Johannes had been teaching at a seminary in Graz when he was struck by what seemed to him a divine revelation about the structure of the universe. Under the still-prevailing Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the Earth was understood to be immobile in the centre of the universe, surrounded by the fixed stars and seven planets (the sun and the moon were also considered to be planets). Johannes, however, was inclined to put his faith in the revolutionary cosmology proposed by Copernicus in 1543, which placed the sun in the centre, demoting Earth to planet status and the moon to a satellite of Earth. At that time—telescopes had not yet been invented—only the five naked-eye planets were known to exist: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Adding Earth...
...to their company brought the total to six. But why, Johannes wondered, had God made only six planets? And why had He arranged their orbits in the particular proportions that He had? There must be an answer: God would not make an unintelligible Universe.
The revelation, which occurred on July 19, 1595, in the middle of teaching a class on planetary alignment, involved the curious geometric properties of Platonic solids. These are three-dimensional polygons, every face of which is identical: A cube is a Platonic solid. So is a tetrahedron (a pyramid with three faces and one base which are all equilateral triangles). It had been understood since Antiquity—and much discussed by Plato, hence the name—that there can only be five such polygons: The laws of geometry forbid any others.
Within a year, Johannes had published this theory in a book, Mysterium Cosmographicum, which he sent to every astronomer and mathematician he could think of, including Galileo and Tycho. The numbers did not exactly agree with the theory, but there was enough of a promising match to give him hope that if he got hold of the best observational data, everything would click into place.
But within a year, Tycho was dead, and Johannes had inherited the role of Imperial Mathematician, finally gaining complete access to all of Tycho’s books. The astronomical data within was so precise, and Johannes so respectful of its precision, that it enabled him to write four monumental treatises based on this data and in the process discover the three foundational laws of modern astronomy: the elliptical nature of planetary orbits; the precise variance of planetary speed; and the exponential relationship between planetary speed and distance from the sun. Three laws upon which Newton built his theory of universal gravitation, laws known to posterity by Johannes’s surname: Kepler. When Newton spoke about standing on the shoulders of giants, it was Johannes Kepler, along with Tycho, Galileo, and Descartes, he had in mind.
It can be inferred from the passage that:
Show Hint
- Kepler was the founding father of modern physics.
- Newton's theory of universal gravitation was solely based on Kepler’s laws.
- Kepler was the greatest physicist of his generation.
- Tycho was an Imperial Mathematician.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The passage mentions Tycho’s role as the Imperial Mathematician. It does not suggest that Kepler was the founding father of modern physics or that Newton's theory was solely based on Kepler's laws. Also, while Kepler made significant contributions, the passage does not state that he was the greatest physicist of his generation. Therefore, the correct inference is that Tycho was the Imperial Mathematician.
Step 2: Conclusion.
The correct answer is \(\boxed{(D)}\).
What is the primary purpose of the passage?
Show Hint
- To give a brief account of the life of renowned physicist Johannes.
- To describe the events which lead to the discovery of Newton’s laws of gravitation.
- To trace the scientific journey of the renowned physicist Kepler.
- To trace the development of Kepler’s laws.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The passage highlights Johannes Kepler’s contributions and his scientific journey, particularly in the context of planetary motion, and also his interactions with other scientists such as Tycho, Galileo, and Newton. The passage is focused on tracing the development of Kepler’s ideas rather than a mere biographical account of his life or Newton’s laws of gravitation.
Step 2: Conclusion.
The primary purpose of the passage is to trace the scientific journey of Johannes Kepler. Thus, the correct answer is \(\boxed{(C)}\).
Which one of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?
Show Hint
- Kepler was influenced by Copernicus’s theory of revolutionary cosmology.
- Kepler staunchly believed in God.
- Kepler was able to improve upon the works of Copernicus.
- Kepler did not believe in the Ptolemaic system of astronomy.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The passage does not provide direct information about Kepler’s personal religious beliefs. It mentions his scientific journey and his focus on the revolutionary cosmology of Copernicus and Tycho's work. However, there is no specific mention of his belief in God, making Option (B) the correct answer.
Step 2: Conclusion.
The correct answer is \(\boxed{(B)}\).
Which one of the following is true according to the information provided in the passage?
Show Hint
- Johannes used Tycho’s books to further his scientific work.
- Tycho was initially not impressed by Johannes’s prowess in mathematics.
- Newton’s laws of motion were based on Kepler’s works.
- Kepler discovered the foundational laws of modern astronomy on his own.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The passage states that Johannes gained access to Tycho’s books and used the precise data to further his work. The passage does not suggest that Tycho was initially unimpressed with Johannes's mathematical abilities, nor does it say that Kepler discovered the laws of astronomy entirely on his own. The passage also does not mention Newton's laws of motion directly relating to Kepler’s work. Therefore, the correct option is (A).
Step 2: Conclusion.
The correct answer is \(\boxed{(A)}\).
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