that if we are unable to differentiate between knowledge and other forms of belief or thought—such as mere opinions, superstitions, fantasies, wishful thinking, ideological convictions, illusions, or even delusions—then our actions, predicated on what we assume to be "knowledge," become irrational and indefensible. For example, if we cannot justify why we believe a medication will work or why a person is guilty of a crime, then taking the medication or convicting the person would be based on shaky grounds. As for Option D, the philosophers argue that the debate surrounding the nature and veracity of knowledge may seem irrelevant to the average person, but it actually holds broader significance. They contend that understanding the limitations and foundations of what we call "knowledge" has wide-reaching implications for society at large. While the intricacies might seem confined to philosophical discussions, the implications are universal, given how most people conceive of knowledge as something reliable and concrete. Option C: The author points out that the most widespread approach to handling skepticism about the certainty of knowledge is simply to ignore it. However, this is emphasized as being the most common method of dealing with the dilemma, not necessarily the best or most effective one. Ignoring the skepticism fails to resolve the inherent issues surrounding the concept of "knowing."

Ques 2. “. . . we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it . . .” Which one of the following statements best reflects the argument being made in this sentence?

Correct Answer: (D) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: In the Original Argument: The author lays down a logical sequence that poses challenges to the very concept of knowing 'reality.' According to the author's line of reasoning, if one assumes that 'reality' is something that exists as it is—autonomous and independent of human perception—then we encounter a serious problem. The skeptic argues that under such a definition, reality exists in a realm that is inaccessible to our cognitive processes; we can't 'see' reality as it is 'in itself,' unmediated by our perceptions. Consequently, we are left with no standard against which to measure our mental representations of what we think reality is, thereby casting doubt on their veracity. Option D closely resonates with the author's point by underscoring the idea that philosophical debates about the nature and limits of knowledge should matter to everyone, not just scholars. While the skeptics' view may seem abstract, it becomes concrete when you consider the implications: if we cannot know things "as they are in themselves," then our conception of knowledge comes into question. Hence, Option D encapsulates the seriousness of what initially appears to be an abstract philosophical conundrum.Option A misinterprets the skeptic's viewpoint. The skeptic isn't saying that reality is definitively beyond human perception; rather, they are presenting a challenge to the notion that we can ever truly "know" reality if it is indeed independent of our sensory and cognitive processes. In other words, the skeptic posits this as a problem to be grappled with, not as an established fact that is beyond contestation. Option B narrows the scope of perception to only eyesight, which is a distortion of the author's broader argument about 'perception' in general. According to the author, our limitation isn't just visual; it extends to the entirety of how we perceive, conceive, and understand the world around us. Whether through sight, touch, or other cognitive processes, our interactions with reality are mediated, thereby leaving us without a 'gold standard' for truth. Option C misses the mark by not focusing on the problem the author is highlighting. The author's main argument isn't just about the process of "conceiving" reality or our understanding of it; rather, it's about the limitations of human cognition in ever arriving at an accurate understanding of a reality presumed to be independent of our perceptions.

Ques 3. According to the last paragraph of the passage, “We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on” something. Which one of the following most broadlycaptures what we depend on?

Correct Answer: (A) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: We carry within us a collection of beliefs and tentative forms of knowledge that we hold with varying degrees of confidence. This degree of confidence is often shaped by the method through which we acquired these beliefs or pieces of information. For instance, some might say, "I witnessed it firsthand," to justify their certainty, while others might rely on media sources, such as proclaiming, "I heard it reported on Fox News." Yet others might place trust in anecdotal evidence, like something a coworker mentioned in passing conversation. Moreover, our conviction in these beliefs or presumptive knowledge is also significantly influenced by the extent to which they are validated or supported by people who matter to us. This could include a wide range of individuals: subject-matter experts and recognized authorities, close friends and family members, or even workplace colleagues and social acquaintances.Option A Based on the text, Option A remains the most accurate interpretation. The text clearly delineates that our beliefs and what we assume to be 'knowledge' are not just acquired in a vacuum. Instead, they are shaped and reinforced by two crucial factors. First, the mechanism through which we obtained these beliefs—be it personal observation, media channels, or hearsay. Second, the degree of affirmation or endorsement these beliefs receive from those we consider relevant to our social or intellectual ecosystem—such as experts in the field, family members who we trust, or colleagues who share our professional space.

Ques 4. The author of the passage is most likely to support which one of the following statements?

Correct Answer: (B) Detailed explanation by Wordpandit: We tend to hold our personal beliefs and what we consider to be 'knowledge' with varying levels of certainty. This certainty often correlates with the methods through which we've acquired these beliefs—perhaps through direct personal experience, reputable media outlets, or informal conversations with others. Option A Contrary to what the author has emphasized, Option A asserts a viewpoint that directly clashes with the author's statement. The author stresses that our confidence in our beliefs and presumed knowledge is heavily influenced by how we acquire them. Option A, by contradicting this, fails to capture the essence of the author's argument. Option B The author refers to the issue of knowledge as the "scandal of philosophy," drawing attention to philosophy's seeming incapability to conclusively demonstrate how we can be certain that we know something—or if we know anything at all. The text then goes on to highlight that skepticism represents the uncomfortable truth lurking in the background of Western philosophy's attempts to resolve this scandal. Skepticism questions our very ability to grasp an independent 'reality,' thereby deepening the scandal. The author is likely to be in agreement with this perspective, making Option B the most fitting choice. Option C In a later part of the text, the author discusses how the extent to which a belief is shared within one's social circle often influences how vigorously one defends that belief. However, it's crucial to note that the author doesn't comment on whether this social validation is appropriate or not. Furthermore, relying on social consensus could potentially introduce bias, skewing our judgment. Thus, Option C does not align with the author's primary focus and is incorrect. Option D The passage does not support Option D. It presents the skeptical viewpoint, suggesting that if we consider 'reality' to be independent of human perception, it becomes an enigma that is fundamentally beyond our cognitive reach. At no point does the author suggest that, given this predicament, our aim should be to study this 'independent reality' in a particular manner.

Actual CAT VA-RC 2021 Slot 2: Question-wise Index

Reading ComprehensionWords from the Passage
RC Passage 1 (Q 1 to 4) Must-Learn Words (Passage 1)
RC Passage 2 (Q 5 to 8) Must-Learn Words (Passage 2)
RC Passage 3 (Q 9 to 12) Must-Learn Words (Passage 3)
RC Passage 4 (Q 13 to 16) Must-Learn Words (Passage 4)
Verbal Ability
Ques 17 (Paragraph Summary) Ques 18 (Para-jumble)
Ques 19 (Misfit/Odd one out) Ques 20 (Misfit/Odd one out)
Ques 21 (Para-jumble) Ques 22 (Paragraph Summary)
Ques 23 (Para-jumble) Ques 24 (Paragraph Summary)

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

×

Get 1 Free Counselling


Free Counselling
Call Icon