Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer for each question.
How quickly things change in the technology business! A decade ago, IBM was the awesome and undisputed king of the computer trade, universally feared and respected. A decade ago, two little companies called Intel and Microsoft were mere blips on the radar screen of the industry, upstart start-ups that had signed on to make the chips and software for IBM’s new line of personal computers. Though their products soon became industry standards, the two companies remained protected children of the market leader.
What happened since is a startling reversal of fortune. IBM is being ravaged by the worst crisis in the company’s 79 year history. It is undergoing its fifth restructuring in the past seven years as well as seemingly endless rounds of job cuts and firings that have eliminated 100,000 jobs since 1985. Last week IBM announced to its shell-shocked investors that it lost \$4.97 billion last year – the biggest loss in American corporate history.
And just when IBM is losing ground in one market after another, Intel and Microsoft have emerged as the computer industry’s most fearsome pair of competitors. The numbers on Wall Street tell a stunning story. Ten years ago, the market value of the stock of Intel and Microsoft combined amounted to about a tenth of IBM’s. Last week, with IBM’s stock at an 11-year low, Microsoft’s value surpassed its old mentor’s for the first time ever (\$26.76 billion to \$26.48 billion) and Intel (\$24.3 billion) is not far behind. While IBM is posting losses, Intel’s profits jumped 30% and Microsoft’s rose 44%.
Both Intel, the world’s largest supplier of computer chips, and Microsoft, the world’s largest supplier of computer software, have assumed the role long played by Big Blue as the industry’s pacesetter. What is taking place is a generational shift unprecedented in the information age – one recalls a transition in the US auto industry 70 years ago, when Alfred Sloan’s upstart General Motors surpassed Ford Motor as America’s No. 1 car maker. The transition also reflects the decline of computer manufacturers such as IBM, Wang, and Unisys and the rise of companies like Microsoft, Intel, and AT\&T that create the chips and software to make the computers work. “Just like Dr. Frankenstein, IBM created these two monster competitors,” says Richard Shaffer, publisher of the Computer Letter. “Now even IBM is in danger of being trampled by the creations it unleashed.”
Although Intel and Microsoft still have close relationships with Big Blue, there is little love lost between IBM and its potent progeny. IBM had an ugly falling-out with former partner Microsoft over the future of personal computer software. Microsoft developed the now famous disk operating system for IBM-PC – called DOS – and later created the operating software for the next generation of IBM personal computers, the Personal System/2. When PS/2 and its operating system, OS/2, failed to catch on, a feud erupted over how the two companies would upgrade the system. Although they publicly patched things up, the partnership was tattered. IBM developed its own version of OS/2, which has so far failed to capture the industry’s imagination. Microsoft’s competing version, dubbed New Technology, or NT, will debut in a few months and will incorporate Microsoft’s highly successful Windows program, which lets users juggle several programs at once. Windows NT, however, will offer more new features, such as the ability to link many computers together in a network and to safeguard them against unauthorized use.
IBM and Intel have also been parting company. After relying almost exclusively on the Santa Clara, California company for the silicon chips that serve as computer brains, IBM has moved to reduce its dependence on Intel by turning to competing vendors. In Europe, IBM last year began selling a low-cost line of PCs called Ambra, which runs on chips made by Intel rival Advanced Micro Devices. IBM also demonstrated a sample PC using a chip made by another Intel enemy, Cyrix. And that October IBM said it would begin selling the company’s own chips to outsiders in direct competition with Intel.
IBM clearly feels threatened. And the wounded giant still poses the biggest threat to any further dominance by Intel and Microsoft. Last year, it teamed up with both companies' most bitter rivals – Apple Computers and Motorola – to develop advanced software and microprocessors for a new generation of desktop computers. In selecting Apple and Motorola, IBM bypassed its longtime partners. Just as Microsoft’s standard operating system runs only on computers built around Intel’s computer chips, Apple’s software runs only on Motorola’s chips. Although IBM has pledged that the new system will eventually run on a variety of machines, it will initially run only computer programs written for Apple’s Macintosh or IBM’s OS/2. Its competitive juice now flowing, IBM last week announced that it and Apple Computer will deliver the operating system in 1994 – a year ahead of schedule.
As a result of greater competition in the US Computer industry
Show Hint
- some computer companies are expanding while others are contracting.
- employment in the industry is going down.
- the industry is becoming more monopolized.
- the share value of IBM is going up relative to that of Intel and Microsoft.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Which of the following statements is not implied by the passage?
Show Hint
- The market of microchips and software’s are becoming leaders in the computer industry.
- Wang and Unisys are primarily manufacturers of computers.
- IBM laying off workers in the biggest job cut in American corporate history.
- Intel is based in California.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The personal computer called Ambra is marketed by:
Show Hint
- Cyrix.
- IBM.
- Intel.
- Microsoft.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Why is something that happened 70 years ago in the US auto industry being mentioned here?
Show Hint
- General Motors broke away from Ford Motors.
- A new company went ahead of an established market leader.
- Like Dr. Frankenstein, Ford Motor created a monster in General Motors.
- Microsoft, Intel and AT \& T were originally created by IBM.
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Who is mentioned as the principal supplier of silicon chips to IBM?
Show Hint
- AT\&T.
- Microsoft.
- Cyrix.
- Intel.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
One possible conclusion from the passage is that
Show Hint
- share prices are not a good indicator of a company’s performance.
- firing workers restores a company’s health.
- all companies ultimately regret being a Dr. Frankenstein to some other company.
- consumers gain as a result of competition among producers.
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Which of the following statements is true?
Show Hint
- IBM plans to introduce a new system that will run on a variety of machines.
- IBM’s new generation desk top computers will run only on Motorola’s chips.
- IBM is working out a joint strategy with Apple to force Motorola to supply chips at a lower price.
- IBM is going to sell its own chips to Apple and Motorola.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Many computers will be linked together through a network in a system developed by
Show Hint
- IBM.
- Apple.
- Microsoft.
- None of the above.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
What was the original reason for the feud between IBM and Microsoft?
Show Hint
- The two companies developed competing software’s.
- Microsoft and Intel teamed up against IBM.
- IBM began to purchase microchips from Intel instead of Microsoft.
- IBM made loses while Microsoft made profits.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Which of the following statements is true?
Show Hint
- IBM plans to introduce a new system that will run on a variety of machines.
- IBM’s new generation desk top computers will run only on Motorola’s chips.
- IBM is working out a joint strategy with Apple to force Motorola to supply chips at a lower price.
- IBM is going to sell its own chips to Apple and Motorola.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Option (b) is inaccurate because IBM would not restrict its new systems to a single chip manufacturer, especially given the context of competition and flexibility.
Option (c) refers to a joint strategy but lacks direct support from the passage.
Option (d) is speculative — the passage never states IBM intends to sell chips to others.
Many computers will be linked together through a network in a system developed by
Show Hint
- IBM.
- Apple.
- Microsoft.
- None of the above.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
IBM, though a major player in hardware, was not the company developing this network system as per the passage. Apple is not even mentioned in that context, and hence is irrelevant here.
Thus, Microsoft is the correct choice based on direct evidence from the text.
What was the original reason for the feud between IBM and Microsoft?
Show Hint
- The two companies developed competing software’s.
- Microsoft and Intel teamed up against IBM.
- IBM began to purchase microchips from Intel instead of Microsoft.
- IBM made losses while Microsoft made profits.
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Option (b) is misleading — while alliances matter, the main issue was competitive software.
Option (c) mixes up hardware-supplier relations and is not related to the feud.
Option (d) states a consequence (profit difference), not the cause.
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