Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.
It is sometimes argued that this "asymmetry" between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.
We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.
According to Popper, the statement "Scientific beliefs are universal in character" implies that
Show Hint
- Positive instances of scientific belief imply that it is universal in character.
- There are equal numbers of negative and positive instances of a universal scientific belief.
- If there are negative and positive instances of a scientific belief then it cannot be universal.
- We can only deduce that a scientific belief is false but cannot induce that it is true.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Popper states that scientific beliefs are universal, meaning they apply to all instances, but a single negative instance can disprove them, while positive instances cannot prove them due to the possibility of unexamined negative instances.
Step 2: Evaluate the implication.
The passage emphasizes that we can deduce a belief is false from a single negative instance (falsification), but we cannot induce it is true because positive instances do not guarantee universality.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) Positive instances imply universality — Incorrect, as positive instances alone cannot confirm universality.
(B) Equal numbers of instances — Incorrect, as the passage does not suggest a balance but focuses on the impact of a single negative instance.
(C) Negative and positive instances prevent universality — Incorrect, as universality is not negated by positive instances but by a single negative one.
Therefore: The correct implication aligns with (D). \[ \boxed{\text{We can only deduce that a scientific belief is false but cannot induce that it is true.}} \]
The statement, "this 'asymmetry' between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be", implies that
Show Hint
- Falsification is better than verification in universal acceptance of scientific beliefs.
- Verification is better than falsification in universal acceptance of scientific beliefs.
- Both falsification and verification together can result in universal acceptance of scientific beliefs.
- Capability of falsification in accepting of scientific beliefs is not better than that of verification in rejection of scientific beliefs.
- Capability of falsification in rejection of scientific beliefs is not always better than that of verification in acceptance of scientific beliefs.
The Correct Option is
Solution and Explanation
The statement challenges Popper's view that falsification is significantly more effective than verification, suggesting the asymmetry is less pronounced, implying both processes have limitations.
Step 2: Analyze the implication.
The passage argues that falsification (rejection via a negative instance) is not conclusive, as negative instances can be reinterpreted (e.g., the spherical triangle example), and verification (acceptance via positive instances) is also not conclusive due to unexamined instances. Thus, neither method is consistently superior.
Step 3: Eliminate distractors.
(A) Falsification better for acceptance — Incorrect, as the statement weakens falsification's superiority.
(B) Verification better for acceptance — Incorrect, as verification's effectiveness is also questioned.
(C) Both together for acceptance — Incorrect, as the passage does not suggest they jointly ensure acceptance.
(D) Falsification not better for acceptance than verification for rejection — Incorrect, as it misaligns with the focus on rejection vs. acceptance balance.
Therefore: The implication aligns with (E), reflecting the reduced asymmetry. \[ \boxed{\text{Capability of falsification in rejection of scientific beliefs is not always.}}\] \[\text{better than that of verification in acceptance of scientific beliefs.} \]
With which of the following statements, would the author agree most?
Show Hint
- Verification is better than falsification in establishing the claims.
- Falsification and verification are equally good in establishing the claims.
- Verification and falsification are equally bad in establishing the claims.
- Falsification is better than verification in disproving the claims.
- Verification is better than falsification in disproving the claims.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The author contrasts Popper’s asymmetry between falsification and verification. While Popper emphasized that falsification is stronger, the passage later highlights that both verification and falsification fail to provide conclusive grounds. Verification can never conclusively establish a universal claim, and falsification may also be inconclusive depending on how we interpret the “negative instance.”
Step 2: Evaluating the options
- (A) is incorrect because verification is not better than falsification; both have limits.
- (B) is incorrect because the author does not claim that they are equally good — in fact, neither is truly effective in establishing truth.
- (C) is correct, since the passage concludes that both verification and falsification are equally bad in establishing universal claims.
- (D) is incorrect, because falsification, while useful in rejection, is not said to be “better” in disproving.
- (E) is incorrect, since verification is never given primacy in disproving.
Step 3: Final reasoning
The author most strongly agrees that both verification and falsification fail in establishing claims. Hence, the correct option is (C). \[ \boxed{\text{C) Verification and falsification are equally bad in establishing the claims.}} \]
Which of the following would be the most appropriate conclusion?
Show Hint
- Falsification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief.
- Falsification gives us all the reasons for accepting a claim.
- Verification gives us a reason for rejecting a claim.
- Verification gives us an appropriate reason for accepting a scientific belief.
- Verification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
According to Karl Popper, scientific beliefs are universal in nature. This means that no matter how many positive examples (verification instances) we encounter, there will always remain infinitely many untested cases. Hence, verification can never conclusively prove a universal scientific claim to be true.
Step 2: Role of falsification
On the other hand, even a single negative instance, if accepted as valid, can logically contradict a universal belief. For example, if a law states “All swans are white,” finding one black swan falsifies it. Thus, falsification can provide a strong logical basis for rejecting scientific beliefs.
Step 3: Evaluating options
- Option A: Matches Popper’s view perfectly. Falsification gives an appropriate reason for rejecting scientific belief. This is consistent with the passage.
- Option B: Incorrect, because falsification is about rejection, not acceptance.
- Option C: Incorrect, because verification does not give reasons to reject; it only gives support (but never conclusively).
- Option D: Incorrect, because verification cannot give an “appropriate” reason for acceptance; induction is always logically weak.
- Option E: Incorrect, because verification is not about rejection at all.
Step 4: Conclusion
The passage explicitly supports falsification as the logical ground for rejecting scientific claims, but denies verification as a sufficient ground for acceptance. Therefore, Option A is the only valid conclusion. \[ \boxed{\text{Falsification gives us an appropriate reason for rejecting a scientific belief.}} \]
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
No one argues that the rich should be rich because they were born to wealthy parents. Critics of inequality may complain that those who would abolish inheritance taxes, say, are implicitly endorsing hereditary privilege. But no one defends hereditary privilege outright or disputes the principle that careers should be open to talents.
Most of our debates about access to jobs, education, and public o ce proceed from the premise of equal opportunity. Our disagreements are less about the principle itself than about what it requires. For example, critics of a rmative action in hiring and college admissions argue that such policies are inconsistent with equality of opportunity, because they judge applicants on factors other than merit. Defenders of a rmative action reply that such policies are necessary to make equality of opportunity a reality for members of groups that have suffered discrimination or disadvantage.
At the level of principle at least, and political rhetoric, meritocracy has won the day. In democracies throughout the world, politicians of the center-left and center-right claim that their policies are the ones that will enable all citizens, whatever their race or ethnicity, gender or class, to compete on equal terms and to rise as far as their efforts and talents will take them. When people complain about meritocracy, the complaint is usually not about the ideal but about our failure to live up to it: The wealthy and powerful have rigged the system to perpetuate their privilege; the professional classes have gured out how to pass their advantages on to their children, converting the meritocracy into a hereditary aristocracy; colleges that claim to select students on merit give an edge to the sons and daughters of the wealthy and the well-connected. According to this complaint, meritocracy is a myth, a distant promise yet to be redeemed.- XAT - 2025
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Look how you turned on
the ceiling fan—it’s too high,
see how it shakes and trembles.
You walk into this room
with your hot ideas
and the ceiling fan has to work harder
to cool down the room
for us. You walk into this room
with your crazy eyes
and the ceiling fan
wants to y loose. It dreams
of becoming a spider lily.- XAT - 2025
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Recently, a team of social scientists launched an experiment to test that hypothesis. They recruited 1,500 entrepreneurs in West Africa—a mix of women and men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s—who were running small startups in manufacturing, service, and commerce. They randomly assigned the founders to one of three groups. One was a control group: they went about their business as usual. The other two were training groups: they spent a week learning new concepts, analyzing them in case studies of other entrepreneurs, and applying them to their own startups through role-play and re section exercises. What differed was whether the training focused on cognitive skills or character skills. In cognitive skills training, the founders took an accredited business course created by the International Finance Corporation. They studied nance, accounting, HR, marketing, and pricing, and practiced using what they learned to solve challenges and seize opportunities. In character skills training, the founders attended a class designed by psychologists to teach personal initiative. They studied proactivity, discipline, and determination, and practiced putting those qualities into action. Character skills training had a dramatic impact. After founders had spent merely ve days working on these skills, their rms’ pro ts grew by an average of 30 percent over the next two years. That was nearly triple the bene t of training in cognitive skills. Finance and marketing knowledge might have equipped founders to capitalize on opportunities, but studying proactivity and discipline enabled them to generate opportunities. They learned to anticipate market changes rather than react to them. They developed more creative ideas and introduced more new products. When they encountered nancial obstacles, instead of giving up, they were more resilient and resourceful in seeking loans. Along with demonstrating that character skills can propel us to achieve greater things, this evidence reveals that it’s never too late to build them … Character doesn’t set like plaster—it retains its plasticity. Character is often confused with personality, but they’re not the same. Personality is your predisposition—your basic instincts for how to think, feel, and act. Character is your capacity to prioritize your values over your instincts. Knowing your principles doesn’t necessarily mean you know how to practice them, particularly under stress or pressure. It’s easy to be proactive and determined when things are going well. The true test of character is whether you manage to stand by those values when the deck is stacked against you. If personality is how you respond on a typical day, character is how you show up on a hard day. Personality is not your destiny—it’s your tendency. Character skills enable you to transcend that tendency to be true to your principles. It’s not about the traits you have—it’s what you decide to do with them. Wherever you are today, there’s no reason why you can’t grow your character skills starting now.
- XAT - 2025
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
This uidity and situational dependence is uniquely human. In other species, in-group/outgroup distinctions re ect degrees of biological relatedness, or what evolutionary biologists call “kin selection.” Rodents distinguish between a sibling, a cousin, and a stranger by smell—xed, genetically determined pheromonal signatures—and adapt their cooperation accordingly. Those murderous groups of chimps are largely made up of brothers or cousins who grew up together and predominantly harm outsiders. Humans are plenty capable of kin-selective violence themselves, yet human group mentality is often utterly independent of such instinctual familial bonds. Most modern human societies rely instead on cultural kin selection, a process allowing people to feel closely related to what are, in a biological sense, total strangers. Often, this requires a highly active process of inculcation, with its attendant rituals and vocabularies. Consider military drills producing “bands of brothers,” unrelated college freshmen becoming sorority “sisters,” or the bygone value of welcoming immigrants into “the American family.” This malleable, rather than genetically xed, path of identity formation also drives people to adopt arbitrary markers that enable them to spot their cultural kin in an ocean of strangers—hence the importance various communities attach to ags, dress, or facial hair. The hipster beard, the turban, and the “Make America Great Again” hat all fulfill this role by sending strong signals of tribal belonging. Moreover, these cultural communities are arbitrary when compared to the relatively axed logic of biological kin selection. Few things show this arbitrariness better than the experience of immigrant families, where the randomness of a visa lottery can radically reshu e a child’s education, career opportunities, and cultural predilections. Had my grandparents and father missed the train out of Moscow that they instead barely made, maybe I’d be a chain smoking Russian academic rather than a Birkenstock-wearing American one, moved to tears by the heroism during the Battle of Stalingrad rather than that at Pearl Harbor. Scaled up from the level of individual family histories, our big-picture group identities—the national identities and cultural principles that structure our lives— are just as arbitrary and subject to the vagaries of history.
- XAT - 2025
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
- Work, for many on the career track, is greedy. The individual who puts in overtime, weekend time, or evening time will earn a lot more—so much more that, even on an hourly basis, the person is earning more.…The greediness of work means that couples with children or other care responsibilities would gain by doing a bit of specialization. This specialization doesn’t mean catapulting back to the world of Leave It to Beaver. Women will still pursue demanding careers. But one member of the couple will be on call at home, ready to leave the o ce or workplace at a moment’s notice. That person will have a position with considerable exibility and will ordinarily not be expected to answer an e-mail or a call at ten p.m. That parent will not have to cancel an appearance at soccer practice for an M \& A. The other parent, however, will be on call at work and do just the opposite. The potential impact on promotion, advancement, and earnings is obvious. The work of professionals and managers has always been greedy. Lawyers have always burned the midnight oil. Academics have always been judged for their cerebral output and are expected not to turn their brains off in the evenings. Most doctors and veterinarians were once on call 24/7. The value of greedy jobs has greatly increased with rising income inequality, which has soared since the early 1980s. Earnings at the very upper end of the income distribution have ballooned. The worker who jumps the highest gets an ever-bigger reward. The jobs with the greatest demands for long hours and the least exibility have paid disproportionately more, while earnings in other employments have stagnated. Thus, positions that have been more di cult for women to enter in the rst place, such as those in nance, are precisely the ones that have seen the greatest increases in income in the last several decades. The private equity associate who sees the deal through from beginning to end, who did the di cult modeling, and who went to every meeting and late-night dinner, will have maximum chance for a big bonus and the sought-after promotion. Rising inequality in earnings may be one important reason why the gender pay gap among college graduates has remained at in the last several decades, despite improvements in women’s credentials and positions. It may be the reason why the gender earnings gap for college graduates became larger than that between men and women in the entire population in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Women have been swimming upstream, holding their own but going against a strong current of endemic income inequality. Greedy work also means that couple equity has been, and will continue to be, jettisoned for increased family income. And when couple equity is thrown out the window, gender equality generally goes with it, except among same-sex unions. Gender norms that we have inherited get reinforced in a host of ways to allot more of the childcare responsibility to mothers, and more of the family care to grown daughters. 68. Which of the following statements CANNOT be inferred from the passage?
- XAT - 2025
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in XAT exam
Match the following renowned Indian personalities with their respective awards.
Names Award 1. Shri Ratan Naval Tata A. Dadasaheb Phalke Award 2. Manmohan Singh B. Grammy Awards 3. Zakir Hussain C. Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy 4. Shyam Benegal D. World Statesman Award - XAT - 2025
- Famous personalities and their contributions
Match the following authors with their respective works.
Authors Books 1. Andy Weir A. Dune 2. Cixin Liu B. The Time Machine 3. Stephen Hawking C. The Brief History of Time 4. HG Wells D. The Martian 5. Frank Herbert E. The Three Body Problem - XAT - 2025
- Books and Authors
Match the following airlines with the countries where they are headquartered.
Airlines Countries 1. AirAsia A. Singapore 2. AZAL B. South Korea 3. Jeju Air C. Azerbaijan 4. Indigo D. India 5. Tigerair E. Malaysia - XAT - 2025
- Business and Economy
The diagram below represents a road network connecting five towns, namely Meeren, Lannisport, Winterfell, Oldtown, and Gulltown. The maximum speed limits along any stretch of road are as shown in the diagram. The straight road that connects Meeren to Gulltown passes through Oldtown. Another straight road, running west to east, connecting Meeren to Winterfell, passes through Lannisport. Further, two straight roads, one from Lannisport to Oldtown and another from Winterfell to Gulltown, are perpendicular to the road joining Meeren to Winterfell, and run from south to north.
Consider a car always travelling at the maximum permissible speed, and always taking the shortest route. It takes 1 hour to reach Oldtown from Meeren, 2 hours to reach Gulltown from Oldtown, and 45 minutes to reach Winterfell from Gulltown. (For this problem, always consider the shortest route in terms of distance.)
- XAT - 2025
- Logical and Analytical Reasoning Skills
The plots below depict and compare the average monthly incomes (in Rs. ’000) of males and females in ten cities of India in the years 2005 and 2015. The ten cities, marked A-J in the records, are of different population sizes. For a fair comparison, to adjust for inflation, incomes for both the periods are scaled to 2025 prices. Each red dot represents the average monthly income of females in a particular city in a particular year, while each blue dot represents the average monthly income of males in a particular city in a particular year. The gender gap for a city, for a particular year, is defined as the absolute value of the average monthly income of males, minus the average monthly income of females, in that year.
- XAT - 2025
- Data Interpretation