đ Whatâs Inside This CAT RC Practice Post?
đ Authentic CAT Reading Comprehension Passage: Practice with a real RC passage from a previous CAT exam.
â
Detailed Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions: Each question is explained thoroughly for better understanding.
đ In-Depth Passage Analysis: Gain insights through line-by-line and paragraph-wise analysis, supplemented with a quick summary table for efficient revision.
đ Vocabulary Enhancement: Get a separate post explaining all tough words from the passage.
RC Passage
Direction for the questions 5 to 8: The passage below is accompanied by a set of four questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
When we teach engineering problems now, we ask students to come to a single âbestâ solution defined by technical ideals like low cost, speed to build, and ability to scale. This way of teaching primes students to believe that their decision-making is purely objective, as it is grounded in math and science. This is known as technical-social dualism, the idea that the technical and social dimensions of engineering problems are readily separable and remain distinct throughout the problem-definition and solution process.
Nontechnical parameters such as access to a technology, cultural relevancy or potential harms are deemed political and invalid in this way of learning. But those technical ideals are at their core social and political choices determined by a dominant culture focused on economic growth for the most privileged segments of society. By choosing to downplay public welfare as a critical parameter for engineering design, we risk creating a culture of disengagement from societal concerns amongst engineers that is antithetical to the ethical code of engineering.
In my field of medical devices, ignoring social dimensions has real consequences. . . . Most FDA-approved drugs are incorrectly dosed for people assigned female at birth, leading to unexpected adverse reactions. This is because they have been inadequately represented in clinical trials.
Beyond physical failings, subjective beliefs treated as facts by those in decision-making roles can encode social inequities. For example, spirometers, routinely used devices that measure lung capacity, still have correction factors that automatically assume smaller lung capacity in Black and Asian individuals. These racially based adjustments are derived from research done by eugenicists who thought these racial differences were biologically determined and who considered nonwhite people as inferior. These machines ignore the influence of social and environmental factors on lung capacity.
Many technologies for systemically marginalized people have not been built because they were not deemed important such as better early diagnostics and treatment for diseases like endometriosis, a disease that afflicts 10 percent of people with uteruses. And we hardly question whether devices are built sustainably, which has led to a crisis of medical waste and health care accounting for 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions
Social justice must be made core to the way engineers are trained. Some universities are working on this. . .. Engineers taught this way will be prepared to think critically about what problems we choose to solve, how we do so responsibly and how we build teams that challenge our ways of thinking.
Individual engineering professors are also working to embed societal needs in their pedagogy. Darshan Karwat at the University of Arizona developed activist engineering to challenge engineers to acknowledge their full moral and social responsibility through practical self-reflection. Khalid Kadir at the University of California, Berkeley, created the popular course Engineering, Environment, and Society that teaches engineers how to engage in place-based knowledge, an understanding of the people, context and history, to design better technical approaches in collaboration with communities. When we design and build with equity and justice in mind, we craft better solutions that respond to the complexities of entrenched systemic problems.
RC Line-wise Explanation
Paragraph 1
Original: When we teach engineering problems now, we ask students to come to a single âbestâ solution defined by technical ideals like low cost, speed to build, and ability to scale.
Explanation: Engineering students are currently trained to find one optimal solution that focuses on technical factors such as affordability, quick construction, and scalability.
Original: This way of teaching primes students to believe that their decision-making is purely objective, as it is grounded in math and science.
Explanation: This educational approach makes students think their choices are entirely neutral and based only on facts from science and math.
Original: This is known as technical-social dualism, the idea that the technical and social dimensions of engineering problems are readily separable and remain distinct throughout the problem-definition and solution process.
Explanation: This belief is called "technical-social dualism," which assumes that technical aspects can be separated from social ones during both problem-solving and solution implementation.
Paragraph 2
Original: Nontechnical parameters such as access to a technology, cultural relevancy or potential harms are deemed political and invalid in this way of learning.
Explanation: Factors like whether people can use the technology, if it fits culturally, or if it causes harm are seen as irrelevant or too political in current engineering education.
Original: But those technical ideals are at their core social and political choices determined by a dominant culture focused on economic growth for the most privileged segments of society.
Explanation: However, even technical ideals are influenced by societal and political values, especially those promoting the interests of wealthy, dominant groups.
Original: By choosing to downplay public welfare as a critical parameter for engineering design, we risk creating a culture of disengagement from societal concerns amongst engineers that is antithetical to the ethical code of engineering.
Explanation: Ignoring public well-being in design may lead engineers to disconnect from social responsibilities, which goes against their professional ethics.
Paragraph 3
Original: In my field of medical devices, ignoring social dimensions has real consequences. . . . Most FDA-approved drugs are incorrectly dosed for people assigned female at birth, leading to unexpected adverse reactions.
Explanation: In the authorâs areaâmedical devicesâoverlooking social factors causes harm; for example, many drugs are not correctly dosed for people born female, resulting in negative side effects.
Original: This is because they have been inadequately represented in clinical trials.
Explanation: This issue arises because people assigned female at birth are not adequately included in medical testing.
Paragraph 4
Original: Beyond physical failings, subjective beliefs treated as facts by those in decision-making roles can encode social inequities.
Explanation: Apart from physical problems, personal biases accepted as facts by leaders can build systemic inequality.
Original: For example, spirometers, routinely used devices that measure lung capacity, still have correction factors that automatically assume smaller lung capacity in Black and Asian individuals.
Explanation: For instance, spirometers still use outdated settings that presume people of Black and Asian descent naturally have smaller lungs.
Original: These racially based adjustments are derived from research done by eugenicists who thought these racial differences were biologically determined and who considered nonwhite people as inferior.
Explanation: These settings come from old, racist studies by eugenicists who wrongly believed that race determined biology and nonwhite people were inferior.
Original: These machines ignore the influence of social and environmental factors on lung capacity.
Explanation: The devices also fail to consider how environment and lifestyle affect lung health.
Paragraph 5
Original: Many technologies for systemically marginalized people have not been built because they were not deemed important such as better early diagnostics and treatment for diseases like endometriosis, a disease that afflicts 10 percent of people with uteruses.
Explanation: Technologies that could help marginalized groupsâlike better tools for diagnosing endometriosis, which affects many people with uterusesâare neglected because they're not seen as priorities.
Original: And we hardly question whether devices are built sustainably, which has led to a crisis of medical waste and health care accounting for 10 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Explanation: Also, we rarely examine whether medical devices are eco-friendly, causing huge medical waste and making healthcare a major contributor to U.S. pollution.
Paragraph 6
Original: Social justice must be made core to the way engineers are trained. Some universities are working on this. . ..
Explanation: Engineering education needs to prioritize social justice, and some institutions are starting to adopt this approach.
Original: Engineers taught this way will be prepared to think critically about what problems we choose to solve, how we do so responsibly and how we build teams that challenge our ways of thinking.
Explanation: These engineers will be better equipped to pick relevant problems, solve them ethically, and form diverse teams that broaden perspectives.
Paragraph 7
Original: Individual engineering professors are also working to embed societal needs in their pedagogy.
Explanation: Some professors are independently modifying their teaching to include social issues.
Original: Darshan Karwat at the University of Arizona developed activist engineering to challenge engineers to acknowledge their full moral and social responsibility through practical self-reflection.
Explanation: Darshan Karwat introduced "activist engineering" to urge engineers to reflect on and embrace their moral and societal duties.
Original: Khalid Kadir at the University of California, Berkeley, created the popular course Engineering, Environment, and Society that teaches engineers how to engage in place-based knowledge, an understanding of the people, context and history, to design better technical approaches in collaboration with communities.
Explanation: Khalid Kadir designed a course that helps engineers understand local people and contexts to build more effective, collaborative solutions.
Original: When we design and build with equity and justice in mind, we craft better solutions that respond to the complexities of entrenched systemic problems.
Explanation: Designing with fairness and justice helps us solve complex, deep-rooted societal problems more effectively.
RC Paragraph Explanation
Paragraph 1 Summary
The current model of engineering education promotes a narrow focus on technical excellence, neglecting the role of social values and reinforcing a false separation between technical and social factors in decision-making.
Paragraph 2 Summary
Technical goals are not neutral but reflect societal and political priorities, often favoring the powerful. Ignoring broader welfare considerations can lead to ethically detached engineering practices.
Paragraph 3 Summary
Neglecting social considerations in medical engineering has led to real harm, such as improper drug dosages for women due to their underrepresentation in clinical trials.
Paragraph 4 Summary
Biased assumptions, like those embedded in spirometers, perpetuate racial inequities under the guise of objectivity, ignoring important social and environmental influences.
Paragraph 5 Summary
The lack of focus on marginalized groups and sustainable design has resulted in technology gaps for common health conditions and a growing medical waste crisis.
Paragraph 6 Summary
Embedding social justice in engineering education can equip future engineers to address societal needs responsibly and make inclusive decisions.
Paragraph 7 Summary
Some educators are actively reshaping engineering instruction to include ethical and social awareness, creating more just and effective technological solutions.
RC Quick Table Summary
| Paragraph Number | Main Idea |
|---|---|
| Paragraph 1 | Engineering education focuses narrowly on technical ideals. |
| Paragraph 2 | Technical choices are shaped by social and political values. |
| Paragraph 3 | Overlooking social factors harms marginalized groups in medicine. |
| Paragraph 4 | Biased medical devices perpetuate racial inequities. |
| Paragraph 5 | Marginalized health needs and sustainability are often ignored. |
| Paragraph 6 | Social justice should be central to engineering education. |
| Paragraph 7 | Some professors are integrating ethics and justice into engineering. |
RC Questions
Ques 5. We can infer that the author would approve of a more evolved engineering pedagogy that includes all of the following EXCEPT:
Ques 6. All of the following are examples of the negative outcomes of focusing on technical ideals in the medical sphere EXCEPT the:
Ques 7. In this passage, the author is making the claim that:
Ques 8. The author gives all of the following reasons for why marginalised people are systematically discriminated against in technology-related interventions EXCEPT:
