Sentence 3 introduces the main idea of the paragraph; so it is the opening sentence.
32 is a unit: 2 explains the term ‘modern scientific method’ mentioned in 3.
14 is also a unit: sentence 1 talks about a new invention, commercial fusion power and 4 explains how the scientific method is key to this invention.
3214 forms a cogent paragraph.

While all other sentences relate to neuromarketing and how it has been received by marketers, advertisers and scientists, sentence 5 is about an unrelated idea – how marketers and advertisers have started drawing on science/scientific methods in developing tests and theories.

3412 makes a cogent paragraph;

5 is the odd one out.

Sentence 2 states the main idea of the passage and is the best opening sentence. 41 is a unit:

sentence 4 explains how development began half a century ago and how it lost its way.

Sentence 1 explains the view on the vision and practice of development today.

Sentence 3 carries forward the idea in 2 and states what the rethink and reconstitution of development entails.

So, 2413 is the correct order.

Sentence 2 is the best opening sentence, as it explains what the Northwest Passage is (a group of islands acquired by Canada in 1880). Sentence 1 relates to 2, presenting the US position on Canada’s claim of sovereignty over all shipping routes through the Passage.

This leads on to the idea in sentence 4– both countries have not legally settled the question of access through the Passage yet. Sentence 3 concludes the paragraph explaining how the dispute could turn out to be transitory due to the Arctic Ocean turning ice-free in summer. So, 2143 is the correct order.

The main idea of the paragraph is that, in an economic downturn, the capitalist, worried about the cost of competition arising from free markets, finds that he can ally with the distressed unemployed workers and use the cover and the political organization provided by them to capture the political agenda.

Option B sums up the paragraph well.

Option A implies that it is the goal of the unemployed, too, to stifle competition in free markets. This is incorrect. Similarly, C implies the unemployed capture the political agenda along with the capitalist. That is not what the paragraph states. Option D is not in line with the main idea of the paragraph either.

Sentences 2 and 5 form a unit: 5 answers the question posed in 2. In the same way 3 and 4 form a unit. But while these four sentences focus on genetic engineering – the promise it offers on the one hand and the ethical predicament it presents on the other, sentence 1 talks about a slightly different, broader discipline– biotechnology– and a different idea – how the examination of biotechnology by philosophers may help formulate and assess moral arguments.

Sentence 1 is hence the odd one out.

Of the given options, the quote that stresses on the importance of fiction most strongly is option A. Here, the author more or less equates fiction with unity and truth with disunity. Option B is less about overemphasizing the importance of fiction than about disparaging the power of truth. Options C and D are expository and neither of these overemphasises the importance of fiction.

The central idea of the passage is that when it comes to uniting people around a common story, fiction has several advantages over objective truth. The author states that ‘Even if we need to pay some price for deactivating our rational faculties, the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history’.

So, option C is the right choice.

Note that the passage is not about the choice between truth and power. The author states truth doesn’t always convey power and talks about the ‘complicated’ relationship between the two.

According to the author, scholars have known for thousands of years that ‘the advantages of increased social cohesion are often so big that fictional stories routinely triumph over the truth in human history’ and that this is ‘why scholars often had to decide whether they served the truth or social harmony’. Here, the author implies that scholars know how to balance truth on the one hand and social unity on the other.

According to the author, ‘An uncompromising adherence to the truth is an admirable spiritual practice, but it is not a winning political strategy’. In other words, leaders retain power by not sticking to the unvarnished truth, but by deviating from it.

According to the author, during the national struggle, nationalists maintained that European power had 'failed to colonize the inner, essential, identity of the East which lay in its distinctive, and superior, spiritual culture'. If, as mentioned in option D, the colonial period saw the hybridisation of Indian culture in all realms-- if there were no home/world dichotomy on which the author bases his argument-- then, that would seriously weaken the author's claims in the passage.

In the last paragraph, the author says that it would be a grave error to think that the ideological framework within which nationalism answered 'the women's question' did not mean a total rejection of the West. This implies the nationalists embraced some aspects of the West and rejected some aspects, selectively. If option A were true and Indian nationalists rejected the cause of English education for women, that would really not weaken the author's claims in any way.

The author argues that colonial modernity, in terms of science, technology, rational forms of economic organization, and modern methods of statecraft 'had given the European countries the strength to subjugate the non-European people'. It was this domination that the colonized people were trying to overcome. So, option B, if true, strengthens the author's claims in the passage.

Just like option B, option C, if true, strengthens the author's claim that in the material realm, the European powers were ahead and this in turn gave them the strength to subjugate non-European people.

In the matching of the home/world dichotomy with gender-based social roles, the liberals are apt to (likely to), according to the author, see a total rejection of the West by Indian nationalists : ‘It would be a grave error to see in this, as liberals are apt to in their despair at the many marks of social conservatism in nationalist practice, a total rejection of the West.’ In other words, in the liberals’ view Indian nationalist discourses reaffirmed traditional gender roles for Indian women.

In the second paragraph, the author talks about the material/spiritual dichotomy and states that it 'was condensed into an analogous, but ideologically far more powerful, dichotomy: that between the outer and the inner'. So, option D is true. The author also states that 'Applying the inner/outer distinction to the matter of concrete day-to-day living separates the social space into ghar and bahir, the home and the world'. So, option B is also true.

In the third paragraph, the author elaborates on how the material/spiritual dichotomy acquired 'a very special significance in the nationalist mind', as the nationalists asserted that the West 'had failed to colonize the inner, essential, identity of the East which lay in its distinctive, and superior, spiritual culture'. In other words, the spiritual/material dichotomy helped in safeguarding the identity of Indian nationalism. So, option A is true.

On the other hand, nowhere in the passage does the author say as mentioned in option C that the spiritual/material dichotomy was a 'continuation of age-old oppositions in Indian culture'.

The author begins the passage by describing the 'contradictory pulls' on Indian nationalist ideology. In science, technology, economic organization and modern methods of statecraft, the West dominated. In fact, to overcome this domination, instead of fighting the colonialists on this front, colonized people 'had to learn those superior techniques of organizing material life and incorporate them within their own cultures'. In other words, despite its fight against colonial domination, Indian nationalism had adopt Western ideas in the material sphere.

In the last two paragraphs, the passage speaks of the problems that arise due to monolingualism and the advantages of multilingualism. According to the passage, ‘Multilingualism can help us live in a more connected and more interdependent world.’. So, the correct choice is option D.

The second paragraph details the reasons for decline of languages: 'through war, famine and natural disasters', and language shift 'for complex political, cultural and economic reasons – sometimes voluntary for economic and educational reasons, although often amplified by state coercion or neglect'. Options B, C and D cover these points.
The passage does not attribute the decline of languages to internet use. So, option A is the correct answer choice.

The passage states that ‘Welsh, long stigmatized and disparaged by the British state, has rebounded with vigor’. Here, the author cites the example of Welsh to show that languages can bounce back after a forced language shift.

In the first paragraph, the passage states that indigenous languages ‘function as vehicles for the transmission of cultural traditions, environmental understandings and knowledge about medicinal plants’, that ‘ speech communities are increasingly involved in projects to protect their languages – in print, on air and online’ and that ‘most of the world's languages are still transmitted orally with no widely established written form’.

So, options B, C and D can be inferred from the passage.

Though the passage states that indigenous languages have ‘unusual words and intriguing grammar’, it does not say that this makes these languages challenging to document. Option A cannot be inferred from the passage.

Option A states that the confidence with which we maintain something to be true is 'usually independent of the source' of the alleged truth. This is the exact opposite of what the passage states in the last few lines: ' And we examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously, usually depending on .... what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or making our beliefs credible to others (look, it's right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist).'

Option B states that if we are confident that knowledge is 'widely held', then actions taken on the basis of presumed knowledge become rational and justifiable. This is not what the passage says. The passage states that unless we distinguish knowledge from opinion, wishful thinking or delusion, the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge will be irrational and unjustifiable.

Option C sums up the main idea of the second paragraph:'For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken, we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect.'The author is hence likely to support statement C.

According to the passage, the sceptic questions our ability to know 'reality' defined as things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions because 'it floats above the processes of our conceiving it'.

Option D states that the sceptic would advocate knowing reality independently. This is incorrect.

The argument being made here is that if reality is independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions, then it is clearly out of our scope of understanding, as it exists outside our ability to conceive or perceive it. Option B is hence the right choice.

A straightforward question. Note what the passage states: ‘We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates.
Note that option B relates to factors based on which we examine or defend our convictions. Option C does not relate to the question.

Note the ‘except’ in the question. The answer option is one that is not an argument made by the author. The author says that the ‘most common’ way of dealing with scepticism about the veracity of knowledge is to ignore it.

Option B states that it is ‘the best way’ . So, option B is not an argument made by the author.
All other options relate to what is discussed in the passage:

Option A- ‘unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge – boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime – will be irrational and unjustifiable.’

Option C-’While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge.’

Option D- ‘Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you 'know' something or anything at all – at least not, he may add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive' 'knowledge'’.

The given paragraph calls petitioning an "expeditious" democratic tradition and goes on to explain why: unlike elections which are episodic, petitions can ensure the voices of people are heard and integrated constantly into democratic government. Option A covers all key ideas and is the best of the given summaries.

Option B is incorrect as the paragraph given does not say we should rely more on petitioning than on elections.

Option C is incorrect as the paragraph does not call petitions "an ideal form of a representative democracy".

Option D is easily ruled out as it is not what the paragraph is about.

The passage describes how the stories of the Undead have evolved from ill-defined eerie creatures of Mankind's earliest years to more definite shaped and even supernatural/magical creatures as mankind became more sophisticated.

Options B and C are vague and do not even mention the word 'Undead'. Option D is about only one aspect of the passage.

The given line implies that the Undead were thought to be abnormal and hence accorded attributes which were not normal. Option C is the correct answer.

Option A states the Undead are deified (treated like deities). This is not what the given line says.

The given line does not express the opinion of the Undead. So, option B is incorrect.

Option D is about the "natural attributes" of the Undead, which is not what the given line is about.

Trickily worded question, combining the "if false" condition with "all of the following ...except". As it is easier to evaluate true statements than false, let us re-frame the question as "All the following statements, if true, are not in accordance to the passage except one".

Option A, if true, is not in accordance to the passage: "And as Mankind became more sophisticated, ... Now they began to take on more definite shapes. Some still remained vague and ill-defined but, as Mankind strove to explain the horror which it felt towards them, such creatures emerged more readily into the light."

Option B, if true, is also not in accordance to the passage: 'However, the relationship between the magician and an Undead creature was often a very tenuous and uncertain one."

Option C, if true, is also clearly not what the passage says. The passage says even as Man became sophisticated, he continued to believe in the Undead.

Option D, if true, is in accordance to the passage: "From the Middle Ages and into the Age of Enlightenment, theories of the Undead continued to grow and develop." So, option D is the correct answer.

The given line implies that in Mankind's earliest years, belief in eerie creatures which were neither quite alive nor dead existed. Option B is the correct answer.

The passage does say that technologies, like laws and customs, shape their inhabitants by ‘privileging certain dimensions of their human nature’. But it does not say that technologies do so 'at a high cost to lived nature'. Option A cannot be inferred.

The passage explains that customs such as parental authority represent the 'interest of childhood in safety and growth', and goes on to say that 'this notion of representation does not imply an eternal human nature'. So, option B is implied.

Option C is inferred based on the lines, "A hermeneutics of technology must make explicit the meanings implicit in the devices we use and the rituals they script. Social histories of technologies such as the bicycle, artificial lighting or firearms have made important contributions to this type of analysis. Critical theory of technology attempts to build a methodological approach on the lessons of these histories."

Option D is inferred from the first paragraph, which says that according to the critical theory of technology, "advances in the formal claims of human rights take center stage while in the background centralization of ever more powerful public institutions and private organizations imposes an authoritarian social order".

The fourth paragraph says that technologies are comparable to laws and customs, and it calls each of these (technologies, laws and customs) as "institutions that can be said to represent those who live under their sway through privileging certain dimensions of their human nature". Option B reflects this idea and is hence the right choice.

The passage does not comment on the effectiveness of laws and customs in privileging certain dimensions of human nature or compare technology with laws and customs in this respect. So, option A is incorrect.

Option C is incorrect as it calls technologies, laws and customs 'dissimilar' phenomena.

Option D, while true, is not the main argument of the paragraph. It only substantiates the main argument.

The second paragraph says that wherever masses are organized, be it in Foucault's prisons or Habermas's public sphere, 'the same pattern prevails'. The pattern referred to here is that even as human rights issues become more prominent, in the background the social order becomes more authoritarian. Option B, which says that masses themselves are organized in patterns set by Foucault's prisons and Habermas' public sphere, is incorrect.

From the second paragraph, we infer that Marx's understanding of the capitalist rationalization of production and Marcuse's understanding of a "project" of "technological rationality" are both related to the critical theory of technology. So, option A is in line with the arguments of the passage.

According to the passage, the capitalist rationalization of production "marks many institutions besides the factory and every modern political system, including so-called socialist systems." So, option C is also in line with the arguments of the passage.

Based on the line, "This trajectory arose from the problems of command over a disempowered and deskilled labor force; but everywhere [that] masses are organized – whether it be Foucault's prisons or Habermas's public sphere – the same pattern prevails", we can see that option D is also in line with the arguments of the passage.

The main idea of the passage is that as an environment, technologies shape their inhabitants. Option B rephrases this.

Based on the last line of the passage, we rule out option A.

The fourth paragraph clearly states laws and customs represent certain dimensions of their human nature. So, option C is ruled out.

Option D is incorrect as it states nature 'decides' what lies at the limit of history. The passage says nature is what lies at the limit of history.

Refer to the last paragraph: "Additionally, the Stoic idea of developing virtue in oneself, of becoming a good person, which the Stoics believed we could do because we have a touch of the divine, laid the foundation for the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam..".

According to the passage, Epicureans believed in enjoying simple pleasures without indulging the, So, option A is incorrect.

Option B cannot be regarded true based on the contents of the passage. Option C is the exact opposite of what the passage says about Stoics.

Double negative question. As it is easier to analyze options based on what is true than what is false, we could re-frame the question. A statement which, if false, contradicts the arguments of the passage is one that if true, supports the given arguments.

Option A, if true, supports the arguments of the passage: “The Epicureans, first associated with the Greek philosopher Epicurus . . . held a similar view, believing that people should enjoy simple pleasures, such as good conversation, friendship, food, and wine, but not be indulgent in these pursuits”. So, option A is the answer we are looking for.
Now, other options, if true, contradict the passage, as seen below.

The last paragraph explains how medication and cultivating the right attitude can help one distance from emotions and control them. So, option B, if true, contradicts the passage.

The passage says that "In the Stoic view, choosing a reasoned, unemotional response as the second movement is the only appropriate response". Option C talks about a reasoned, unemotional response as the first movement. If true, option C contradicts the passage.

The first line of the passage says that Stoicism (not Zeno) survived into the Roman era until about AD 300. So, option D, too is incorrect.

The given line does not imply that meditation allows 'out-of-body' experiences.

On the other hand, it says that by distancing from emotions one can decide what has value and what does not have value. So, option B is implied.

The passage also says that second movement is what one does next about the emotion. So, option C is implied.

The given line also says that through meditation and the right attitude, one allows emotions to happen to oneself but can observe these emotions without acting on them. That is, one can passively receive experiences. So, option D is implied.

Refer to what the passage says about Marcus Aurelius: "Examples of second movements for Marcus might have included a plot to seek revenge, actions signifying deference and appeasement, or perhaps proceeding as he would have proceeded whether or not this event occurred: continuing to lead the Romans in a way that Marcus Aurelius believed best benefited them". The only accurate inference that can be made from the example of Marcus Aurelius is that he was a leader in the Roman army.

According to the passage, for the Chinese, Fuzhipin or exact reproductions of the original are equal in value to the original. Among the given options, only option A is an exact reproduction of the original. A photograph or a miniature is not an exact copy.

According to the passage, the Ise Shrine, unlike the Freiburg Minster, is not continually undergoing restoration, but is completely rebuilt from scratch every 20 years.

The passage says that in the 17th century in the West, interventions were made in excavated artworks. So, option A follows from the arguments of the passage. Option C is also about interventions in excavated artworks. Option C, however, implies that whether or not interventions were made was dependent on the religious worldview of the artist. The passage does not say so. So, option C does not follow from the given arguments. Based on the last paragraph, options B and D can be inferred.

An "unassailable" original implies the original is inviolable. So, the value that the modern West assigns to an unassailable original clearly discourages them from making interventions in ancient art. It also discourages them from simultaneous displays of multiple copies of a painting, as copies are not considered to be of value (refer to the first paragraph). From the example of the cathedral of Freiburg Minster, it can also be inferred that the idea of an unassailable original provides those who restore the original with constant work. So, options A, C and D follow from the Western idea of an unassailable original.

Now, the passage does say that "Asians have far fewer scruples about cloning than Europeans". So, the idea of an unassailable original does make more Europeans think of cloning as something that is morally wrong as compared to Asians. But based on the given information, nothing can be said about human cloning being actually carried out or otherwise. So, option B cannot be inferred from the given passage.

The paragraph given states that colonialism is not a modern phenomenon but one that changed decisively in the sixteenth century due to technological developments in navigation, which enabled Europeans to establish settlements and exert political domination over the rest of the world.

Option D is the best of the given summaries.

Option A talks specifically about 'British' settlements, whereas the paragraph refers more generally to European settlements.

Option B refers specifically to 'European colonialism' and does not touch upon the idea that colonialism as such is not a modern phenomenon or one restricted to Europe.

Option C is incorrect as it states that colonialism was conceptualized in the 16th century.

The key ideas of the paragraph are that (a) manipulating information for attaining power, that is, disinformation, is not new; it was used even in ancient Rome by Octavian and (b) technology has made fabricating content and amplifying falsehoods easier.

Option C states both key ideas and is the best of the given summaries.

Option A is incorrect as it states that disinformation is 'mediated by' technology today. This is not what the paragraph states.

Option B is unrelated to the main idea of the paragraph.

Option D focuses on Octavian whereas the paragraph only gives his example to illustrate how information has been manipulated since ancient times. C is a better summary than D.

41 is a strong link. Both of these are questions related to why some crimes are destined for perpetual re-examination while others aren't. 4 goes before 1 as it is more general.

The answers to the question in 1 is given in 2. The "unusual elements" that make a particular case so attractive to a certain kind of audience may be a particularly savage or unfathomable level of depravity, something to do with the precise amount of mystery involved.

3 concludes the paragraph stating that unsolved or unsolvable cases offer something that "ordinary" murder does not.

4123 is the correct choice.