Life, Meaning & Communication Previous Year Questions (PYQs) for XAT: 9+ Solved Questions with Step-by-Step Solutions

Common Description:

Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Comprehension: What Arendt does for us is to remind us that our “publicness” is as important to our ourishing as our sociability and our privacy. She draws a distinction between what it means to act “socially” and what is means to act “politically.” The social realm for Arendt is both the context where all our basic survival needs “are permitted to appear in public” and also the realm of “behaviour.” One of the things she fears about modern societies is that society- focused on how we behave and what we will permit for ourselves and others-becomes the realm of conformism. This is worrying not just because we don’t really get vibrant societies out of conformism and sameness, but also, Arendt says because there is a risk that we think this is all there is to our living together. We lose ourselves in the tasks of managing behaviour and forget that our true public task is to act, and to distinguish ourselves in doing so. The risk, says Arendt, is therefore that we confuse behaviour with action, that in modern liberal societies “behaviour replaces action as the foremost mode of human relationship.” This confusion can happen in any area of our modern lives and institutions, secular or faith-based.

None is immune.

Arendt wants to drive home the point that the healthy public life requires that we do not just see ourselves as social actors but also as fully public persons, committed to judging and acting as members of a common world we want to inhabit and pass on. Arendt tells us that public action is action in which we stand out, are individuated, become in some way excellent in a manner that is of service to others and a greater good. This is the space where we take risks, subject our common life to scrutiny, seek justice(that sometimes requires us to transgress what seem like accepted laws) in order to be increasingly open to the claims and needs of other humans- ones who are not our household and our kin.

According to the passage, who can be BEST categorised as a “public person”?

Common Description:

Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Comprehension: What Arendt does for us is to remind us that our “publicness” is as important to our ourishing as our sociability and our privacy. She draws a distinction between what it means to act “socially” and what is means to act “politically.” The social realm for Arendt is both the context where all our basic survival needs “are permitted to appear in public” and also the realm of “behaviour.” One of the things she fears about modern societies is that society- focused on how we behave and what we will permit for ourselves and others-becomes the realm of conformism. This is worrying not just because we don’t really get vibrant societies out of conformism and sameness, but also, Arendt says because there is a risk that we think this is all there is to our living together. We lose ourselves in the tasks of managing behaviour and forget that our true public task is to act, and to distinguish ourselves in doing so. The risk, says Arendt, is therefore that we confuse behaviour with action, that in modern liberal societies “behaviour replaces action as the foremost mode of human relationship.” This confusion can happen in any area of our modern lives and institutions, secular or faith-based.

None is immune.

Arendt wants to drive home the point that the healthy public life requires that we do not just see ourselves as social actors but also as fully public persons, committed to judging and acting as members of a common world we want to inhabit and pass on. Arendt tells us that public action is action in which we stand out, are individuated, become in some way excellent in a manner that is of service to others and a greater good. This is the space where we take risks, subject our common life to scrutiny, seek justice(that sometimes requires us to transgress what seem like accepted laws) in order to be increasingly open to the claims and needs of other humans- ones who are not our household and our kin.

Which of the following is the BEST reason for focusing on behaviour instead of acting in public?

Common Description:

Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Comprehension: What Arendt does for us is to remind us that our “publicness” is as important to our ourishing as our sociability and our privacy. She draws a distinction between what it means to act “socially” and what is means to act “politically.” The social realm for Arendt is both the context where all our basic survival needs “are permitted to appear in public” and also the realm of “behaviour.” One of the things she fears about modern societies is that society- focused on how we behave and what we will permit for ourselves and others-becomes the realm of conformism. This is worrying not just because we don’t really get vibrant societies out of conformism and sameness, but also, Arendt says because there is a risk that we think this is all there is to our living together. We lose ourselves in the tasks of managing behaviour and forget that our true public task is to act, and to distinguish ourselves in doing so. The risk, says Arendt, is therefore that we confuse behaviour with action, that in modern liberal societies “behaviour replaces action as the foremost mode of human relationship.” This confusion can happen in any area of our modern lives and institutions, secular or faith-based.

None is immune.

Arendt wants to drive home the point that the healthy public life requires that we do not just see ourselves as social actors but also as fully public persons, committed to judging and acting as members of a common world we want to inhabit and pass on. Arendt tells us that public action is action in which we stand out, are individuated, become in some way excellent in a manner that is of service to others and a greater good. This is the space where we take risks, subject our common life to scrutiny, seek justice(that sometimes requires us to transgress what seem like accepted laws) in order to be increasingly open to the claims and needs of other humans- ones who are not our household and our kin.

Based on the passage, which of the following options BEST describes “public action”?

Common Description:

Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Comprehension: What does a good life look like to you? For some, the phrase may conjure up images of a close-knit family, a steady job, and a Victorian house at the end of a street arched with oak trees. Others may focus on the goal of making a difference in the world, whether by working as a nurse or teacher, volunteering, or pouring their energy into environmental activism. According to Aristotlean theory, the rst kind of life would be classi ed as “hedonic”—one based on pleasure, comfort, stability, and strong social relationships. The second is“eudaimonic,” primarily concerned with the sense of purpose and ful lment one gets by contributing to the greater good. The ancient Greek philosopher outlined these ideas in his treatise Nicomachean Ethics, and the psychological sciences have pretty much stuck with them ever since when discussing the possibilities of what people might want out of their time on Earth. But a new paper, published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Review, suggests there’s another way to live a good life. It isn’t focused on happiness or purpose, but rather it’s a life that’s “psychologically rich.” What is a psychologically rich life? According to authors Shige Oishi, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and Erin Westgate, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida, it’s one characterized by “interesting experiences in which novelty and/or complexity are accompanied by profound changes in perspective.” Studying abroad, for example, is one way that college students often introduce psychological richness into their lives. As they learn more about a new country’s customs and history, they’re often prompted to reconsider the social mores of their own cultures. Deciding to embark on a di cult new career path or immersing one’s self in avant-garde art(the paper gives a speci c shout-out to James Joyce’s Ulysses) also could make a person feel as if their life is more psychologically rich.

Crucially, an experience doesn’t have to be fun in order to qualify as psychologically enriching. It might even be a hardship. Living through war or a natural disaster might make it hard to feel as though you’re living a particularly happy or purposeful life, but you can still come out of the experience with psychological richness.

Or you might encounter less dramatic but nonetheless painful events: infertility, chronic illness, unemployment.

Regardless of the speci cs, you may experience suffering but still nd value in how your experience shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you.

Which of the following statements BEST contrasts Hedonic from Eudaimonic?

Common Description:

Read the passage carefully and answer the THREE questions that follow.

Comprehension: What does a good life look like to you? For some, the phrase may conjure up images of a close-knit family, a steady job, and a Victorian house at the end of a street arched with oak trees. Others may focus on the goal of making a difference in the world, whether by working as a nurse or teacher, volunteering, or pouring their energy into environmental activism. According to Aristotlean theory, the rst kind of life would be classi ed as “hedonic”—one based on pleasure, comfort, stability, and strong social relationships. The second is“eudaimonic,” primarily concerned with the sense of purpose and ful lment one gets by contributing to the greater good. The ancient Greek philosopher outlined these ideas in his treatise Nicomachean Ethics, and the psychological sciences have pretty much stuck with them ever since when discussing the possibilities of what people might want out of their time on Earth. But a new paper, published in the American Psychological Association’s Psychological Review, suggests there’s another way to live a good life. It isn’t focused on happiness or purpose, but rather it’s a life that’s “psychologically rich.” What is a psychologically rich life? According to authors Shige Oishi, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia, and Erin Westgate, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Florida, it’s one characterized by “interesting experiences in which novelty and/or complexity are accompanied by profound changes in perspective.” Studying abroad, for example, is one way that college students often introduce psychological richness into their lives. As they learn more about a new country’s customs and history, they’re often prompted to reconsider the social mores of their own cultures. Deciding to embark on a di cult new career path or immersing one’s self in avant-garde art(the paper gives a speci c shout-out to James Joyce’s Ulysses) also could make a person feel as if their life is more psychologically rich.

Crucially, an experience doesn’t have to be fun in order to qualify as psychologically enriching. It might even be a hardship. Living through war or a natural disaster might make it hard to feel as though you’re living a particularly happy or purposeful life, but you can still come out of the experience with psychological richness.

Or you might encounter less dramatic but nonetheless painful events: infertility, chronic illness, unemployment.

Regardless of the speci cs, you may experience suffering but still nd value in how your experience shapes your understanding of yourself and the world around you.

Which of the following statements can be BEST concluded from the passage?