Question 1 · Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension
MCQ
Common Description:
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Imagine a world in which artificial intelligence is entrusted with the highest moral responsibilities: sentencing criminals, allocating medical resources, and even mediating conflicts between nations. This might seem like the pinnacle of human progress: an entity unburdened by emotion, prejudice or inconsistency, making ethical decisions with impeccable precision. . . .
Yet beneath this vision of an idealised moral arbiter lies a fundamental question: can a machine understand morality as humans do, or is it confined to a simulacrum of ethical reasoning? AI might replicate human decisions without improving on them, carrying forward the same biases, blind spots and cultural distortions from human moral judgment. In trying to emulate us, it might only reproduce our limitations, not transcend them. But there is a deeper concern. Moral judgment draws on intuition, historical awareness and context - qualities that resist formalisation. Ethics may be so embedded in lived experience that any attempt to encode it into formal structures risks flattening its most essential features. If so, AI would not merely reflect human shortcomings; it would strip morality of the very depth that makes ethical reflection possible in the first place.
Still, many have tried to formalise ethics, by treating certain moral claims not as conclusions, but as starting points. A classic example comes from utilitarianism, which often takes as a foundational axiom the principle that one should act to maximise overall wellbeing. From this, more specific principles can be derived, for example, that it is right to benefit the greatest number, or that actions should be judged by their consequences for total happiness. As computational resources increase, AI becomes increasingly well-suited to the task of starting from fixed ethical assumptions and reasoning through their implications in complex situations.
But what, exactly, does it mean to formalise something like ethics? The question is easier to grasp by looking at fields in which formal systems have long played a central role. Physics, for instance, has relied on formalisation for centuries. There is no single physical theory that explains everything. Instead, we have many physical theories, each designed to describe specific aspects of the Universe: from the behaviour of quarks and electrons to the motion of galaxies. These theories often diverge. Aristotelian physics, for instance, explained falling objects in terms of natural motion toward Earth's centre; Newtonian mechanics replaced this with a universal force of gravity. These explanations are not just different; they are incompatible. Yet both share a common structure: they begin with basic postulates - assumptions about motion, force or mass - and derive increasingly complex consequences. . . .
Ethical theories have a similar structure. Like physical theories, they attempt to describe a domain - in this case, the moral landscape. They aim to answer questions about which actions are right or wrong, and why. These theories also diverge and, even when they recommend similar actions, such as giving to charity, they justify them in different ways. Ethical theories also often begin with a small set of foundational principles or claims, from which they reason about more complex moral problems.
The passage compares ethics to physics, where different theories apply to different aspects of a domain and says AI can reason from fixed starting points in complex cases. Which one of the assumptions below must hold for that comparison to guide practice?
- A.
There is a principled way to decide which ethical framework applies to which class of cases, so the system can select the relevant starting points before deriving a recommendation.
- B.
Real cases never straddle different areas, so a case always fits exactly one framework without any overlap whatsoever.
- C.
A single master framework replaces all others after translation into one code, so domain boundaries disappear in application.
- D.
Once formalised, all ethical frameworks yield the same recommendation in every case, so selection among them is unnecessary.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is a Necessary Assumption question. It asks what MUST be true for the author's comparison (Ethics ≈ Physics) to work in practice for AI.
Step 1: Understand the Analogy.
- Physics: Multiple incompatible theories (Newtonian, Aristotelian) apply to different domains/scales.
- Ethics: Multiple divergent theories (Utilitarianism, etc.) apply to the moral landscape.
- AI's Role: Reason from fixed starting points (axioms) of a chosen theory.
Step 2: Identify the Gap.
- If there are multiple theories, how does the AI know WHICH one to use for a specific problem?
- In physics, we know when to use Quantum Mechanics vs. Newtonian Mechanics based on the scale/domain.
- For the AI to work, it needs a similar rule to select the ethical framework.
Step 3: Evaluate Option A.
- "There is a principled way to decide which ethical framework applies to which class of cases."
- This provides the selection mechanism. Without it, the AI cannot start its reasoning. This is necessary.
Step 4: Reject Other Options.
- Option B: "Real cases never straddle..." - Too extreme. We just need a way to decide, not perfect segregation.
- Option C: "Single master framework..." - Contradicts the analogy of multiple divergent theories.
- Option D: "All frameworks yield same recommendation..." - Contradicts the text saying they diverge and justify differently.
Answer: Option A.
Question 2 · Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension
MCQ
Common Description:
Instructions [2 - 5 ]
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Fears of artificial intelligence (AI) have haunted humanity since the very beginning of the computer age. Hitherto, these fears focused on machines using physical means to kill, enslave or replace people. But over the past couple of years, new AI tools have emerged that threaten the survival of human civilisation from an unexpected direction. AI has gained some remarkable abilities to manipulate and generate language, whether with words, sounds or images. AI has thereby hacked the operating system of our civilisation.
Language is the stuff almost all human culture is made of. Human rights, for example, aren’t inscribed in our DNA. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by telling stories and writing laws. Gods aren’t physical realities. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by inventing myths and writing scriptures….What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures? When people think about Chatgpt and other new AI tools, they are often drawn to examples like schoolchildren using AI to write their essays. What will happen to the school system when kids do that? But this kind of question misses the big picture. Forget about school essays. Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of AI tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake news stories and scriptures for new cults…
Through its mastery of language, AI could even form intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews. Although there is no indication that AI has any consciousness or feelings of its own, to foster fake intimacy with humans, it is enough if the AI can make them feel emotionally attached to it….
What will happen to the course of history when AI takes over culture, and begins producing stories, melodies, laws and religions? Previous tools like the printing press and radio helped spread the cultural ideas of humans, but they never created new cultural ideas of their own. AI is fundamentally different. AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture….Of course, the new power of AI could be used for good purposes as well. I won’t dwell on this because the people who develop AI talk about it enough….
We can still regulate the new AI tools, but we must act quickly. Whereas nukes cannot invent more powerful nukes, AI can make exponentially more powerful AI.… Unregulated AI deployments would create social chaos, which would benefit autocrats and ruin democracies. Democracy is a conversation, and conversations rely on language. When AI hacks language, it could destroy our ability to have meaningful conversations, thereby destroying democracy …. And the first regulation I would suggest is to make it mandatory for AI to disclose that it is an AI. If I am having a conversation with someone, and I cannot tell whether it is a human or an AI—that’s the end of democracy. This text has been generated by a human. Or has it?
We can infer that the author is most likely to agree with which of the following statements?
- A.
People’s fears of the dangers of students using ChatGPT and other new AI tools are unfounded.
- B.
The commonly expressed fear that future AI developments will fatally harm humans is unfounded.
- C.
Apart from its drawbacks, AI tools have been beneficial in boosting technological and industrial advance worldwide.
- D.
One of the biggest casualties from the spread of unregulated AI is likely to be the democratic process.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is an author's viewpoint inference question, recognisable because it asks what the author would most likely agree with based on the passage's arguments.
Step 1: Analyze the main thesis. The author argues that AI's ability to manipulate language threatens human civilization, specifically by destroying meaningful conversations and democracy.
Step 2: Evaluate Option D. Paragraph 5 explicitly states, "Unregulated AI deployments would create social chaos, which would benefit autocrats and ruin democracies." This perfectly matches the option.
Step 3: Reject others.
- Option A is wrong because the author says focusing only on school essays "misses the big picture," not that fears are unfounded. The fear is real, just misdirected.
- Option B is wrong because the author believes the threat to civilization is very real and urgent.
- Option C is dismissed by the author ("I won't dwell on this..."), implying it is not the focus of his argument.
Answer: Option D.
Question 3 · Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension
MCQ
Common Description:
Instructions [21 - 24 ]
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
There is a group in the space community who view the solar system not as an opportunity to expand human potential but as a nature preserve, forever the provenance of an elite group of scientists and their sanitary robotic probes. These planetary protection advocates [call] for avoiding “harmful contamination” of celestial bodies. Under this regime, NASA incurs great expense sterilizing robotic probes in order to prevent the contamination of entirely theoretical biospheres ...
Transporting bacteria would matter if Mars were the vital world once imagined by astronomers who mistook optical illusions for canals. Nobody wants to expose Martians to measles, but sadly, robotic exploration reveals a bleak, rusted landscape, lacking oxygen and flooded with radiation ready to sterilize any Earthly microbes. Simple life might exist underground, or down at the bottom of a deep canyon, but it has been very hard to find with robots. . . . The upsides from human exploration and development of Mars clearly outweigh the welfare of purely speculative Martian fungi ...
The other likely targets of human exploration, development, and settlement, our moon and the asteroids, exist in a desiccated, radiation-soaked realm of hard vacuum and extreme temperature variations that would kill nearly anything. It’s also important to note that many international competitors will ignore the demands of these protection extremists in any case. For example, China recently sent a terrarium to the moon and germinated a plant seed—with, unsurprisingly, no protest from its own scientific community. In contrast, when it was recently revealed that a researcher had surreptitiously smuggled super-resilient microscopic tardigrades aboard the ill-fated Israeli Beresheet lunar probe, a firestorm was unleashed within the space community ...
NASA’s previous human exploration efforts made no serious attempt at sterility, with little notice. As the Mars expert Robert Zubrin noted in the National Review, U.S. lunar landings did not leave the campsites cleaner than they found it. Apollo’s bacteria-infested litter included bags of feces. Forcing NASA’s proposed Mars exploration to do better, scrubbing everything and hauling out all the trash, would destroy NASA’s human exploration budget and encroach on the agency’s other directorates, too. Getting future astronauts off Mars is enough of a challenge, without trying to tote weeks of waste along as well.
A reasonable compromise is to continue on the course laid out by the U.S. government and the National Research Council, which proposed a system of zones on Mars, some for science only, some for habitation, and some for resource exploitation. This approach minimizes contamination, maximizes scientific exploration ... Mars presents a stark choice of diverging human futures. We can turn inward, pursuing ever more limited futures while we await whichever natural or manmade disaster will eradicate our species and life on Earth. Alternatively, we can choose to propel our biosphere further into the solar system, simultaneously protecting our home planet and providing a backup plan for the only life we know exists in the universe. Are the lives on Earth worth less than some hypothetical microbe lurking under Martian rocks?
The author is unlikely to disagree with any of the following EXCEPT:
- A.
the proposal for a zonal segregation of the Martian landscape into regions for different purposes.
- B.
that while NASA’s earlier missions were not ideal in their approach to space contamination, they likely did no grave damage.
- C.
space contamination should be minimised until the possibility of life on the astronomical body being explored is ruled out.
- D.
the exorbitant costs of continuing to keep the space environment pristine may be unsustainable.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is a double-negative inference question ("unlikely to disagree with any... EXCEPT"). This simplifies to: "Which option would the author DISAGREE with?"
Step 1: Simplify the prompt. "Unlikely to disagree" = Agrees. "EXCEPT" = Find the disagreement. Target: Identify the statement contrary to the author's view.
Step 2: Determine the author's stance. The author opposes strict planetary protection, supports human exploration, and advocates for a zoned compromise. The author calls protection advocates "extremists".
Step 3: Evaluate Option A. Zonal segregation: The author explicitly supports this as a "reasonable compromise" in Paragraph 5. (Agrees)
Step 4: Evaluate Option B. Apollo missions did no grave damage: The author agrees, citing Zubrin's point about bacteria-infested litter being harmless. (Agrees)
Step 5: Evaluate Option C. Minimise contamination until life is ruled out: This is the exact stance of the "protection extremists" the author criticizes. The author argues we should NOT wait, as life is "purely speculative". (Disagrees)
Step 6: Evaluate Option D. Costs of pristine environment unsustainable: The author agrees, stating strict sterility would "destroy NASA's human exploration budget". (Agrees)
Answer: Option C.
Question 4 · Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension
MCQ
Common Description:
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Comprehension:
The biggest challenge [The Nutmeg’s Curse by Ghosh] throws down is to the prevailing understanding of when the climate crisis started. Most of us have accepted . . . that it started with the widespread use of coal at the beginning of the Industrial Age in the 18th century and worsened with the mass adoption of oil and natural gas in the 20th. Ghosh takes this history at least three centuries back, to the start of European colonialism in the 15th century. He [starts] the book with a 1621 massacre by Dutch invaders determined to impose a monopoly on nutmeg cultivation and trade in the Banda islands in today’s Indonesia. Not only do the Dutch systematically depopulate the islands through genocide, they also try their best to bring nutmeg cultivation into plantation mode. These are the two points to which Ghosh returns through examples from around the world. One, how European colonialists decimated not only indigenous populations but also indigenous understanding of the relationship between humans and Earth. Two, how this was an invasion not only of humans but of the Earth itself, and how this continues to the present day by looking at nature as a ‘resource’ to exploit. . . .
We know we are facing more frequent and more severe heatwaves, storms, floods, droughts and wildfires due to climate change. We know our expansion through deforestation, dam building, canal cutting - in short, terraforming, the word Ghosh uses - has brought us repeated disasters . . . Are these the responses of an angry Gaia who has finally had enough? By using the word ‘curse’ in the title, the author makes it clear that he thinks so. I use the pronoun ‘who’ knowingly, because Ghosh has quoted many non-European sources to enquire into the relationship between humans and the world around them so that he can question the prevalent way of looking at Earth as an inert object to be exploited to the maximum.
As Ghosh’s text, notes and bibliography show once more, none of this is new. There have always been challenges to the way European colonialists looked at other civilisations and at Earth. It is just that the invaders and their myriad backers in the fields of economics, politics, anthropology, philosophy, literature, technology, physics, chemistry, biology have dominated global intellectual discourse. . . .
There are other points of view that we can hear today if we listen hard enough. Those observing global climate negotiations know about the Latin American way of looking at Earth as Pachamama (Earth Mother). They also know how such a framing is just provided lip service and is ignored in the substantive portions of the negotiations. In The Nutmeg’s Curse, Ghosh explains why. He shows the extent of the vested interest in the oil economy - not only for oil-exporting countries, but also for a superpower like the US that controls oil drilling, oil prices and oil movement around the world. Many of us know power utilities are sabotaging decentralised solar power generation today because it hits their revenues and control. And how the other points of view are so often drowned out.
All of the following can be inferred from the reviewer’s discussion of “The Nutmeg’s Curse”, EXCEPT:
- A.
the history of climate change is deeply intertwined with the history of colonialism.
- B.
the contemporary dominant perception of nature and the environment was put in place by processes of colonialism.
- C.
environmental preservation policy makers can learn a lot from non-European and/or pre-colonial societies.
- D.
academic discourses have always served the function of raising awareness about environmental preservation.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is a Necessary Assumption question. It asks what MUST be true for the author's comparison (Ethics ≈ Physics) to work in practice for AI.
Step 1: Understand the Analogy.
- Physics: Multiple incompatible theories (Newtonian, Aristotelian) apply to different domains/scales.
- Ethics: Multiple divergent theories (Utilitarianism, etc.) apply to the moral landscape.
- AI's Role: Reason from fixed starting points (axioms) of a chosen theory.
Step 2: Identify the Gap.
- If there are multiple theories, how does the AI know WHICH one to use for a specific problem?
- In physics, we know when to use Quantum Mechanics vs. Newtonian Mechanics based on the scale/domain.
- For the AI to work, it needs a similar rule to select the ethical framework.
Step 3: Evaluate Option A.
- "There is a principled way to decide which ethical framework applies to which class of cases."
- This provides the selection mechanism. Without it, the AI cannot start its reasoning. This is necessary.
Step 4: Reject Other Options.
- Option B: "Real cases never straddle..." - Too extreme. We just need a way to decide, not perfect segregation.
- Option C: "Single master framework..." - Contradicts the analogy of multiple divergent theories.
- Option D: "All frameworks yield same recommendation..." - Contradicts the text saying they diverge and justify differently.
Answer: Option A.
Question 5 · Verbal Ability and Reading Comprehension
MCQ
Common Description:
Instructions [2 - 5 ]
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Fears of artificial intelligence (AI) have haunted humanity since the very beginning of the computer age. Hitherto, these fears focused on machines using physical means to kill, enslave or replace people. But over the past couple of years, new AI tools have emerged that threaten the survival of human civilisation from an unexpected direction. AI has gained some remarkable abilities to manipulate and generate language, whether with words, sounds or images. AI has thereby hacked the operating system of our civilisation.
Language is the stuff almost all human culture is made of. Human rights, for example, aren’t inscribed in our DNA. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by telling stories and writing laws. Gods aren’t physical realities. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by inventing myths and writing scriptures….What would happen once a non-human intelligence becomes better than the average human at telling stories, composing melodies, drawing images, and writing laws and scriptures? When people think about Chatgpt and other new AI tools, they are often drawn to examples like schoolchildren using AI to write their essays. What will happen to the school system when kids do that? But this kind of question misses the big picture. Forget about school essays. Think of the next American presidential race in 2024, and try to imagine the impact of AI tools that can be made to mass-produce political content, fake news stories and scriptures for new cults…
Through its mastery of language, AI could even form intimate relationships with people, and use the power of intimacy to change our opinions and worldviews. Although there is no indication that AI has any consciousness or feelings of its own, to foster fake intimacy with humans, it is enough if the AI can make them feel emotionally attached to it….
What will happen to the course of history when AI takes over culture, and begins producing stories, melodies, laws and religions? Previous tools like the printing press and radio helped spread the cultural ideas of humans, but they never created new cultural ideas of their own. AI is fundamentally different. AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture….Of course, the new power of AI could be used for good purposes as well. I won’t dwell on this because the people who develop AI talk about it enough….
We can still regulate the new AI tools, but we must act quickly. Whereas nukes cannot invent more powerful nukes, AI can make exponentially more powerful AI.… Unregulated AI deployments would create social chaos, which would benefit autocrats and ruin democracies. Democracy is a conversation, and conversations rely on language. When AI hacks language, it could destroy our ability to have meaningful conversations, thereby destroying democracy …. And the first regulation I would suggest is to make it mandatory for AI to disclose that it is an AI. If I am having a conversation with someone, and I cannot tell whether it is a human or an AI—that’s the end of democracy. This text has been generated by a human. Or has it?
The author terms language “the operating system of our civilization” for all the following reasons EXCEPT that it
- A.
can influence political views and opinions as it engenders close emotional ties among people.
- B.
is the basis of AI tools like ChatGPT which can be used to generate academic content and opinion.
- C.
is fundamental to the articulation and spread of human values and culture in our society.
- D.
has laid the foundation for the creation of cultural artefacts through writing and telling of stories.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is an EXCEPT reason question, recognisable because it asks for the option that is NOT a reason why the author calls language the operating system of civilization.
Step 1: The trigger is "for all the following reasons EXCEPT". Three options must explain the author's metaphor, and one option must fail to do so.
Step 2: Understand the metaphor. An operating system is the foundational layer on which other things run. The passage says language is the material from which human culture, rights, gods, laws, stories, democracy, and conversations are built.
Step 3: Check Option C. Language being fundamental to human values and culture matches the idea of a foundational operating system. This is a valid reason.
Step 4: Check Option D. Language creating cultural artefacts through stories, laws, and scriptures also matches the foundational role. This is a valid reason.
Step 5: Check Option A. Language shaping political views through emotional ties and conversations fits the passage's argument about intimacy, opinions, democracy, and language. This is also a valid reason.
Step 6: Check Option B. ChatGPT and AI tools are recent systems that exploit or hack language. They are not the reason language has historically been the operating system of human civilization. This reverses the causal relationship.
Step 7: Common trap: selecting an option merely because it is mentioned in the passage. In EXCEPT questions, the option must also answer the specific "why" asked by the question.
Answer: Option B.