List of top Questions asked in CAT

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
The job of a peer reviewer is thankless. Collectively, academics spend around 70 million hours every year evaluating each other’s manuscripts on the behalf of scholarly journals — and they usually receive no monetary compensation and little if any recognition for their effort. Some do it as a way to keep abreast with developments in their field; some simply see it as a duty to the discipline. Either way, academic publishing would likely crumble without them.
In recent years, some scientists have begun posting their reviews online, mainly to claim credit for their work. Sites like Publons allow researchers to either share entire referee reports or simply list the journals for whom they’ve carried out a review….
The rise of Publons suggests that academics are increasingly placing value on the work of peer review and asking others, such as grant funders, to do the same. While that’s vital in the publish-or-perish culture of academia, there’s also immense value in the data underlying peer review. Sharing peer review data could help journals stamp out fraud, inefficiency, and systemic bias in academic publishing.….
Peer review data could also help root out bias. Last year, a study based on peer review data for nearly 24,000 submissions to the biomedical journal eLife found that women and non Westerners were vastly underrepresented among peer reviewers. Only around one in every five reviewers was female, and less than two percent of reviewers were based in developing countries…. Openly publishing peer review data could perhaps also help journals address another problem in academic publishing: fraudulent peer reviews. For instance, a minority of authors have been known to use phony email addresses to pose as an outside expert and review their own manuscripts.…
Opponents of open peer review commonly argue that confidentiality is vital to the integrity of the review process; referees may be less critical of manuscripts if their reports are published, especially if they are revealing their identities by signing them. Some also hold concerns that open reviewing may deter referees from agreeing to judge manuscripts in the first place, or that they’ll take longer to do so out of fear of scrutiny….
Even when the content of reviews and the identity of reviewers can’t be shared publicly, perhaps journals could share the data with outside researchers for study. Or they could release other figures that wouldn’t compromise the anonymity of reviews but that might answer important questions about how long the reviewing process takes, how many researchers editors have to reach out to on average to find one who will carry out the work, and the geographic distribution of peer reviewers.
Of course, opening up data underlying the reviewing process will not fix peer review entirely, and there may be instances in which there are valid reasons to keep the content of peer reviews hidden and the identity of the referees confidential. But the norm should shift from opacity in all cases to opacity only when necessary.

The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
. . . [T]he idea of craftsmanship is not simply nostalgic. . . . Crafts require distinct skills, an all round approach to work that involves the whole product, rather than individual parts, and an attitude that necessitates devotion to the job and a focus on the communal interest. The concept of craft emphasises the human touch and individual judgment.
Essentially, the crafts concept seems to run against the preponderant ethos of management studies which, as the academics note, have long prioritised efficiency and consistency. . . . Craft skills were portrayed as being primitive and traditionalist.
The contrast between artisanship and efficiency first came to the fore in the 19th century when British manufacturers suddenly faced competition from across the Atlantic as firms developed the “American system” using standardised parts. . . . the worldwide success of the Singer sewing machine showed the potential of a mass-produced device. This process created its own reaction, first in the form of the Arts and Crafts movement of the late 19th century, and then again in the “small is beautiful” movement of the 1970s. A third crafts movement is emerging as people become aware of the environmental impact of conventional industry.
There are two potential markets for those who practise crafts. The first stems from the existence of consumers who are willing to pay a premium price for goods that are deemed to be of extra quality. . . . The second market lies in those consumers who wish to use their purchases to support local workers, or to reduce their environmental impact by taking goods to craftspeople to be mended, or recycled.
For workers, the appeal of craftsmanship is that it allows them the autonomy to make creative choices, and thus makes a job far more satisfying. In that sense, it could offer hope for the overall labour market. Let the machines automate dull and repetitive tasks and let workers focus purely on their skills, judgment and imagination. As a current example, the academics cite the “agile” manifesto in the software sector, an industry at the heart of technological change. The pioneers behind the original agile manifesto promised to prioritise “individuals and interactions over processes and tools”. By bringing together experts from different teams, agile working is designed to improve creativity.
But the broader question is whether crafts can create a lot more jobs than they do today. Demand for crafted products may rise but will it be easy to retrain workers in sectors that might get automated (such as truck drivers) to take advantage? In a world where products and services often have to pass through regulatory hoops, large companies will usually have the advantage.
History also suggests that the link between crafts and creativity is not automatic. Medieval craft guilds were monopolies which resisted new entrants. They were also highly hierarchical with young men required to spend long periods as apprentices and journeymen before they could set up on their own; by that time the innovative spirit may have been knocked out of them. Craft workers can thrive in the modern era, but only if they don’t get too organised.

There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide where (option 1, 2, 3, or 4 ) the following sentence would best fit.
Sentence: This philosophical cut at one's core beliefs, values, and way of life is difficult enough.
Paragraph: The experience of reading philosophy is often disquieting. When reading philosophy, the values around which one has heretofore organised one's life may come to look provincial, flatly wrong, or even evil. __(1)_. When beliefs previously held as truths are rendered implausible, new beliefs, values, and ways of living may be required. _ (2) . What's worse, philosophers admonish each other to remain unsutured until such time as a defensible new answer is revealed or constructed. Sometimes philosophical writing is even strictly critical in that it does not even attempt to provide an alternative after tearing down a cultural or conceptual citadel. (3). The reader of philosophy must be prepared for the possibility of this experience. While reading philosophy can help one clarify one's values, and even make one self-conscious for the first time of the fact that there are good reasons for believing what one believes, it can also generate un-remediated doubt that is difficult to live with.

If \(\sqrt{5x+9}\)+\(\sqrt{5x-9}\)=\(3(2-\sqrt2)\) then \(\sqrt{10x+9}\) is equal to

Arvind travels from town A to town B, and Surbhi from town B to town A, both starting at the same time along the same route. After meeting each other, Arvind takes 6 hours to reach town B while Surbhi takes 24 hours to reach town A. If Arvind travelled at a speed of 54 km/h, then the distance, in km, between town A and town B is [This question was asked as TITA]

The salaries of three friends Sita, Gita and Mita are initially in the ratio 5: 6: 7 , respectively. In the first year, they get salary hikes of 20%, 25% and 20% , respectively. In the second year, Sita and Mita get salary hikes of 40% and 25% , respectively, and the salary of Gita becomes equal to the mean salary of the three friends. The salary hike of Gita in the second year is

Let \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) be the two distinct roots of the equation of 2x²-6x+k=0, such that (\(\alpha+\beta\)) and \(\alpha\beta\) are the distinct roots of the equation x²+px+p=0, then, the value of 8(k-p) ?

The amount of job that Amal, Sunil and Kamal can individually do in a day, are in harmonic progression. Kamal takes twice as much time as Amal to do the same amount of job. If Amal and Sunil work for 4 days and 9 days, respectively, Kamal needs to work for 16 days to finish the remaining job. Then the number of days Sunil will take to finish the job working alone, is [This question was asked as TITA]

The amount of job that Amal, Sunil and Kamal can individually do in a day, are in harmonic progression. Kamal takes twice as much time as Amal to do the same amount of job. If Amal and Sunil work for 4 days and 9 days, respectively, Kamal needs to work for 16 days to finish the remaining job. Then the number of days Sunil will take to finish the job working alone, is

Five restaurants, coded R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 gave integer ratings to five gig workers – Ullas, Vasu, Waman, Xavier and Yusuf, on a scale of 1 to 5. The means of the ratings given by R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 were 3.4, 2.2, 3.8, 2.8 and 3.4 respectively.
The summary statistics of these ratings for the five workers is given below.

	Ullas	Vasu	Waman	Xavier	Yusuf
Mean rating	2.2	3.8	3.4	3.6	2.6
Median rating	2	4	4	4	3
Model rating	2	4	5	5	1 and 4
Range of rating	3	3	4	4	3

* Range of ratings is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum ratings awarded to a worker.
The following is partial information about ratings of 1 and 5 awarded by the restaurants to the workers.
(a) R1 awarded a rating of 5 to Waman, as did R2 to Xavier, R3 to Waman and Xavier, and R5 to Vasu.
(b) R1 awarded a rating of 1 to Ullas, as did R2 to Waman and Yusuf, and R3 to Yusuf.
What is the median of the ratings given by R3 to the five workers?[This question was asked as TITA]

Five restaurants, coded R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 gave integer ratings to five gig workers – Ullas, Vasu, Waman, Xavier and Yusuf, on a scale of 1 to 5. The means of the ratings given by R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 were 3.4, 2.2, 3.8, 2.8 and 3.4 respectively.
The summary statistics of these ratings for the five workers is given below.

	Ullas	Vasu	Waman	Xavier	Yusuf
Mean rating	2.2	3.8	3.4	3.6	2.6
Median rating	2	4	4	4	3
Model rating	2	4	5	5	1 and 4
Range of rating	3	3	4	4	3

* Range of ratings is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum ratings awarded to a worker.
The following is partial information about ratings of 1 and 5 awarded by the restaurants to the workers.
(a) R1 awarded a rating of 5 to Waman, as did R2 to Xavier, R3 to Waman and Xavier, and R5 to Vasu.
(b) R1 awarded a rating of 1 to Ullas, as did R2 to Waman and Yusuf, and R3 to Yusuf.
What rating did R1 give to Xavier? [This question was asked as TITA]

Five restaurants, coded R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 gave integer ratings to five gig workers – Ullas, Vasu, Waman, Xavier and Yusuf, on a scale of 1 to 5. The means of the ratings given by R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 were 3.4, 2.2, 3.8, 2.8 and 3.4 respectively.
The summary statistics of these ratings for the five workers is given below.

	Ullas	Vasu	Waman	Xavier	Yusuf
Mean rating	2.2	3.8	3.4	3.6	2.6
Median rating	2	4	4	4	3
Model rating	2	4	5	5	1 and 4
Range of rating	3	3	4	4	3

* Range of ratings is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum ratings awarded to a worker.
The following is partial information about ratings of 1 and 5 awarded by the restaurants to the workers.
(a) R1 awarded a rating of 5 to Waman, as did R2 to Xavier, R3 to Waman and Xavier, and R5 to Vasu.
(b) R1 awarded a rating of 1 to Ullas, as did R2 to Waman and Yusuf, and R3 to Yusuf.
To how many workers did R2 give a rating of 4?[This question was asked as TITA]

Five restaurants, coded R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 gave integer ratings to five gig workers – Ullas, Vasu, Waman, Xavier and Yusuf, on a scale of 1 to 5. The means of the ratings given by R1, R2, R3, R4 and R5 were 3.4, 2.2, 3.8, 2.8 and 3.4 respectively.
The summary statistics of these ratings for the five workers is given below.

	Ullas	Vasu	Waman	Xavier	Yusuf
Mean rating	2.2	3.8	3.4	3.6	2.6
Median rating	2	4	4	4	3
Model rating	2	4	5	5	1 and 4
Range of rating	3	3	4	4	3

* Range of ratings is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum ratings awarded to a worker.
The following is partial information about ratings of 1 and 5 awarded by the restaurants to the workers.
(a) R1 awarded a rating of 5 to Waman, as did R2 to Xavier, R3 to Waman and Xavier, and R5 to Vasu.
(b) R1 awarded a rating of 1 to Ullas, as did R2 to Waman and Yusuf, and R3 to Yusuf.
How many individual ratings cannot be determined from the above information? [This question was asked as TITA]

A visa processing office (VPO) accepts visa applications in four categories - US, UK, Schengen, and Others. The applications are scheduled for processing in twenty 15-minute slots starting at 9:00 am and ending at 2:00 pm. Ten applications are scheduled in each slot.

There are ten counters in the office, four dedicated to US applications, and two each for UK applications, Schengen applications and Others applications. Applicants are called in for processing sequentially on a first-come-first-served basis whenever a counter gets freed for their category. The processing time for an application is the same within each category. But it may vary across the categories. Each US and UK application requires 10 minutes of processing time. Depending on the number of applications in a category and time required to process an application for that category, it is possible that an applicant for a slot may be processed later.

On a particular day, Ira, Vijay and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 am. When they entered the office, exactly six out of the ten counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and ready to start processing the next.

Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 am slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category.

The following additional information is known about that day:

All slots were full.
The number of US applications was the same in all the slots. The same was true for the other three categories.
50% of the applications were US applications.
All applicants except Ira, Vijay and Nandini arrived on time.
Vijay was called to a counter at 9:25 am.

What is the maximum possible value of the total time (in minutes, nearest to its integer value) required to process all applications in the Others category on that day? [This question was asked as TITA]

A visa processing office (VPO) accepts visa applications in four categories - US, UK, Schengen, and Others. The applications are scheduled for processing in twenty 15-minute slots starting at 9:00 am and ending at 2:00 pm. Ten applications are scheduled in each slot.
There are ten counters in the office, four dedicated to US applications, and two each for UK applications, Schengen applications and Others applications. Applicants are called in for processing sequentially on a first-come-first-served basis whenever a counter gets freed for their category. The processing time for an application is the same within each category. But it may vary across the categories. Each US and UK application requires 10 minutes of processing time. Depending on the number of applications in a category and time required to process an application for that category, it is possible that an applicant for a slot may be processed later.
On a particular day, Ira, Vijay and Nandini were scheduled for Schengen visa processing in that order. They had a 9:15 am slot but entered the VPO at 9:20 am. When they entered the office, exactly six out of the ten counters were either processing applications, or had finished processing one and ready to start processing the next.
Mahira and Osman were scheduled in the 9:30 am slot on that day for visa processing in the Others category.
The following additional information is known about that day.
1. All slots were full.
2. The number of US applications was the same in all the slots. The same was true for the other three categories.
3. 50% of the applications were US applications.
4. All applicants except Ira, Vijay and Nandini arrived on time.
5. Vijay was called to a counter at 9:25 am.
How many UK applications were scheduled on that day? [This question was asked as TITA]