CAT 2025 Lesson : Summary - Using the Examples Given

The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best summarises the author's position.

The feeling that one's own species deserve special moral consideration as compared to members of other species is old and deep. Killing people outside war is the most seriously-regarded crime. The only thing more strongly forbidden by our culture is eating people (even if they are already dead). We enjoy eating members of other species, however. Many of us shrink from judicial execution of even the most horrible human criminals, while we cheerfully countenance the shooting of fairly mild animal pests without any trial. Indeed, we kill members of other harmless species as a means of recreation and amusement. A human foetus, with no more feeling than an amoeba, enjoys a reverence and legal protection far in excess of those granted to an adult chimpanzee. Yet the chimp feels and thinks and may even be capable of learning parts of our language. The foetus belongs to our species, and therefore, is instantly accorded special privileges and rights because of it.

(1) Humans are more protective of our own species, with killing and cannibalism getting the harshest retribution.

(2) Foetuses have higher privileges and rights than living animals because they are humans.

(3) Humans have a deep-rooted instinct to respect our own species above others.

(4) We do not realise how we are treating other species callously while protecting our own.

Solution

Here, the author explains how we give special importance to people from our own species (i.e., humans) with two examples – killing or eating humans is considered to be a serious crime (but killing other animals isn't); and that an unborn foetus with minimal feelings has more rights than other living, intelligent animals. The author contrasts this with our treatment of other species (killing them for food, convenience or entertainment; not awarding them rights).

Using these examples, we can understand the author's viewpoint clearly. This viewpoint is mentioned in option (1) and (3). Option (3) explains the reason as well (deep-rooted instinct), and hence is preferable to option (1) which describes part of the effect of this preference.

Option (2) speaks about only an example, not the context, and hence, can be eliminated.

Option (4) is extrapolating the author's viewpoint – the key message is about the intent to protect our own species, not whether this is right or wrong. Thus, we can eliminate the other options and select option (3).

Answer: (3) Humans have a deep-rooted instinct to respect our own species above others.

The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best summarises the author's position.

[CAT 2004] The human race is spread all over the world, from the polar regions to the tropics. The people of whom it is made up eat different kinds of food, partly according to the climate in which they live, and partly according to the kind of food which their country produces. In hot climates, meat and fat are not much needed; but in the Arctic regions they seem to be very necessary for keeping up the heat of the body. Thus, in India, people live chiefly on different kinds of grains, eggs, milk, or sometimes fish and meat. In Europe, people eat more meat and less grain. In the Arctic regions, where no grains and fruits are produced, the Eskimo and other races live almost entirely on meat and fish.

(1) Food eaten by people in different regions of the world depends on the climate and the produce of that region, and varies from meat and fish in the Arctic to predominantly grains in the tropics.

(2) Hot climates require people to eat grains while cold regions require people to eat meat and fish.

(3) In hot countries people eat mainly grains while in the Arctic, they eat meat and fish because they cannot grow grains.

(4) While people in Arctic regions like meat and fish and those in hot regions like India prefer mainly grains, they have to change what they eat depending on the local climate and the local produce.

Solution

The paragraph explains that the eating habits of people are based on the climate and produce of the region they live in. The author has provided examples of India, Europe and the Arctic regions.

Option (1) captures both these parameters.

Option (2) only mentions the climate, while option (3) talks only about the produce. Therefore, these options can be eliminated.

Option (4) is not factual, as the people from the Arctic region need not change having meat, nor do Indians need to change from grains. Therefore, we can eliminate this option as well.

Answer: (1) Food eaten by people in different regions of the world depends on the climate and the produce of that region, and varies from meat and fish in the Arctic to predominantly grains in the tropics.

The passage given below is followed by four summaries. Choose the option that best summarises the author's position.
[CAT 2017]

A translator of literary works needs a secure hold upon the two languages involved, supported by a good measure of familiarity with the two cultures. For an Indian translating works in an Indian language into English, finding satisfactory equivalents in a generalized western culture of practices and symbols in the original would be less difficult than gaining fluent control of contemporary English. When a westerner works on texts in Indian languages the interpretation of cultural elements will be the major challenge, rather than control over the grammar and essential vocabulary of the language concerned. It is much easier to remedy lapses in language in a text translated into English, than flaws of content. Since it is easier for an Indian to learn the English language than it is for a Briton or American to comprehend Indian culture, translations of Indian texts is better left to Indians.

(1) While translating, the Indian and the westerner face the same challenges but they have different skill profiles and the former has the advantage.

(2) As preserving cultural meanings is the essence of literary translation, Indians' knowledge of the local culture outweighs the initial disadvantage of lower fluency in English.

(3) Indian translators should translate Indian texts into English as their work is less likely to pose cultural problems which are harder to address than the quality of language.

(4) Westerners might be good at gaining reasonable fluency in new languages, but as understanding the culture reflected in literature is crucial, Indians remain better placed.

Solution

The author states that a translator must know two languages well (the language she is translating from, and the one she is translating into). The author then provides an example with an Indian language and English. He states that an Indian translator translating into English will find it difficult to gain fluency in contemporary English, whereas a western translator will find it difficult to interpret and understand Indian texts. The author says that errors in language are easier to resolve as compared to errors in content.

This reasoning is summarised in option (3), which has the conclusion and the reason for the same.

Option (1) incorrectly assumes that Indians have an advantage when translating to and from Indian languages, whereas the author only mentions the advantage for translating from Indian languages.

Option (2) also makes an error that preserving the cultural meaning is key – the author merely states that it is more difficult than correcting mistakes of vocabulary and grammar. Therefore, we can eliminate it.

Option (4) extrapolates the author's statement into a conclusion for all languages, whereas the author is only speaking about Indian literary work. Therefore, we can eliminate option (4) as well.

Answer: (3) Indian translators should translate Indian texts into English as their work is less likely to pose cultural problems which are harder to address than the quality of language.