List of top Verbal Ability & Reading Comprehension (VARC) Questions asked in Xavier Aptitude Test

Rajinder Singh was 32 years old from the small town of Bhatinda, Punjab. Most of the families living there had middle class incomes, with about 10% of the population living below the poverty level. The population consisted of 10 percent small traders, 30 percent farmers, besides others. Rajinder liked growing up in Bhatinda, where people knew and cared about each other.

Even as a youngster it was clear that Rajinder was smart and ambitious. Neighbors would often say, “Someday you’re going to make us proud!” He always had a job growing up at Singh’s General Store – Uncle Balwant’s store. Balwant was a well-intentioned person. Rajinder loved being at the store and not just because Balwant paid him well. He liked helping customers, most of whom were known by the nicknames. Setting up displays and changing the merchandise for different seasons and holidays was always exciting. Uncle Balwant had one child and out of life, his interest in business had declined. But he had taught Rajinder “the ins and outs of retailing”. He had taught Rajinder everything, including ordering merchandise, putting on a sale, customer relations, and keeping the books.

The best part about working at the store was Balwant himself. Balwant loved the store as much as Rajinder did. Balwant had set up the store with a mission to make sure his neighbors got everything they needed at a fair price. He carried a wide variety of goods, based on the needs of the community. If you needed a snow shovel or piece of jewellery for your wife, it was no problem – Singh’s had it all. Rajinder was impressed by Balwant’s way of handling and caring for customers. If somebody was going through “hard times”, Balwant somehow knew it. When they came into the store, Balwant would make them feel comfortable, and say something like, “you know Jaswant, let’s put everything on credit today”. This kind of generosity made it easy to understand why Balwant was loved and respected throughout the community.

Rajinder grew up and went to school and college in Bhatinda. Later on, he made it to an MBA program in Delhi. Rajinder did well in the MBA course and was goal oriented. After first year of his MBA, the career advisor and Balwant advised Rajinder for an internship at Bigmart. That summer, Rajinder was amazed by the breadth and comprehensiveness of the internship experience. Rajinder got inspired by the life story of the founder of Bigmart, and the value the founder held. Bigmart was one of the best companies in the world.

The people that Rajinder worked for at Bigmart during the internship noticed Rajinder’s work ethic, knowledge, and enthusiasm for the business. Before the summer ended, Rajinder had been offered a job as a Management Trainee by Bigmart, to start upon graduation. Balwant was happy to see Rajinder succeed. Even for Rajinder, this was a dream job – holding the opportunity to move up the ranks in a big company. Rajinder did indeed move up the ranks quickly, from management trainee, to assistant store manager, to supervising manager of three stores, to the present position – Real Estate Manager, North India. This job involved locating new sites within targeted locations and community relations.

One day Rajinder was eagerly looking forward to the next assignment. When he received email for the same, his world came crashing down. He was asked to identify next site in Bhatinda. It was not that Rajinder didn’t believe in Bigmart’s explanation. What was printed in the popular press, especially the business press, only reinforced Rajinder’s belief in Bigmart. An executive viewed as one of the wisest business persons in the world was quoted as saying, “Bigmart had been a major force in improving the quality of life for the average consumer around the world offering great prices on good, giving them one stop solution for almost everything.” Many big farmers also benefitted through low prices, as middlemen were removed. At the same time, Rajinder knew that opening a new Bigmart could disrupt small business in Bhatinda. Some local stores in small towns went out of business within a year of the Bigmart’s opening.

In Bhatinda, one of the local stores Singh’s, now run by Balwant’s son, although Balwant still came in every day to “straighten out the merchandise”. As Rajinder thought about this assignment, depression set in, and the nightmares followed. Rajinder was frozen in time and space. Rajinder’s nightmares involved Balwant screaming something – although Rajinder could not make out what Balwant was saying. This especially troubled Rajinder, since Balwant never raised his voice.

Rajinder didn’t know what to do – who might be helpful? Rajinder’s spouse, who was a housewife? Maybe talking it through could lead to some positive course of action. Rajinder’s boss? Would Bigmart understand? Could Rajinder really disclose the conflict without fear? Uncle Balwant? Should Rajinder really disclose the situation and ask for advice? He wanted a solution that would make all stakeholders happy.
Report 1: (Feb, 2013) Apple nabs crown as current top US mobile phone vendor

Apple became the no.1 US mobile phone vendor in Q4 2012 with 34% share (up from 25.6%). Samsung followed with 32.3% (up from 26.9%). LG fell to 9% (from 13.7%). Motorola took 7% while HTC dropped to 6%.

Smartphone-only Market (NPD): Apple led with 39% share, Samsung had 30%, Motorola 7%, LG 6%, HTC 6%.

Trends:
- Smartphones dominate: 8 out of 10 mobile phones sold in the US are now smartphones (up from 50% in 2011).
- Apple leads overall mobile + smartphone share, but Samsung’s growth suggests it may soon overtake Apple (expected by April 2013).
- Since 2008, Samsung has been a strong competitor, especially through feature phone + smartphone sales.

Key Insight: Apple’s strength lies in exclusive smartphone focus; Samsung remains the only serious challenger with broad portfolio.


Report 2: Reader’s Response (Feb, 2013)

The reliability of Samsung’s reported sales is questioned.
- Past Debacle: In 2010–11, Lenovo challenged Samsung’s claim of shipping 1.5M tablets; actual sales were only 20,000. Samsung refused to supply official quarterly numbers thereafter.
- Apple vs Samsung lawsuit: Court filings revealed Samsung’s real phone sales were only 1/3–1/2 of analyst estimates.
- Tablet Usage: Of 1.5M shipped, only 38,000 were sold; Samsung tablets had a 1.5% usage rate compared to iPad’s 90%.
- Smartphones: Samsung’s Q sales estimated at 32M, but analysts’ guesses varied widely (32M–50M) due to lack of direct reporting.
- Key Issue: Without self-reporting of actual sales to end users, market share estimates (esp. Samsung) are unreliable.

Key Insight: Apple’s numbers are considered transparent and verifiable, whereas Samsung’s reported dominance is seen with suspicion.


Report 3: Contradictory Survey (Feb, 2013)

Main Findings: OnDevice Research survey (320,000 users, 6 countries) on customer satisfaction.
- US Results: Motorola Atrix HD ranked highest, Droid Razr second, HTC Rezound 4G third, Samsung Galaxy Note 2 fourth, while Apple’s iPhone 5 ranked only fifth.
- Global Variations: In UK, iPhone ranked 2nd (after HTC One X). For overall satisfaction worldwide, Apple topped, followed by Google. Nokia ranked 3rd–5th, Sony Ericsson 6th.
- Contradictions: Google appeared in rankings despite not being a direct smartphone maker; Samsung, despite global leadership, ranked bottom in satisfaction.
- Interpretation: Apple, while globally strong, shows lagging satisfaction in the US; Android devices gaining in consumer approval. Survey highlights inconsistencies and limitations in measurement.

Key Insight: Satisfaction rankings differ sharply from market share rankings, creating confusion in interpreting “leadership” in smartphones.
I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—“That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rules in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment or in the least degree resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.
Analyze the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.

The ways by which you may get money almost without exception lead downwards. To have done anything by which you earned money merely is to have been truly idle or worse. If the laborer gets no more than the wages which his employer pays him, he is cheated, he cheats himself. If you would get money as a writer or lecturer, you must be popular, which is to go down perpendicularly. Those services which the community will most readily pay for, it is most disagreeable to render. You are paid for being something less than a man. The State does not commonly reward a genius any more wisely. Even the poet laureate would rather not have to celebrate the accidents of royalty. He must be bribed with a pipe of wine; and perhaps another poet is called away from his muse to gauge that very pipe. The aim of the laborer should be, not to get his living, to get “a good job,” but to perform well a certain work; and even in a pecuniary sense, it would be economy for a town to pay its laborers so well that they would not feel that they were working for low ends, for a livelihood merely, but for scientific, or even moral ends. Do not hire a man who does your work for money, but him who does it for love of it.

The community has no bribe that will tempt a wise man. You may raise money enough to tunnel a mountain, but you cannot raise money enough to hire a man who is minding his own business. An efficient and valuable man does what he can, whether the community pays him for it or not. The inefficient offer their inefficiency to the highest bidder, and are forever expecting to be put into office. One would suppose that they were rarely disappointed. God gave the righteous man a certificate entitling him to food and raiment, but the unrighteous man found a facsimile of the same in God’s coffers, and appropriated it, and obtained food and raiment like the former. It is one of the most extensive systems of counterfeiting that the world has seen. I did not know that mankind was suffering for want of gold. I have seen a little of it. I know that it is very malleable, but not so malleable as wit. A grain of gold will gild a great surface, but not so much as a grain of wisdom.
Analyze the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.

Ideas involving the theory of probability play a decisive part in modern physics. Yet we still lack a satisfactory, consistent definition of probability; or, what amounts to much the same, we still lack a satisfactory axiomatic system for the calculus of probability. The relations between probability and experience are also still in need of clarification. In investigating this problem we shall discover what will at first seem an almost insuperable objection to my methodological views. For although probability statements play such a vitally important role in empirical science, they turn out to be in principle impervious to strict falsification. Yet this very stumbling block will become a touchstone upon which to test my theory, in order to find out what it is worth.

Thus, we are confronted with two tasks. The first is to provide new foundations for the calculus of probability. This I shall try to do by developing the theory of probability as a frequency theory, along the lines followed by Richard von Mises. But without the use of what he calls the "axiom of convergence" (or "limit axiom") and with a somewhat weakened "axiom of randomness".

The second task is to elucidate the relations between probability and experience. This means solving what I call the problem of decidability statements. My hope is that the investigations will help to relieve the present unsatisfactory situation in which physicists make much use of probabilities without being able to say, consistently, what they mean by "probability".
Analyze the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.

The assumption of rationality puts an economist in a position to “explain” some features of market behavior, such as the dispersion of prices of psychophysically identical goods such as beer according to the amount spent on advertising them (no doubt, the fact that most beer is bought by individuals rather than as raw material by firms, which could be expected to be more rational than individuals, is part of the explanation.) Clearly something is wrong somewhere with the usual model of a competitive market with perfect information, for the virtually contentless advertising cannot be considered as increasing the utility of beer in an obvious way. But if one can keep the assumption of rational actors, one need not get into the intellectual swamp of sentiment nor of preferences that depend on price. If one agrees, for example, that consumers use advertising as an index of the effort a producer will put into protecting its reputation and so as a predictor of quality control efforts, one can combine it with the standard mechanism and derive testable consequences from it.

But why, logically speaking, does it not matter that any of us, with a few years’ training, could disprove the assumptions? It is for the same reason that the statistical mechanics of gases is not undermined when Rutherford teaches a lot of only moderately bright physicists to use X-ray diffraction to disprove the assumption that molecules are little hard elastic balls. The point is, departures that Rutherford teaches us to find from the mechanism built into statistical mechanics are small and hardly ever systematic at the level of gases. Ignorance and error about the quality of beer is also unlikely to be systematic at the level of the consumers’ beer market, though it would become systematic if buyers imposed quality control procedures on sellers in contracts of sale (as corporations very often do in their contracts with suppliers). So when we find beers that advertising can make the ignorance and error systematic at the level of markets, just as lasers with wavelengths resonant with the internal structures and sizes of molecules can make molecular motions in gases systematic. The interesting one is that virtually contentless advertising is nevertheless information to a rational actor.
Read the following caselet and choose the best alternative:

Head of a nation in the Nordic region was struggling with the slowing economy on one hand and restless citizens on the other. In addition, his opponents were doing everything possible to discredit his government. As a famous saying goes, "There is no smoke without a fire", it cannot be said that the incumbent government was doing all the right things. There were reports of acts of omission and commission coming out every other day.

Distribution of public resources for private businesses and for private consumption had created a lot of problems for the government. It was being alleged that the government had given the right to exploit these public resources at throw-away prices to some private companies. Some of the citizens were questioning the government policies in the Supreme Court of the country as well as in the media. In the midst of all this, the head of the nation called his cabinet colleagues for a meeting on the recent happenings in the country.

He asked his minister of water resources about the bidding process for allocation of rights to setup mini-hydel power plants. To this, the minister replied that his ministry had followed the laid out policies of the government. Water resources were allocated to those private companies that bid the highest and were technically competent. The minister continued that later on some new companies had shown interest and they were allowed to enter the sector as per the guidelines of the Government. This, the minister added, would facilitate proper utilization of water resources and provide better services to the citizens. The new companies were allocated the rights at the price set by the highest bidders in the previous round of bidding. After hearing this, the head of the nation replied that one would expect the later allocations to be done after a fresh round of bidding. The minister of water resources replied that his ministry had taken permissions from the concerned ministries before allocating the resources to the new companies.
Read the following caselet and choose the best alternative:

Island of Growth was witnessing a rapid increase in GDP. Its citizens had become wealthier in recent times, and there had been a considerable improvement in the standards of living. However, this rapid growth had increased corruption and nepotism in the Island. In the recent times, a fear had gripped the population that corruption would destroy the inclusive nature of the society and hinder economic progress. However, most citizens had kept quiet because:
a. they had benefited from the corruption indirectly, if not directly.
b. they did not have the time and energy to protest.
c. they did not have courage to rise against the established power centers.

There was a need to remove corruption but no one was willing to stick his neck out. Many politicians, bureaucrats and private organizations were corrupt. Media and intellectuals kept quiet, as they benefited indirectly from corruption. The common man was scared of state's retribution and the youngsters feared insecure future.

Against this background, an old, unmarried and illiterate gentleman of high moral and ethical authority, Shambhu, decided to take on the issue of corruption. He sat on a hunger strike in the heart of the capital city of the Island. Shambhu demanded that the Government should constitute new laws to punish the corrupt across all walks of life. Media and the citizens of the island gave massive support to Shambhu. Buckling under the pressure, the Government promised to accept Shambhu's demands. He ended the hunger strike immediately following the Government's announcement. Shambhu became the darling of the media. He used this opportunity as a platform to spread the message that only citizens with an unblemished character should be allowed to hold a public office.

A few months later, it was found that the Government had not fulfilled any of its promises made to Shambhu. Infuriated, he was thinking of launching another island-wide protest. However, this time, he sensed that not many people and media persons were willing to support him.
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.

Soros, we must note, has never been a champion of free market capitalism. He has followed for nearly all his public life the political ideas of the late Sir Karl Popper who laid out a rather jumbled case for what he dubbed “the open society” in his The Open Society and Its Enemies (1953). Such a society is what we ordinarily call the pragmatic system in which politicians get involved in people’s lives but without any heavy theoretical machinery to guide them, simply as the ad hoc parental authorities who are believed to be needed to keep us all on the straight and narrow. Popper was at one time a Marxist socialist but became disillusioned with that idea because he came to believe that systematic ideas do not work in any area of human concern.

The Popperian open society Soros promotes is characterized by a very general policy of having no firm principles, not even those needed for it to have some constancy and integrity. This makes the open society a rather wobbly idea, since even what Popper himself regarded as central to all human thinking, critical rationalism, may be undermined by the openness of the open society since its main target is negative — avoid dogmatic thinking, and avoid anything that even comes close to a set of unbreachable principles. No, the open society is open to anything at all, at least for experimental purposes. No holds are barred, which, if you think about it, undermines even that very idea and becomes unworkable.

Accordingly, in a society Soros regards suited to human community living, the state can manipulate many aspects of human life, including, of course, the economic behaviour of individuals and firms. It can control the money supply, impose wage and price controls, dabble in demand or supply-side economics, and do nearly everything a central planning board might — provided it does not settle into any one policy firmly, unbendingly. That is the gist of Soros’s Popperian politics.

Soros distrusts capitalism in particular, because of the alleged inadequacy of neoclassical economics, the technical economic underpinnings of capitalist thinking offered up in many university economics departments. He, like many others outside and even inside the economics discipline, finds the arid reductionism of this social science false to the facts, and rightly so. But the defence of capitalist free markets does not rest on this position.

Neo-classical thinking depends in large part on the 18th- and 19th-century belief that human society operates according to laws, not unlike those that govern the physical universe. Most of social science embraced that faith, so economics isn’t unusual in its loyalty to classical mechanics. Nor do all economists take the deterministic lawfulness of economic science literally — some understand that the laws began to operate only once men embark upon economic pursuits. Outside their commercial ventures, people can follow different principles and priorities, even if it is undeniable that most of their endeavours have economic features. Yet, it would be foolish to construe religion or romance or even scientific inquiry as solely explicable by reference to the laws of economics.

In his criticism of neo-classical economic science, then, George Soros has a point: the discipline is too dependent on Newtonian physics as the model of science. As a result, the predictions of economists who look at markets as if they were machines need to be taken with a grain of salt. Some — for example the school of Austrian economists — have made exactly that point against the neo-classical.

Soros draws a mistaken inference: if one defends the market as flawed, the market lacks defense. This is wrong. If it is true that from A we can infer B, it does not prove that B can only be inferred from A; A → C, too, might be a reason for B.
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.

Popper claimed, scientific beliefs are universal in character, and have to be so if they are to serve us in explanation and prediction. For the universality of a scientific belief implies that, no matter how many instances we have found positive, there will always be an indefinite number of unexamined instances which may or may not also be positive. We have no good reason for supposing that any of these unexamined instances will be positive, or will be negative, so we must refrain from drawing any conclusions. On the other hand, a single negative instance is sufficient to prove that the belief is false, for such an instance is logically incompatible with the universal truth of the belief. Provided, therefore, that the instance is accepted as negative we must conclude that the scientific belief is false. In short, we can sometimes deduce that a universal scientific belief is false but we can never induce that a universal scientific belief is true.

It is sometimes argued that this "asymmetry" between verification and falsification is not nearly as pronounced as Popper declared it to be. Thus, there is no inconsistency in holding that a universal scientific belief is false despite any number of positive instances; and there is no inconsistency either in holding that a universal scientific belief is true despite the evidence of a negative instance. For the belief that an instance is negative is itself a scientific belief and may be falsified by experimental evidence which we accept and which is inconsistent with it. When, for example, we draw a right-angled triangle on the surface of a sphere using parts of three great circles for its sides, and discover that for this triangle Pythagoras' Theorem does not hold, we may decide that this apparently negative instance is not really negative because it is not a genuine instance at all. Triangles drawn on the surfaces of spheres are not the sort of triangles which fall within the scope of Pythagoras' Theorem. Falsification, that is to say, is no more capable of yielding conclusive rejections of scientific belief than verification is of yielding conclusive acceptances of scientific beliefs. The asymmetry between falsification and verification, therefore, has less logical significance than Popper supposed.

We should, though, resist this reasoning. Falsifications may not be conclusive, for the acceptances on which rejections are based are always provisional acceptances. But, nevertheless, it remains the case that, in falsification, if we accept falsifying claims then, to remain consistent, we must reject falsified claims. On the other hand, although verifications are also not conclusive, our acceptance or rejection of verifying instances has no implications concerning the acceptance or rejection of verified claims. Falsifying claims sometimes give us a good reason for rejecting a scientific belief, namely when the claims are accepted. But verifying claims, even when accepted, give us no good and appropriate reason for accepting any scientific belief, because any such reason would have to be inductive to be appropriate and there are no good inductive reasons.
Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers for the questions that follow.

"Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)."

A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular — a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do "strategically" lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counteract the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations.

Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e., consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more dissatisfied when products perform worse than expected) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture-specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation sensitivity on consumer expectations.