Most significantly, of course, initiatives for . . . modernity came to assume an external character. The acceptance of modernity came to be connected, ineradicably, with subjection. This again points to two different problems, one theoretical, the other political. Theoretically, because modernity was externally introduced, it is explanatorily unhelpful to apply the logical format of the ‘transition process’ to this pattern of change. Such a logical format would be wrong on two counts. First, however subtly, it would imply that what was proposed to be built was something like European capitalism. (And, in any case, historians have forcefully argued that what it was to replace was not like feudalism, with or without modificatory adjectives.) But, more fundamentally, the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force. This externality is not something that can be casually mentioned and forgotten. It is inscribed on every move, every object, every proposal, every legislative act, each line of causality. It comes to be marked on the epoch itself. This repetitive emphasis on externality should not be seen as a nationalist initiative that is so well rehearsed in Indian social science. . . .
Quite apart from the externality of the entire historical proposal of modernity, some of its contents were remarkable. . . . Economic reforms, or rather alterations . . . did not foreshadow the construction of a classical capitalist economy, with its necessary emphasis on extractive and transport sectors. What happened was the creation of a degenerate version of capitalism —what early dependency theorists called the ‘development of underdevelopment’.
All of the following statements about British colonialism can be inferred from the first paragraph, EXCEPT that it:
All of the following statements about British colonialism can be inferred from the first paragraph, EXCEPT that it:
allowed the treatment of colonies as experimental sites.
- faced resistance from existing structural forms of Indian modernity.
was at least partly shaped by the project of European modernity.
- was at least partly an outcome of Enlightenment rationalism.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The passage discusses the complexities of British colonial policy in India, emphasizing how it was intertwined with Enlightenment rationalism and European modernity. British colonialism in India was characterized by a mix of cautious military power and diplomacy, while simultaneously introducing European modernity’s logic into Indian society. This modernity, however, was external and faced resistance, creating a complex historical legacy.
Upon examining the provided options, we identify which statement about British colonialism cannot be inferred from the initial paragraph:
- The passage does allow for the interpretation that British colonialism was used to treat colonies as experimental sites, evidenced by descriptions of "utilitarian or other theoretical experiments" conducted in India.
- The text clearly relates British colonial policy to European modernity and Enlightenment rationalism, as it suggests that the colonial state "represented the great conquering discourse of Enlightenment rationalism."
- Moreover, while the passage mentions India’s resistance to British rule, it describes this resistance as a complex historical factor and notes that British modernity initiatives faced pushback from pre-existing structural forms, implying the presence of resistance.
The only statement not supported by the first paragraph's information is the idea that British colonialism “faced resistance from existing structural forms of Indian modernity.” The original text mentions resistance, but not explicitly in terms of structural forms of Indian modernity existing before British intervention. Therefore, the correct answer is that colonialism “faced resistance from existing structural forms of Indian modernity.”
All of the following statements, if true, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:
All of the following statements, if true, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:
- the change in British colonial policy was induced by resistance to modernity in Indian society.
- modernity was imposed upon India by the British and, therefore, led tounderdevelopment.
- throughout the history of colonial conquest, natives have often been experimented on by the colonisers.
- the introduction of capitalism in India was not through the transformation of feudalism, as happened in Europe.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
To address the question of identifying the statement that does not support the arguments presented in the passage, we need to carefully analyze the content of the passage and the given options.
The passage discusses the British colonial policy in India, focusing on the introduction of modernity, which was externally imposed, leading to a unique form of development termed "development of underdevelopment." Importantly, the passage highlights the complex interplay between the imposed modernity and the resistance it faced in Indian society.
Let's analyse each option:
- Option 1: "The change in British colonial policy was induced by resistance to modernity in Indian society." This option suggests that the British colonial policy changed due to resistance from Indian society. However, the passage does not emphasize that the change was induced by this resistance; rather, it discusses the external imposition of modernity and the complexity it brought.
- Option 2: "Modernity was imposed upon India by the British and, therefore, led to underdevelopment." This aligns with the passage, as it clearly states modernity's external introduction resulted in a unique type of underdevelopment.
- Option 3: "Throughout the history of colonial conquest, natives have often been experimented on by the colonisers." This is consistent with the passage, which discusses the colonial state using colonies as a "massive laboratory" for utilitarian or other theoretical experiments.
- Option 4: "The introduction of capitalism in India was not through the transformation of feudalism, as happened in Europe." This statement concurs with the passage's argument that India's economic transformation did not follow the European transition from feudalism to capitalism but was instead externally imposed.
Based on the analysis, the statement that does not support the arguments in the passage, and thus the correct answer, is:
Option 1: "The change in British colonial policy was induced by resistance to modernity in Indian society." The passage indicates the introduction of modernity as an external imposition rather than a change induced by Indian resistance.
“Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society.” Which of the following best captures the sense of this statement?
“Consequently, the colonial state could not settle simply for eminence at the cost of its marginality; it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society.” Which of the following best captures the sense of this statement?
- The cost of the colonial state’s eminence was not settled; therefore, it took the initiative of introducing modernity into Indian society.
- The colonial enterprise was a costly one; so to justify the cost it began to take initiatives to introduce the logic of modernity into Indian society.
- The colonial state’s eminence was unsettled by its marginal position; therefore, it developed Indian society by modernising it.
- The colonial state felt marginalised from Indian society because of its own modernity; therefore, it sought to address that marginalisation by bringing its modernity to change Indian society.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
- The first option suggests that the colonial state's eminence had costs, prompting initiatives toward modernity. However, the original statement focuses on the issue of marginality, not costs.
- The second option addresses the enterprise's cost, justifying modernity initiatives. Again, it emphasizes cost rather than marginalization.
- The third option mentions the impact of the state's marginal position but incorrectly focuses on development as a reaction, rather than adapting modernity.
- The fourth option directly mirrors the original statement's essence: the colonial state felt marginalized and used modernity to integrate within Indian society, addressing its marginality.
Which one of the following 5-word sequences best captures the flow of the arguments in the passage?
Which one of the following 5-word sequences best captures the flow of the arguments in the passage?
- Colonial policy—arrogant rationality—resistance—independence—development.
- Military power—colonialism—restructuring—feudalism—capitalism.
Military power—arrogance—laboratory—modernity—capitalism.
- Colonial policy—Enlightenment—external modernity—subjection—underdevelopment.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The passage discusses the flow of British colonial policy in India, highlighting various phases and impacts of colonialism. Here's how the provided sequence captures this flow:
- Colonial policy: The passage begins with the British colonial policy in India, which oscillated between military power and diplomacy.
- Enlightenment: The policy was deeply tied to Enlightenment rationalism, which emphasized restructuring and modernizing structures both in Europe and in India.
- External modernity: Modernity was introduced as an external force, not developed internally. This led to significant impacts on India's societal structure.
- Subjection: The imposition of external modernity was intertwined with subjection, causing resistance and complex continuities and discontinuities.
- Underdevelopment: Rather than fostering classical capitalism, these policies led to a "development of underdevelopment," leaving India with a degenerate form of capitalism.
Thus, the sequence “Colonial policy—Enlightenment—external modernity—subjection—underdevelopment” best summarizes the arguments laid out in the passage.
Which of the following observations is a valid conclusion to draw from the author’s statement that “the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force”?
- Colonised societies cannot be changed through logic; they need to be transformed with external force.
The transformation of Indian society did not happen organically, but was forced by colonial agendas.
Indian society is not endogamous; it is more accurately characterised as aggressively exogamous.
The endogenous logic of colonialism can only bring change if it attacks and transforms external forces.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The passage describes how British colonial policies have played a role in transforming Indian society. The statement "the logical structure of endogenous change does not apply here. Here transformation agendas attack as an external force" suggests that the change in Indian society was not organic or internal but was rather imposed externally. This aligns with the historical context where colonial powers like Britain brought changes from outside, rather than those changes evolving naturally within the society itself.
The correct conclusion to draw based on the author's statement is: The transformation of Indian society did not happen organically, but was forced by colonial agendas. This option accurately reflects the passage's emphasis on the external imposition of changes on Indian society, rather than an internal, logical evolution of those changes.
Top Questions on Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are letters ‘e’ taken from four popular logos, arranged in a sequence. Which of the options is the correct sequence?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Shown below are four options, each showing consecutive frames representing the movement of a pendulum of an old-style wall clock for an animation movie. Which is the correct option?
- UCEED - 2026
- English Language Comprehension
- Reading Comprehension
- Acrucial moderating factor in how people experience comparisons is self-esteem. Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to interpret upward comparison as informative rather than threatening. They are more resilient in the face of others’ success and more likely to believe they can reach their own goals. In contrast, people with low self-esteem are more prone to interpret comparison as judgment, reinforcing negative self-views and triggering feelings of inadequacy.
This dynamic creates a self-reinforcing loop. People with high self-esteem are less vulnerable to upward comparison, which intensifies those doubts. Those with a secure sense of self are more likely to use comparison as a learning tool. The same external stimulus—a colleague’s achievements, a friend’s popularity—can have radically different effects depending on internal stability.
Self-esteem also influences how people choose their comparison targets. Research has found that individuals often engage in “selective comparison,” seeking out those who confirm their existing beliefs about themselves. This can become a subtle form of self-sabotage. Someone who feels unworthy may subconsciously seek out targets that reinforce that sense, perpetuating a narrative of inferiority. One of the most promising antidotes to social comparison is temporal comparison—evaluating oneself not against others, but against one’s own past. This method has been shown to increase motivation and satisfaction, especially when individuals can see concrete progress. Temporal comparison activates the same reward circuits as social comparison but avoids the threat systems associated with social ranking. It also reinforces agency: individuals focus on what they can control and improve rather than what others control. In therapeutic and coaching settings, temporal comparison is used to help clients build self-efficacy and track growth over time.
Moreover, people who focus on self-improvement rather than social dominance are less likely to fall into cycles of envy or self-pity. They can still use others as inspiration, but they do so without attaching their self-worth to the outcome. This is not to say they never compare—but that they focus on learning, rather than judgment. The most skilful approach to comparison may lie in eliminating it, but in reframing it as feedback. When we interpret comparison as information rather than a verdict, we can ask, “What can I learn from this?” This shift turns comparison into a growth tool. Teachers mentor their students, not as rivals. Psychologists emphasize that the key variable here is mindset.
A fixed mindset sees comparison as a threat. If someone else is better, it means we are worse. A growth mindset sees comparison as a map. If someone else has reached a certain level, it means the path exists. This reframing is not just a cognitive trick. It changes the emotional tone of comparison, making it more likely to inspire than to wound. Reframing also requires emotional regulation—the ability to notice an initial pang of envy or shame without reacting impulsively. With practice, individuals can learn to pause, reflect, and reinterpret their emotional responses. Over time, this builds resilience and self-trust, allowing comparison to become a learning tool rather than a cage.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.- XAT - 2026
- Verbal and Logical Ability
- Reading Comprehension
Questions Asked in CAT exam
- The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the passage.
In the dynamic realm of creativity, artists often find themselves at the crossroads between drawing inspiration from diverse cultures and inadvertently crossing into the territory of cultural appropriation. Inspiration is the lifeblood of creativity, driving artists to create works that resonate across borders. In a globalized era of the modern world, artists draw from a vast array of cultural influences. When approached respectfully, inspiration becomes a bridge, fostering understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity. However, the line between inspiration and cultural appropriation can be thin and easily blurred.
Cultural appropriation occurs when elements from a particular culture are borrowed without proper understanding, respect, or acknowledgment. This leads to the commodification of sacred symbols, the reinforcement of stereotypes, and the erasure of the cultural context from which these elements originated. It is essential to recognize that the impact of cultural appropriation extends beyond the realm of artistic expression, influencing societal perceptions and perpetuating power imbalances.- CAT - 2025
- Para Summary
- The number of distinct integers $n$ for which $\log_{\left(\frac14\right)}(n^2 - 7n + 11)>0$ is:
- CAT - 2025
- Linear Inequalities
- In the set of consecutive odd numbers $\{1, 3, 5, \ldots, 57\}$, there is a number $k$ such that the sum of all the elements less than $k$ is equal to the sum of all the elements greater than $k$. Then, $k$ equals?
- CAT - 2025
- Number Systems
- The number of distinct pairs of integers $(x, y)$ satisfying the inequalities $x>y \ge 3$ and $x + y<14$ is:
- CAT - 2025
- Number Systems
For any natural number $k$, let $a_k = 3^k$. The smallest natural number $m$ for which \[ (a_1)^1 \times (a_2)^2 \times \dots \times (a_{20})^{20} \;<\; a_{21} \times a_{22} \times \dots \times a_{20+m} \] is:
- CAT - 2025
- Linear Inequalities