Often the well intentioned music lover or the traditionally-minded professional composer asks two basic questions when faced with the electronic music phenomena: (1) . . . is this type of artistic creation music at all? and, (2) given that the product is accepted as music of a new type or order, is not such music “inhuman”? . . . As Lejaren Hiller points out in his book Experi mental Music (co-author Leonard M. Isaacson), two questions which often arise when music is discussed are: (a) the substance of musical communication and its symbolic and semantic sig nificance, if any, and (b) the particular processes, both mental and technical, which are involved in creating and responding to musical composition. The ever-present popular concept of music as a direct, open, emotional expression and as a subjective form of communication from the composer, is, of course still that of the nineteenth century, when composers themselves spoke of music in those terms . . . But since the third decade of our century many composers have preferred more objective definitions of music, epitomized in Stravinsky’s description of it as “a form of speculation in terms of sound and time”. An acceptance of this more characteristic twentieth- century view of the art of musical composition will of course immediately bring the layman closer to an understanding of, and sympathetic response to, electronic music, even if the forms, sounds and approaches it uses will still be of a foreign nature to him.
Acommunication problem however will still remain. The principal barrier that electronic music presents at large, in relation to the communication process, is that composers in this medium are employing a new language of forms . . . where terms like ‘densities’, ‘indefinite pitch relations’, ‘dynamic serialization’, ‘permutation’, etc., are substitutes (or remote equivalents) for the traditional concepts of harmony, melody, rhythm, etc. . . . When the new structural procedures of electronic music are at last fully understood by the listener the barriers between him and the work he faces will be removed. . . .
The medium of electronic music has of course tempted many kinds of composers to try their hand at it . . . But the serious-minded composer approaches the world of electronic music with a more sophisticated and profound concept of creation. Although he knows that he can reproduce and employ melodic, rhythmic patterns and timbres of a traditional nature, he feels that it is in the exploration of sui generis languages and forms that the aesthetic magic of the new medium lies. And, conscientiously, he plunges into this search.
The second objection usually levelled against electronic music is much more innocent in nature. When people speak—sometimes very vehemently—of the ‘inhuman’ quality of this music they seem to forget that the composer is the one who fires the machines, collects the sounds, manip ulates them, pushes the buttons, programs the computer, filters the sounds, establishes pitches and scales, splices tape, thinks of forms, and rounds up the over-all structure of the piece, as well as every detail of it.
The goal of the author over the course of this passage is to:
Show Hint
the opening problem or question raised,
the author’s repeated emphasis or defence, and
how the passage concludes.
These usually reveal what the author is {really} trying to do.
- differentiate the modern composer from the nineteenth century composer.
- differentiate between electronic music and other forms of music.
- defend the “serious-minded composer” from Lejaren Hill and Stravinsky.
- defend electronic music from certain common charges.
The Correct Option is D
Approach Solution - 1
To find the goal of the author over the course of the passage, let's analyze the content of the passage and how it relates to the answer options.
- First, the passage discusses questions about electronic music, particularly its acceptance as a form of music and the supposed 'inhuman' nature associated with it.
- It notes the contrast between traditional views of music and modern perspectives, with composers like Stravinsky offering new definitions of music as speculation in terms of sound and time.
- The author explains the communication difficulties with electronic music due to the new language, involving terms like 'densities' and 'dynamic serialization', which replace traditional music concepts.
- The author further defends electronic music by addressing the objection regarding its 'inhuman' nature, highlighting the composer's role in creating music—manipulating sounds, programming, and thinking about forms.
- Let's evaluate the options:
- Differentiate the modern composer from the nineteenth century composer: While the passage contrasts the nineteenth-century view of music with the twentieth-century view, it is not the main focus.
- Differentiate between electronic music and other forms of music: This is part of the passage, but not the sole objective. The passage specifically seeks to respond to criticisms of electronic music.
- Defend the “serious-minded composer” from Lejaren Hill and Stravinsky: The passage does talk about composers like Stravinsky, but it does not defend against critiques from them.
- Defend electronic music from certain common charges: This is the main focus, as the author systematically responds to and defends against the criticisms of electronic music mentioned in the passage.
Therefore, the correct answer is "defend electronic music from certain common charges."
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Identify the main concerns discussed in the passage.
At the beginning, the author lists two common doubts about electronic music: whether it is music at all, and whether it is “inhuman”. These are clearly “charges” or objections raised against electronic music.
Step 2: Observe how the author responds to these doubts.
The author explains that:
electronic music uses a new language and new forms, which creates a communication gap, and
despite the machines involved, the human composer is still the one making all the creative decisions (collecting sounds, programming, choosing forms, etc.).
Both points are meant to show that electronic music is understandable as music and is not inhuman.
Step 3: Match this with the options.
Option (1) mentions the difference between modern and nineteenth-century composers. This is referred to, but only as a supporting point, not the main goal.
Option (2) speaks of differentiating between electronic and other music. The author does compare them, but again only to answer the objections.
Option (3) is incorrect, because Lejaren Hiller and Stravinsky are cited as references, not as attackers.
Option (4) correctly captures the overall purpose: the author aims to defend electronic music against the charges that it is not real music and that it is inhuman.
Hence, the best answer is Option (4).
What relation does the “communication problem” mentioned in paragraph 2 have to the questions that the author recounts at the beginning of the passage?
Show Hint
repeated themes,
restated concerns,
explanatory links that address earlier questions.
This helps identify how later sections resolve earlier doubts.
- Unfamiliar forms and terms might get in the way of our seeing electronic music as music, but this can be overcome.
- Its unfamiliar “language of forms” and novel terms mean that we cannot see electronic music as music since it does not employ traditional musical concepts.
- None; they are unrelated to one another and form parts of different discussions.
- The communication problem is what allows us to see electronic music as music because music must be difficult to understand.
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
The question revolves around understanding the connection between the "communication problem" discussed in the passage and specific questions posed at the beginning of the passage. Let's break down the question and the relevant segments from the passage:
- Understanding the Question: The problem is to understand how the "communication problem" in paragraph 2 relates to the initial questions about electronic music being recognized as proper music.
- Initial Questions Mentioned: The passage starts by addressing concerns of whether electronic music is real music and if it's 'inhuman'. It references the traditional view and the modern objective perspective.
- Paragraph 2 - Communication Problem: This section highlights how electronic music composers use a new language of forms, with unfamiliar terms to those who understand traditional music. The terms like 'densities', 'indefinite pitch relations' are new and can present a barrier to understanding electronic music.
- Analyzing the Relation:
- The "communication problem" is connected to the initial questions as it introduces and later elaborates on how unfamiliar terms and forms in electronic music can obstruct the usual perception and understanding of music.
- Despite seeming obstacles, there is an implication that overcoming these unfamiliarities through understanding can change perspective—linking directly to questioning if electronic music qualifies as music.
- Choosing the Correct Answer: Looking at the options, the connection implied by the passage is best captured by: "Unfamiliar forms and terms might get in the way of our seeing electronic music as music, but this can be overcome." It supports how overcoming the novelty of electronic music's terms can help see it as music, addressing the initial concerns.
- Ruling Out Other Options:
- The option suggesting these issues mean electronic music isn’t real music dismisses the potential for understanding new forms, which the passage contradicts.
- The option stating they are unrelated is incorrect as there's a direct relation through the passage's themes of unfamiliarity and potential understanding.
- The option that music must be difficult to understand incorrectly interprets the barriers as necessary rather than obstacles to be overcome.
- Conclusion: The correct relation is that unfamiliar forms and terms in electronic music present a communication problem, but acknowledging this and learning to understand these new forms helps us embrace electronic music as music.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Recall the initial questions mentioned in paragraph 1.
The author reports two common doubts about electronic music:
Is electronic music really music?
Is it “inhuman”?
Step 2: Understand the “communication problem” in paragraph 2.
The author explains that electronic music uses new structures and a “new language of forms” — terms like “densities,” “dynamic serialization,” “permutation,” etc. These unfamiliar concepts make it harder for the listener to understand the music at first.
Step 3: Connect the communication problem with the initial questions.
Because electronic music uses unfamiliar terminology and structures, a listener might initially feel that it is not “music” in the traditional sense. However, the author clearly states that {once the listener understands these new structural procedures, the barriers will be removed}. This means the communication problem is temporary and can be overcome.
Step 4: Match with the options.
Option (1) correctly states that unfamiliar forms and terms can hinder our ability to recognize electronic music as music, but that this obstacle is removable.
Option (2) incorrectly claims that the new language makes understanding impossible. The author says the opposite.
Option (3) is incorrect because the communication problem directly relates to the question “is this music at all?”
Option (4) is incorrect because the author never claims that difficulty is necessary for something to be considered music.
Thus, the best answer is Option (1).
The mention of Stravinsky’s description of music in the first paragraph does all the following EXCEPT:
Show Hint
- help us determine which sounds are musical and which are not.
- respond to and expand upon earlier understandings of music.
- complicate our notion of what is communicated through music.
- allow us to classify electronic music as music.
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
To determine the correct answer to this question about Stravinsky’s description of music, we need to analyze the specific effect or contribution of this description as mentioned in the passage. The task is to identify which of the given options is NOT an outcome of Stravinsky's description.
- Review of Stravinsky’s Description: The passage mentions Stravinsky's description of music as "a form of speculation in terms of sound and time." This reflects a more objective and modern view of music composition, which may contrast with older, more subjective interpretations.
- Understanding the Options:
- Option 1: Help us determine which sounds are musical and which are not. - The passage does not address this specifically. Stravinsky's description emphasizes abstract qualities rather than defining or categorizing sounds as musical or non-musical.
- Option 2: Respond to and expand upon earlier understandings of music. - The description indeed contrasts with and updates prior ideas from the nineteenth century, thus expanding upon them.
- Option 3: Complicate our notion of what is communicated through music. - The passage hints at this complication by discussing new terms and concepts in electronic music that differ from traditional concepts.
- Option 4: Allow us to classify electronic music as music. - Stravinsky's objective description helps in recognizing electronic music as a legitimate form of musical composition.
- Conclusion:
- Option 1 is the correct choice because the passage and Stravinsky's description do not focus on categorizing or identifying sounds as musical or non-musical, whereas the other options reflect aspects of Stravinsky's influence or implication in the passage.
Approach Solution -2
Stravinsky is cited as an example of a twentieth-century composer who favored an objective definition of music: \[ \text{“a form of speculation in terms of sound and time.”} \] This contrasts with the nineteenth-century emotional, subjective definition of music.
Step 2: Determine the role this shift plays in the passage.
The author uses Stravinsky’s viewpoint to:
show that definitions of music have evolved over time (supporting option 2),
help readers adjust to a more modern framework for understanding electronic music (supporting option 4),
shift the idea of music away from emotional communication to something more structural and speculative, thereby complicating what “communication” in music means (supporting option 3).
Step 3: Identify what Stravinsky’s definition does not do.
Stravinsky’s definition does not help us determine which specific sounds are musical and which are not. It redefines the concept of music, but does not offer criteria for labeling sounds as music or non-music.
Thus, option (1) is the statement that Stravinsky’s description does {not} achieve.
From the context in which it is placed, the phrase “sui generis” in paragraph 3 suggests which one of the following?
Show Hint
- Particular
- Generic
- Unaesthetic
- Indescribable
The Correct Option is A
Approach Solution - 1
To solve this question, we need to determine the meaning of the phrase "sui generis" as used in the given comprehension passage. Let's break down the context in which it appears:
- The passage discusses electronic music, focusing on how it introduces new concepts and languages that differ from traditional forms.
- In the context of music, "sui generis" is used to describe something unique or one-of-a-kind.
- The passage states that serious-minded composers explore "sui generis languages and forms," indicating that these languages and forms are unique to electronic music and not found in traditional music.
- The phrase "sui generis" is Latin for "of its own kind" or "unique," which means it is something particular or specific rather than general.
With this understanding, let's evaluate the options:
- Particular: This means something specific or unique, which aligns with the meaning of "sui generis."
- Generic: This means something common or not unique, which is the opposite of "sui generis."
- Unaesthetic: This relates to a lack of beauty or art, which is unrelated to the meaning of "sui generis" in this context.
- Indescribable: While this might seem close, "sui generis" does not necessarily mean indescribable but rather unique or particular.
Thus, the correct answer is Particular, as it best describes the unique and distinct nature of the new languages and forms explored in electronic music.
Approach Solution -2
Step 1: Examine the phrase in context.
In paragraph 3, the author says that the serious-minded composer believes that the “aesthetic magic” of electronic music lies in exploring \(\textit{sui generis}\) languages and forms.
Step 2: Understand the contextual meaning.
The context makes it clear that the composer is not simply using familiar musical structures but is deliberately creating or discovering forms that are:
new,
unique,
original,
distinctive to electronic music.
Step 3: Evaluate the options.
(1) Particular — fits well because sui generis means “of its own kind,” “unique,” or “particular to itself.”
(2) Generic — opposite of the intended meaning.
(3) Unaesthetic — the passage describes the forms as aesthetically magical, not unaesthetic.
(4) Indescribable — the passage never suggests they cannot be described; only that they are unique.
Thus, the meaning conveyed is best represented by Option (1).
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