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.

Question: 1

Which of the following views would the author BEST agree with?

Show Hint

Always note subtle contrasts (here, personality vs character). Character represents principles in action, especially under stress.
Updated On: Sep 4, 2025
  • Character skills risk abandoning your personality along with your instincts.
  • Our values and principles are always put to test by our personality.
  • Putting our values and principles to practice requires transcending our personality.
  • Because principles clash with your personality, character is needed.
  • Our behavior is a function of our character not our personality.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall the passage’s distinction.
The passage explained that personality is our predisposition (instincts, reactions), while character is our ability to transcend those instincts and act according to values and principles.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Incorrect — character does not abandon personality. - Option B: Misleading — values are not “tested by” personality, they override it. - Option C: Correct. The author stresses character as transcending personality by prioritizing values and principles. - Option D: Incorrect framing — principles do not “clash,” but require practice beyond personality. - Option E: Too absolute — behavior is influenced by both character and personality.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the best view is Option C.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{C}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Which of the following can be BEST inferred from the passage?

Show Hint

Look for “BEST inferred” by connecting experimental evidence (profit growth, resilience) to broader life success.
Updated On: Sep 4, 2025
  • Character skills can compensate for poor cognitive skills.
  • Character skills can be built only if one believes in them.
  • Cognitive skills unlike character skills are always reactive.
  • Being aware of your character skills enable you to exercise them.
  • Sustainable success in life requires strong character skills.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall experimental findings.
The experiment showed that entrepreneurs who trained in character skills saw profit growth nearly triple that of those trained in cognitive skills.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Not stated — character skills don’t “compensate” but enhance opportunities. - Option B: Incorrect — belief is not emphasized, practice is. - Option C: Wrong — cognitive skills are not described as “always reactive.” - Option D: Awareness is not enough; deliberate practice is stressed. - Option E: Correct. The passage shows long-term business growth came from character skills, proving sustainability.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the inference is Option E.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{E}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

Based on the passage, why would character skills help entrepreneurs more than cognitive skills?

Show Hint

When RC contrasts two skill types, note the distinction: cognitive = capitalize, character = generate. That’s the key differentiator.
Updated On: Sep 4, 2025
  • One can be poor in finance and quantitative skills but really good in character skills.
  • Character skills enable you to generate opportunities rather than capitalize on existing ones.
  • Character skills are industry agnostic in application.
  • Entrepreneurs are already aware of their business and are only missing character skills.
  • Character skills prepare you for an uncertain future.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall findings.
The passage said cognitive skills (finance, marketing) help founders capitalize on existing opportunities, but character skills (discipline, proactivity, resilience) enabled them to create new opportunities and overcome obstacles.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Too simplistic — being “poor in finance” is not the core argument. - Option B: Perfect fit — directly reflects passage’s statement about generating opportunities. - Option C: True but secondary; not the main reason given. - Option D: Unsupported — no evidence that entrepreneurs only lack character skills. - Option E: True but vague; “uncertain future” is not highlighted as main reason.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, the correct answer is Option B.
Final Answer: \[ \boxed{\text{B}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in XAT exam

View More Questions