BackALL MODULES
CAT 2025 Lesson : Verbal: Jan '25 to Feb '25 - CAT POV & RCs - 20th Jan 2025
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[CAT 2019 Slot 2]
Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones... . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved....
Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.
Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.
The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%.... The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals.... Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.
The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality.... Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow.... Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.
The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . .
Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable.... A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.
1) The “long pedigree” of the aim to shift civil servants to improve their living standards implies that this move:
(1) takes a long time to achieve its intended outcomes.
(2) has become common practice in several countries worldwide.
(3) is supported by politicians and the ruling elites.
(4) is not a new idea and has been tried in the past.
2) According to the author, relocating government agencies has not always been a success for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
(1) a rise in pollution levels and congestion in the new locations.
(2) high staff losses, as people may not be prepared to move to smaller towns.
(3) the difficulty of attracting talented, well-skilled people in more remote areas.
(4) increased avenues of corruption away from the capital city.
3) According to the passage, colonial powers located their capitals:
(1) where they had the densest populations.
(2) to showcase their power and prestige.
(3) based on political expediency.
(4) to promote their trading interests.
4) The “dilemma” mentioned in the passage refers to:
(1) encouraging private enterprises to relocate to smaller towns or not incentivising them in order to keep government costs in those towns low.
(2) keeping government agencies in the largest city with good infrastructure or moving them to a remote area with few amenities.
(3) relocating government agencies to boost growth in remote areas with poor amenities or to relatively larger cities with good amenities.
(4) concentrating on decongesting large cities or focusing on boosting employment in relatively larger cities.
5) People who support decentralising central government functions are LEAST likely to cite which of the following reasons for their view?
(1) Policy makers may benefit from fresh thinking in a new environment.
(2) It reduces expenses as infrastructure costs and salaries are lower in smaller cities.
(3) It could weaken the nexus between bureaucrats and media in the capital.
(4) More independence could be enjoyed by regulatory bodies located away from political centres.
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[CAT 2019 Slot 2]
War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.
But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."
When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.
But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.
The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.
Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .
[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.
Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.
1) Of the following arguments, which one is LEAST likely to be used by the companies that digitally scan cultural sites?
(1) It provides images free of cost to all users.
(2) It allows a large corporation to project itself as a protector of culture.
(3) It helps preserve precious images in case the sites are damaged or destroyed.
(4) It enables people who cannot physically visit these sites to experience them.
2) By “digital colonialism”, critics of the CyArk–Google project are referring to the fact that:
(1) CyArk and Google have been scanning images without copyright permission from host countries.
(2) CyArk and Google have not shared the details of digitisation with the host countries.
(3) the scanning process can damage delicate frescos and statues at the sites.
(4) countries where the scanned sites are located do not own the scan copyrights.
3) Which of the following, if true, would most strongly invalidate Dr. Watrall’s objections?
(1) CyArk uploads its scanned images of archaeological sites onto museum websites only.
(2) Google takes down advertisements on its website hosting CyArk’s scanned images.
(3) CyArk does not own the copyright on scanned images of archaeological sites.
(4) There is a ban on CyArk scanning archeological sites located in other countries.
4) In Dr. Thompson’s view, CyArk owning the copyright of its digital scans of archaeological sites is akin to:
(1) the seizing of ancient Egyptian artefacts by a Western museum.
(2) digital platforms capturing users’ data for market research.
(3) tourists uploading photos of monuments onto social media.
(4) the illegal downloading of content from the internet.
5) Based on his views mentioned in the passage, one could best characterise Dr. Watrall as being:
(1) opposed to the use of digital technology in archaeological and cultural sites in developing countries.
(2) critical about the links between a non-profit and a commercial tech platform for distributing archaeological images.
(3) dismissive of laypeople’s access to specialist images of archaeological and cultural sites.
(4) uneasy about the marketing of archaeological images for commercial use by firms such as Google and CyArk.
[CAT 2019 Slot 2]
Around the world, capital cities are disgorging bureaucrats. In the post-colonial fervour of the 20th century, coastal capitals picked by trade-focused empires were spurned for “regionally neutral” new ones... . But decamping wholesale is costly and unpopular; governments these days prefer piecemeal dispersal. The trend reflects how the world has changed. In past eras, when information travelled at a snail’s pace, civil servants had to cluster together. But now desk-workers can ping emails and video-chat around the world. Travel for face-to-face meetings may be unavoidable, but transport links, too, have improved....
Proponents of moving civil servants around promise countless benefits. It disperses the risk that a terrorist attack or natural disaster will cripple an entire government. Wonks in the sticks will be inspired by new ideas that walled-off capitals cannot conjure up. Autonomous regulators perform best far from the pressure and lobbying of the big city. Some even hail a cure for ascendant cynicism and populism. The unloved bureaucrats of faraway capitals will become as popular as firefighters once they mix with regular folk.
Beyond these sunny visions, dispersing central-government functions usually has three specific aims: to improve the lives of both civil servants and those living in clogged capitals; to save money; and to redress regional imbalances. The trouble is that these goals are not always realised.
The first aim—improving living conditions—has a long pedigree. After the second world war Britain moved thousands of civil servants to “agreeable English country towns” as London was rebuilt. But swapping the capital for somewhere smaller is not always agreeable. Attrition rates can exceed 80%.... The second reason to pack bureaucrats off is to save money. Office space costs far more in capitals.... Agencies that are moved elsewhere can often recruit better workers on lower salaries than in capitals, where well-paying multinationals mop up talent.
The third reason to shift is to rebalance regional inequality.... Norway treats federal jobs as a resource every region deserves to enjoy, like profits from oil. Where government jobs go, private ones follow.... Sometimes the aim is to fulfil the potential of a country’s second-tier cities. Unlike poor, remote places, bigger cities can make the most of relocated government agencies, linking them to local universities and businesses and supplying a better-educated workforce. The decision in 1946 to set up America’s Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta rather than Washington, D.C., has transformed the city into a hub for health-sector research and business.
The dilemma is obvious. Pick small, poor towns, and areas of high unemployment get new jobs, but it is hard to attract the most qualified workers; opt for larger cities with infrastructure and better-qualified residents, and the country’s most deprived areas see little benefit. . . .
Others contend that decentralisation begets corruption by making government agencies less accountable.... A study in America found that state-government corruption is worse when the state capital is isolated—journalists, who tend to live in the bigger cities, become less watchful of those in power.
1) The “long pedigree” of the aim to shift civil servants to improve their living standards implies that this move:
(1) takes a long time to achieve its intended outcomes.
(2) has become common practice in several countries worldwide.
(3) is supported by politicians and the ruling elites.
(4) is not a new idea and has been tried in the past.
2) According to the author, relocating government agencies has not always been a success for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
(1) a rise in pollution levels and congestion in the new locations.
(2) high staff losses, as people may not be prepared to move to smaller towns.
(3) the difficulty of attracting talented, well-skilled people in more remote areas.
(4) increased avenues of corruption away from the capital city.
3) According to the passage, colonial powers located their capitals:
(1) where they had the densest populations.
(2) to showcase their power and prestige.
(3) based on political expediency.
(4) to promote their trading interests.
4) The “dilemma” mentioned in the passage refers to:
(1) encouraging private enterprises to relocate to smaller towns or not incentivising them in order to keep government costs in those towns low.
(2) keeping government agencies in the largest city with good infrastructure or moving them to a remote area with few amenities.
(3) relocating government agencies to boost growth in remote areas with poor amenities or to relatively larger cities with good amenities.
(4) concentrating on decongesting large cities or focusing on boosting employment in relatively larger cities.
5) People who support decentralising central government functions are LEAST likely to cite which of the following reasons for their view?
(1) Policy makers may benefit from fresh thinking in a new environment.
(2) It reduces expenses as infrastructure costs and salaries are lower in smaller cities.
(3) It could weaken the nexus between bureaucrats and media in the capital.
(4) More independence could be enjoyed by regulatory bodies located away from political centres.
The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.
[CAT 2019 Slot 2]
War, natural disasters and climate change are destroying some of the world's most precious cultural sites. Google is trying to help preserve these archaeological wonders by allowing users access to 3D images of these treasures through its site.
But the project is raising questions about Google's motivations and about who should own the digital copyrights. Some critics call it a form of "digital colonialism."
When it comes to archaeological treasures, the losses have been mounting. ISIS blew up parts of the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and an earthquake hit Bagan, an ancient city in Myanmar, damaging dozens of temples, in 2016. In the past, all archaeologists and historians had for restoration and research were photos, drawings, remnants and intuition.
But that's changing. Before the earthquake at Bagan, many of the temples on the site were scanned. . . . [These] scans . . . are on Google's Arts & Culture site. The digital renditions allow viewers to virtually wander the halls of the temple, look up-close at paintings and turn the building over, to look up at its chambers. . . . [Google Arts & Culture] works with museums and other nonprofits . . . to put high-quality images online.
The images of the temples in Bagan are part of a collaboration with CyArk, a nonprofit that creates the 3D scanning of historic sites. . . . Google . . . says [it] doesn't make money off this website, but it fits in with Google's mission to make the world's information available and useful.
Critics say the collaboration could be an attempt by a large corporation to wrap itself in the sheen of culture. Ethan Watrall, an archaeologist, professor at Michigan State University and a member of the Society for American Archaeology, says he's not comfortable with the arrangement between CyArk and Google. . . . Watrall says this project is just a way for Google to promote Google. "They want to make this material accessible so people will browse it and be filled with wonder by it," he says. "But at its core, it's all about advertisements and driving traffic." Watrall says these images belong on the site of a museum or educational institution, where there is serious scholarship and a very different mission. . . .
[There's] another issue for some archaeologists and art historians. CyArk owns the copyrights of the scans — not the countries where these sites are located. That means the countries need CyArk's permission to use these images for commercial purposes.
Erin Thompson, a professor of art crime at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, says it's the latest example of a Western nation appropriating a foreign culture, a centuries-long battle. . . . CyArk says it copyrights the scans so no one can use them in an inappropriate way. The company says it works closely with authorities during the process, even training local people to help. But critics like Thompson are not persuaded. . . . She would prefer the scans to be owned by the countries and people where these sites are located.
1) Of the following arguments, which one is LEAST likely to be used by the companies that digitally scan cultural sites?
(1) It provides images free of cost to all users.
(2) It allows a large corporation to project itself as a protector of culture.
(3) It helps preserve precious images in case the sites are damaged or destroyed.
(4) It enables people who cannot physically visit these sites to experience them.
2) By “digital colonialism”, critics of the CyArk–Google project are referring to the fact that:
(1) CyArk and Google have been scanning images without copyright permission from host countries.
(2) CyArk and Google have not shared the details of digitisation with the host countries.
(3) the scanning process can damage delicate frescos and statues at the sites.
(4) countries where the scanned sites are located do not own the scan copyrights.
3) Which of the following, if true, would most strongly invalidate Dr. Watrall’s objections?
(1) CyArk uploads its scanned images of archaeological sites onto museum websites only.
(2) Google takes down advertisements on its website hosting CyArk’s scanned images.
(3) CyArk does not own the copyright on scanned images of archaeological sites.
(4) There is a ban on CyArk scanning archeological sites located in other countries.
4) In Dr. Thompson’s view, CyArk owning the copyright of its digital scans of archaeological sites is akin to:
(1) the seizing of ancient Egyptian artefacts by a Western museum.
(2) digital platforms capturing users’ data for market research.
(3) tourists uploading photos of monuments onto social media.
(4) the illegal downloading of content from the internet.
5) Based on his views mentioned in the passage, one could best characterise Dr. Watrall as being:
(1) opposed to the use of digital technology in archaeological and cultural sites in developing countries.
(2) critical about the links between a non-profit and a commercial tech platform for distributing archaeological images.
(3) dismissive of laypeople’s access to specialist images of archaeological and cultural sites.
(4) uneasy about the marketing of archaeological images for commercial use by firms such as Google and CyArk.
Want to read the full content
Unlock this content & enjoy all the features of the platform
Subscribe Now
