What bullshit essentially misrepresents is neither the state of affairs to which it refers nor the beliefs of the speaker concerning that state of affairs. Those are what lies misrepresent, by virtue of being false. Since bullshit need not be false, it differs from lies in its misrepresentational intent. The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to. This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar. Both he and the liar represent themselves falsely as endeavoring to communicate the truth. The success of each depends upon deceiving us about that. But the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it. This does not mean that his speech is anarchically impulsive, but that the motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with how the things about which he speaks truly are. It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.
Which of the following statements can be BEST inferred from the passage?
- Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent the truth
- Both the liar and the bullshitter are guided by the truth
- Both the liar and the bullshitter are not bound by any conviction
- Both the liar and the bullshitter live in their own worlds of realities
- Both the liar and the bullshitter intend to deceive in their own ways
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
To determine the best inference from the passage, let's begin by analyzing the given statements and the content of the passage.
The passage discusses the difference between liars and bullshitters. It explains that:
- Liars knowingly misrepresent the truth, i.e., they know the truth but choose to tell something false.
- Bullshitters, however, may not be concerned with the truth or falsity of their statements. Their intent is not to mislead about the facts themselves but about their attitude towards these facts.
Now, let's examine the given options:
- Both the liar and the bullshitter misrepresent the truth: This option partially matches the passage. Liars do misrepresent the truth, but bullshitters do not necessarily care about the truth, so this statement is not entirely accurate.
- Both the liar and the bullshitter are guided by the truth: This is incorrect. Liars are, in a way, concerned with the truth because they choose to tell something false intentionally. However, bullshitters are not concerned with the truth-value of their statements.
- Both the liar and the bullshitter are not bound by any conviction: This option is not accurate. Liars are indeed bound by a conviction, as they intentionally choose to speak falsely. Bullshitters are not bound by such a conviction regarding truth.
- Both the liar and the bullshitter live in their own worlds of realities: This option best captures the essence of the passage. It suggests that both are separate from reality in their own ways—liars by intentionally distorting it, and bullshitters by being indifferent to it.
- Both the liar and the bullshitter intend to deceive in their own ways: Although both intend some form of deception, the passage emphasizes that bullshitters may not intend to deceive about factual truths, only about their intentions.
The correct inference, based on the passage, is: Both the liar and the bullshitter live in their own worlds of realities. This is because each has a distinct approach to truth and deception, creating their own version of reality.
```
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Understanding the liar
A liar is someone who is directly connected to the truth. They know the reality but choose to misrepresent it. Thus, the liar’s world is shaped by truth, but they present a distorted version of it.
Step 2: Understanding the bullshitter
A bullshitter, on the other hand, is not concerned with whether a statement is true or false. Their intention is neither to report nor to conceal the truth, but to achieve a certain outcome. Hence, they operate in their own constructed reality, independent of truth.
Step 3: Comparing the two
- Option 1 is incorrect because while liars misrepresent the truth, bullshitters are indifferent to it rather than misrepresenting it.
- Option 2 is incorrect because bullshitters are not guided by the truth.
- Option 3 is misleading, since liars are bound by the truth (to oppose it), whereas bullshitters are free from such constraints.
- Option 5 is incorrect because bullshitters do not have an intent to deceive; their concern is outcome, not deception.
Step 4: Why Option 4 is correct
The best inference is that both liars and bullshitters construct their own versions of reality. Liars create a false version of reality opposite to the truth, while bullshitters operate in a reality that simply ignores the truth altogether.
Final Answer:
\[ \boxed{\text{Both the liar and the bullshitter live in their own worlds of realities.}} \]
Why does the author say that the bullshitter’s intention “is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it?”
- Because bullshitters are not convinced about the truth
- Because bullshitters know the truth
- Because bullshitters do not find the truth useful
- Because bullshitters do not like to deceive
- Because bullshitters do not like to deceive
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
The question requires us to analyze the author's use of the term "bullshit" in the given passage and understand why the author states that the bullshitter’s intention "is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it." Let's break down the explanation step-by-step:
- The passage explains that unlike lies, bullshitting does not necessarily involve false statements. Lies are intended to deceive by presenting false statements, whereas bullshit does not necessarily focus on truthfulness or falsehood.
- According to the passage, the essence of bullshit lies in the speaker's intent and attitude towards the truth. A bullshitter does not care about the truth-value of their statements. Their purpose is not to deceive about this truth-value, but rather to misrepresent their intentions.
- The key difference is that liars are aware they are presenting false information and thus are engaged with the truth, albeit in a deceitful way. A bullshitter, however, is indifferent to the truth-value and is primarily concerned with the impact of their words, irrespective of their truth.
- The bullshitter's indifference to truth leads to the conclusion that they do not find the truth useful in their communication. Thus, the author's statement that the bullshitter's intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it makes sense: their focus is elsewhere, not on the truth itself.
Therefore, the correct answer is: Because bullshitters do not find the truth useful.
Approach Solution -2
A liar is concerned with the truth because they want to hide it and replace it with a falsehood. A truth-teller is concerned with the truth because they want to state it as it is. But a bullshitter is different — their focus is neither on revealing nor on hiding the truth.
For a bullshitter, the truth is irrelevant. Their main concern is the effect of their words, such as persuading, impressing, or manipulating the listener. They don’t care whether their statement is factually true or false, only whether it serves their purpose.
That’s why the author says the bullshitter’s intention is neither to report the truth (like an honest person) nor to conceal it (like a liar). Instead, they simply do not find the truth useful for their goal.
Final Answer:
The bullshitter ignores truth completely because they do not find it useful.
When will a liar BEST turn into a bullshitter?
- When a liar stops worrying about the correct comprehension of reality
- When a liar stops misrepresenting the state of affairs
- When a liar focusses only on the outcome and not on telling lies
- When a liar stops responding to the truth
- When a liar lies to people about his intention
The Correct Option is C
Approach Solution - 1
This question explores the distinction between lying and bullshitting based on the passage provided. Let's break down the information given in the passage and the options to select the best answer:
The passage clearly differentiates between a liar and a bullshitter:
- Liar: A liar attempts to lead others away from correct understanding of reality by knowingly presenting false information. A liar is aware of the truth and actively misrepresents it.
- Bullshitter: Unlike a liar, the bullshitter is not primarily concerned with the truth-values of their statements. Their intent is not necessarily to misrepresent facts but to direct the conversation to achieve their own goals without regard for truth.
The key lies in understanding that a bullshitter's primary focus is not on telling lies, but rather on achieving outcomes irrelevant to truth.
Evaluating Options:
- When a liar stops worrying about the correct comprehension of reality: This implies indifference towards others' understanding, but it doesn’t signify a shift from lying to bullshitting.
- When a liar stops misrepresenting the state of affairs: This suggests honesty or neutrality, not the transition to bullshitting.
- When a liar focusses only on the outcome and not on telling lies: This aligns perfectly with the bullshitter’s nature as described in the passage. The bullshitter is indifferent to truth and more concerned with outcomes.
- When a liar stops responding to the truth: This could imply indifference, but the key distinction is focusing on outcomes irrespective of truth, which doesn't capture the essence of bullshitting.
- When a liar lies to people about his intention: This is still within the realm of lying because it involves intention to deceive regarding one's motives.
Conclusion: The most accurate transformation of a liar into a bullshitter happens when "a liar focusses only on the outcome and not on telling lies," as it reflects a shift from being concerned about truthfulness to prioritizing results regardless of truth.
Approach Solution -2
A liar and a bullshitter are similar in that both distort communication, but the intention behind their actions is different:
- Liar: A liar is still connected to the truth. They know the truth but intentionally say the opposite in order to mislead. Their focus is on misrepresenting reality.
- Bullshitter: A bullshitter, on the other hand, does not care whether what they say is true or false. Their focus is only on achieving a particular outcome, such as impressing, persuading, or distracting others.
Therefore, a liar turns into a bullshitter when they stop caring about the truth itself and instead focus entirely on the effect or outcome of their statements. In this state, they are no longer deliberately telling lies to cover the truth; they are simply indifferent to the truth, and only motivated by results.
This distinction is central to understanding why the passage highlights that focusing on the outcome rather than on lies themselves marks the transition from a liar to a bullshitter.
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 XAT exam
- An artificial swimming pool is circular and water is flowing clockwise at a speed of 3 km/hr. Two swimmers Ayub and Rana start from diametrically opposite points, Ayub in the anticlockwise direction and Rana in the clockwise direction. They first meet at a point such that Ayub has covered 60 m by that time. Their second meeting point is such that Rana has covered another 180 m after the first meeting point. If the speed of Rana in still water is 3 km/hr, find the time taken by Ayub to cover one full circle in the clockwise direction.
- XAT - 2026
- Time and Work
- Arrange the following generations from the oldest to the youngest:
1. Generation X
2. Silent Generation
3. Generation Alpha
4. Baby Boomers
5. Millennials
- XAT - 2026
- Current Affairs
- Read the following scenario and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Brijbhushan, a microfinancier, lends money at the rate of Rs.10 per square meter to small farmers at a village. He charges an annual interest rate of 10%. All the farming plots in that village are rectangular, with areas varying between a minimum of 1000 square meters and a maximum of 10,000 square meters.
This year, Brijbhushan has lent money only to five farmers: Aditya, Binod, Chhuttan, Dabloo and Govind. The perimeter of Chhuttan’s plot is 250 meters, with the length and width being at a ratio of 4:1. Aditya’s plot has an area three times the area of Govind’s plot. The area of Aditya’s plot is also the average of the areas of Govind’s plot and Dabloo’s plot. The plots belonging to Aditya, Binod and Dabloo are of the same width, but of different lengths. Moreover, the length of Binod’s plot is the sum of the lengths of Aditya’s plot and Dabloo’s plot.- XAT - 2026
- Mensuration
Light Chemicals is an industrial paint supplier with presence in three locations: Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bengaluru. The sunburst chart below shows the distribution of the number of employees of different departments of Light Chemicals. There are four departments: Finance, IT, HR and Sales. The employees are deployed in four ranks: junior, mid, senior and executive. The chart shows four levels: location, department, rank and gender (M: male, F: female). At every level, the number of employees at a location/department/rank/gender are proportional to the corresponding area of the region represented in the chart.
Due to some issues with the software, the data on junior female employees have gone missing. Notice that there are junior female employees in Mumbai HR, Sales and IT departments, Hyderabad HR department, and Bengaluru IT and Finance departments. The corresponding missing numbers are marked u, v, w, x, y and z in the diagram, respectively.
It is also known that:
a) Light Chemicals has a total of 210 junior employees.
b) Light Chemicals has a total of 146 employees in the IT department.
c) Light Chemicals has a total of 777 employees in the Hyderabad office.
d) In the Mumbai office, the number of female employees is 55.
- XAT - 2026
- Pie Charts
An investment company, Win Lose, recruit's employees to trade in the share market. For newcomers, they have a one-year probation period. During this period, the employees are given Rs. 1 lakh per month to invest the way they see fit. They are evaluated at the end of every month, using the following criteria:
1. If the total loss in any span of three consecutive months exceeds Rs. 20,000, their services are terminated at the end of that 3-month period,
2. If the total loss in any span of six consecutive months exceeds Rs. 10,000, their services are terminated at the end of that 6-month period.
Further, at the end of the 12-month probation period, if there are losses on their overall investment, their services are terminated.
Ratan, Shri, Tamal and Upanshu started working for Win Lose in January. Ratan was terminated after 4 months, Shri was terminated after 7 months, Tamal was terminated after 10 months, while Upanshu was not terminated even after 12 months. The table below, partially, lists their monthly profits (in Rs. ‘000’) over the 12-month period, where x, y and z are masked information.
Note:
• A negative profit value indicates a loss.
• The value in any cell is an integer.
Illustration: As Upanshu is continuing after March, that means his total profit during January-March (2z +2z +0) ≥
Rs.20,000. Similarly, as he is continuing after June, his total profit during January − June ≥
Rs.10,000, as well as his total profit during April-June ≥ Rs.10,000.
- XAT - 2026
- Logical and Analytical Reasoning Skills