XAT Verbal Reasoning MCQs with Solutions: Practice XAT Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Direction: Read the poem and answer the TWO questions that follow.
The slow person you left behind when, finally,
you mastered the world, and scaled the heights you now command,
where is he while you
walked around the shaved lawn in your plus fours,
organizing with an electric clipboard
your big push to tomorrow?
Oh, I have come across him, yes, I have, more than once,
coaxing his battered grocery cart down the freeway meridian,
Others see in you sundry mythic types distinguished
not just in themselves but by the stories
we put in with beginnings, ends, surprises:
the baby Oedipus on the hillside with his broken feet
or the dog whose barking saves the grandmother
flailing in the millpond beyond the weir,
dragged down by her woolen skirt.
He doesn’t see you as a story, though.
He feels you as his atmosphere. When your sun shines,
he chorteles. When your barometric pressure drops
and the thunder heads gather,
he huddles under the overpass and writes me long letters with
the study little pencil he steals from the public library.
He asks me to look out for you.
Which of the following BEST captures the theme of the poem?

When facing various challenges, people in today’s digital world heavily rely on private, online informationseeking behaviour. Individuals who experience depression will often attempt to understand their predicament and seek remedy by searching the Internet for depression-related information and treatment. A recent report says that there exists evidence of many searches comprising the word depression, during and just after the elections, in country Y. So, it can be concluded that the election is experienced by many people in country Y as a truly psychologically traumatizing event—and as such as being potentially depressionogenic.
Which of the following statements MOST seriously weakens the conclusion drawn in the passage?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
It is harder and harder to make sense of life. Everything is changing, all the time, at a faster and faster pace. Our civilization is struggling to keep up with exponential technology and disruptive change. Our age-old institutions, politics, economics, ethics, religion and laws, even our environment, are so fundamentally challenged, that we risk collapse. Our stories have gotten so divorced from reality, so divisive, so inflexible and so inept to adapt to and explain our present, let alone guide us towards a better future, that we often feel like helpless passengers on a Titanic spaceship Earth. No wonder Aristotle observed that “When the storytelling goes bad in a society, the result is decadence.”
But why is this the case? And, perhaps more importantly, how is it that bad storytelling can keep, if not bring, a whole society down? Is that not simply overstating the power of story?
Literary theorist Kenneth Burke famously noted: “Stories are equipment for human living. We need storytelling in order to make certain sense out of life.” If that is true then our equipment for living has gone obsolete. And unless we upgrade it we are going to go obsolete too.
It was this process that Fred Polak had in mind in 1961 while observing:
Any student of the rise and fall of cultures cannot fail to be impressed by the role played in this historical succession by the image of the future. The rise and fall of images precede or accompany the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.
That is why we desperately need a new story. A story that will not only help us make sense of the world today but also unite us as a species of human beings. A story that will motivate us to stop bickering and resolve our common problems. A story that will inspire us to achieve our common goals and guide us towards a better future for all sentient beings on our planet.
We have to rewrite the human story. Because the old stories that brought us thus far are no longer useful. They’ve lost their vision and grandeur. They’ve become petty and short-sighted. They’re stuck in a past that never was at the expense of a future that can be. They divide us and keep us bickering while our civilization is facing unprecedented diversity and depth of existential challenges. Those stories are not simply our history. They are now our chains. And unless we break them, they will be our death sentence.
So, it is worth exploring if or how new stories, good stories can bring us up.
The human story that brought us into the 21st century was written and rewritten several times. The latest major update was perhaps during the industrial revolution. It is time to rewrite it again. We need a new story. A brave story. An unreasonable story. A story that can inspire, unite and motivate us to break free from the past and create the best possible future.
Read the following statements:
1). A story without connections and coherence.
2). A story that talks about recreating the past glory.
3). A story may not be factually true.
4). A story that is meaningful and compelling for humanity
Which of the above statements can be ASSOCIATED with the meaning of “unreasonable story”, as used in the passage?

Direction:  Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Corporations continue to ignore the threat of global warming, probably because global warming is a hyper-object, very difficult to touch and feel. Because hyper-objects have much wider time-space boundaries than human beings, we tend to consider hyper-objects as given and non-existent. Therefore, it is very difficult to deal with hyper-objects as their common understanding is lacking. Some of us continue to believe that global warming is blown out of proportion-it is not a serious threat. Even those who understood hyper-objects have yet to figure out the right response to them.
The lack of understanding and response from corporations to “climate change” is evident from the fact that most businesses have remained largely human-centric. Some businesses have adopted green practices- voluntarily, or involuntary. These efforts attempt to reduce emissions through better energy efficiency. Though laudable, the efforts have failed to make any significant dent at the global level; the planet continues to get warmer. Moreover, most of the efforts are still in the sphere of “business as usual” and “what is good for us”.
Business as usual, the current model of economic production and distribution is deeply flawed as it is based mainly on the capitalistic ethos of free-market legitimized through private property, competition, and unlimited consumption. The word “free” has come to mean that there are no constraints on individuals, and the word market has come to mean that buying and selling are the primary mechanisms, and everything is a transaction. Private property gives individuals/nations a chance to create legal rights to own more and more, subject to very little constraints. It is evident in income inequalities witnessed across the world. The very notion of ownership is control-oriented and human-centric that promotes unlimited extraction from the environment, hyper-nationalism, and hyper-individualism. The extraction and exploitation of the environment has served our economic interests, and led to the growth and survival of businesses. However, it has also led to the destruction of the environment. Global warming is the response of nature to human actions driven by businesses operating on the principles of surplus, predictability, control, hyper-rationality, linearity, and quantification. In other words, “business as usual” has yet to dance to the rhythm of nature.
According to the passage, which of the following will be closest to the idea of hyper-object?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Interpretation in our own time, however, is even more complex. For the contemporary zeal for the project of interpretation is often prompted not by piety toward the troublesome text (which may conceal an aggression), but by an open aggressiveness, an overt contempt for appearances. The old style of interpretation was insistent, but respectful; it erected another meaning on top of the literal one. The modern style of interpretation excavates, and as it excavates, destroys; it digs “behind” the text, to find a sub-text which is the true one. The most celebrated and influential modern doctrines, those of Marx and Freud, actually amount to elaborate systems of hermeneutics, aggressive and impious theories of interpretation. All observable phenomena are bracketed, in Freud’s phrase, as manifest content. This manifest content must be probed and pushed aside to find the true meaning—the latent content beneath. For Marx, social events like revolutions and wars; for Freud, the events of individual lives (like neurotic symptoms and slips of the tongue) as well as texts (like a dream or a work of art)—all are treated as occasions for interpretation. According to Marx and Freud, these events only seem to be intelligible. Actually, they have no meaning without interpretation. To understand is to interpret. And to interpret is to restate the phenomenon, in effect to find an equivalent for it.
Thus, interpretation is not (as most people assume) an absolute value, a gesture of mind situated in some timeless realm of capabilities. Interpretation must itself be evaluated, within a historical view of human consciousness. In some cultural contexts, interpretation is a liberating act. It is a means of revising, of transvaluing, of escaping the dead past. In other cultural contexts, it is reactionary, impertinent, cowardly and stifling.
What does the author mean by “Thus, interpretation is not…a gesture of mind situated in some timeless realm of capabilities?”

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
More people signed up for Harvard’s online courses in a year, for example, than have attended the university in its 377 years of existence. In the same spirit, there are more unique visits each month to the WebMD network, a collection of health websites, than to all the doctors working in the United States. In the legal world, three times as many disagreements each year amongst eBay traders are resolved using ‘online dispute resolution’ than there are lawsuits filed in the entire US court system. On its sixth birthday, the Huffington Post had more unique monthly visitors than the website of the New York Times, which is almost 164 years of age. The British tax authorities use a fraud-detection system that holds more data than the British Library (which has copies of every book ever published in the UK). In 2014, the US tax authorities received electronic tax returns from almost 48 million people who had used online tax preparation software rather than a tax professional to help them. The architectural firm Gramazio & Kohler used a group of autonomous flying robots to assemble a structure out of 1500 bricks. The consulting firm Accenture has 750 hospital nurses on its staff, while Deloitte, founded as an audit practice 170 years ago, now has over 200,000 professionals and its own full-scale corporate university set in a 700,000-square-foot campus in Texas.
The author of the above paragraph is trying to conclude something by citing different pieces of evidence. What could the author be trying to prove?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Corporations continue to ignore the threat of global warming, probably because global warming is a hyper-object, very difficult to touch and feel. Because hyper-objects have much wider time-space boundaries than human beings, we tend to consider hyper-objects as given and non-existent. Therefore, it is very difficult to deal with hyper-objects as their common understanding is lacking. Some of us continue to believe that global warming is blown out of proportion-it is not a serious threat. Even those who understood hyper-objects have yet to figure out the right response to them.
The lack of understanding and response from corporations to “climate change” is evident from the fact that most businesses have remained largely human-centric. Some businesses have adopted green practices- voluntarily, or involuntary. These efforts attempt to reduce emissions through better energy efficiency. Though laudable, the efforts have failed to make any significant dent at the global level; the planet continues to get warmer. Moreover, most of the efforts are still in the sphere of “business as usual” and “what is good for us”.
Business as usual, the current model of economic production and distribution is deeply flawed as it is based mainly on the capitalistic ethos of free-market legitimized through private property, competition, and unlimited consumption. The word “free” has come to mean that there are no constraints on individuals, and the word market has come to mean that buying and selling are the primary mechanisms, and everything is a transaction. Private property gives individuals/nations a chance to create legal rights to own more and more, subject to very little constraints. It is evident in income inequalities witnessed across the world. The very notion of ownership is control-oriented and human-centric that promotes unlimited extraction from the environment, hyper-nationalism, and hyper-individualism. The extraction and exploitation of the environment has served our economic interests, and led to the growth and survival of businesses. However, it has also led to the destruction of the environment. Global warming is the response of nature to human actions driven by businesses operating on the principles of surplus, predictability, control, hyper-rationality, linearity, and quantification. In other words, “business as usual” has yet to dance to the rhythm of nature.
Which of the following statement(s) is NOT in consonance with the author’s views, as expressed in the passage?
1). Patents should be respected.
2). Trading of shares on the free stock markets should be promoted.
3). Building a beautiful resort on a hilltop.

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
It is harder and harder to make sense of life. Everything is changing, all the time, at a faster and faster pace. Our civilization is struggling to keep up with exponential technology and disruptive change. Our age-old institutions, politics, economics, ethics, religion and laws, even our environment, are so fundamentally challenged, that we risk collapse. Our stories have gotten so divorced from reality, so divisive, so inflexible and so inept to adapt to and explain our present, let alone guide us towards a better future, that we often feel like helpless passengers on a Titanic spaceship Earth. No wonder Aristotle observed that “When the storytelling goes bad in a society, the result is decadence.”
But why is this the case? And, perhaps more importantly, how is it that bad storytelling can keep, if not bring, a whole society down? Is that not simply overstating the power of story?
Literary theorist Kenneth Burke famously noted: “Stories are equipment for human living. We need storytelling in order to make certain sense out of life.” If that is true then our equipment for living has gone obsolete. And unless we upgrade it we are going to go obsolete too.
It was this process that Fred Polak had in mind in 1961 while observing:
Any student of the rise and fall of cultures cannot fail to be impressed by the role played in this historical succession by the image of the future. The rise and fall of images precede or accompany the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.
That is why we desperately need a new story. A story that will not only help us make sense of the world today but also unite us as a species of human beings. A story that will motivate us to stop bickering and resolve our common problems. A story that will inspire us to achieve our common goals and guide us towards a better future for all sentient beings on our planet.
We have to rewrite the human story. Because the old stories that brought us thus far are no longer useful. They’ve lost their vision and grandeur. They’ve become petty and short-sighted. They’re stuck in a past that never was at the expense of a future that can be. They divide us and keep us bickering while our civilization is facing unprecedented diversity and depth of existential challenges. Those stories are not simply our history. They are now our chains. And unless we break them, they will be our death sentence.
So, it is worth exploring if or how new stories, good stories can bring us up.
The human story that brought us into the 21st century was written and rewritten several times. The latest major update was perhaps during the industrial revolution. It is time to rewrite it again. We need a new story. A brave story. An unreasonable story. A story that can inspire, unite and motivate us to break free from the past and create the best possible future.
According to the passage, which of the following is NOT associated with bad storytelling in a society?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Socrates believed that akrasia (meaning procrastination) was, strictly speaking, impossible, since we could not want what is bad for us; if we act against our own interests, it must be because we don’t know what’s right. Loewenstein, similarly, is inclined to see the procrastinator as led astray by the “visceral” rewards of the present. As the nineteenth-century Scottish economist John Rae put it, “The prospects of future good, which future years may hold on us, seem at such a moment dull and dubious, and are apt to be slighted, for objects on which the daylight is falling strongly, and showing us in all their freshness just within our grasp.” Loewenstein also suggests that our memory for the intensity of visceral rewards is deficient: when we put off preparing for that meeting by telling ourselves that we’ll do it tomorrow, we fail to take into account that tomorrow the temptation to put off work will be just as strong.
Ignorance might also affect procrastination through what the social scientist Jon Elster calls “the planning fallacy.” Elster thinks that people underestimate the time “it will take them to complete a given task, partly because they fail to take account of how long it has taken them to complete similar projects in the past and partly because they rely on smooth scenarios in which accidents or unforeseen problems never occur.”
Which of the following statements can be BEST inferred from the passage about procrastination?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Corporations continue to ignore the threat of global warming, probably because global warming is a hyper-object, very difficult to touch and feel. Because hyper-objects have much wider time-space boundaries than human beings, we tend to consider hyper-objects as given and non-existent. Therefore, it is very difficult to deal with hyper-objects as their common understanding is lacking. Some of us continue to believe that global warming is blown out of proportion-it is not a serious threat. Even those who understood hyper-objects have yet to figure out the right response to them.
The lack of understanding and response from corporations to “climate change” is evident from the fact that most businesses have remained largely human-centric. Some businesses have adopted green practices- voluntarily, or involuntary. These efforts attempt to reduce emissions through better energy efficiency. Though laudable, the efforts have failed to make any significant dent at the global level; the planet continues to get warmer. Moreover, most of the efforts are still in the sphere of “business as usual” and “what is good for us”.
Business as usual, the current model of economic production and distribution is deeply flawed as it is based mainly on the capitalistic ethos of free-market legitimized through private property, competition, and unlimited consumption. The word “free” has come to mean that there are no constraints on individuals, and the word market has come to mean that buying and selling are the primary mechanisms, and everything is a transaction. Private property gives individuals/nations a chance to create legal rights to own more and more, subject to very little constraints. It is evident in income inequalities witnessed across the world. The very notion of ownership is control-oriented and human-centric that promotes unlimited extraction from the environment, hyper-nationalism, and hyper-individualism. The extraction and exploitation of the environment has served our economic interests, and led to the growth and survival of businesses. However, it has also led to the destruction of the environment. Global warming is the response of nature to human actions driven by businesses operating on the principles of surplus, predictability, control, hyper-rationality, linearity, and quantification. In other words, “business as usual” has yet to dance to the rhythm of nature.
Based on the passage, which of the following is NOT an example of human-centric statement?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
It is harder and harder to make sense of life. Everything is changing, all the time, at a faster and faster pace. Our civilization is struggling to keep up with exponential technology and disruptive change. Our age-old institutions, politics, economics, ethics, religion and laws, even our environment, are so fundamentally challenged, that we risk collapse. Our stories have gotten so divorced from reality, so divisive, so inflexible and so inept to adapt to and explain our present, let alone guide us towards a better future, that we often feel like helpless passengers on a Titanic spaceship Earth. No wonder Aristotle observed that “When the storytelling goes bad in a society, the result is decadence.”
But why is this the case? And, perhaps more importantly, how is it that bad storytelling can keep, if not bring, a whole society down? Is that not simply overstating the power of story?
Literary theorist Kenneth Burke famously noted: “Stories are equipment for human living. We need storytelling in order to make certain sense out of life.” If that is true then our equipment for living has gone obsolete. And unless we upgrade it we are going to go obsolete too.
It was this process that Fred Polak had in mind in 1961 while observing:
Any student of the rise and fall of cultures cannot fail to be impressed by the role played in this historical succession by the image of the future. The rise and fall of images precede or accompany the rise and fall of cultures. As long as a society’s image is positive and flourishing, the flower of culture is in full bloom. Once the image begins to decay and lose its vitality, however, the culture does not long survive.
That is why we desperately need a new story. A story that will not only help us make sense of the world today but also unite us as a species of human beings. A story that will motivate us to stop bickering and resolve our common problems. A story that will inspire us to achieve our common goals and guide us towards a better future for all sentient beings on our planet.
We have to rewrite the human story. Because the old stories that brought us thus far are no longer useful. They’ve lost their vision and grandeur. They’ve become petty and short-sighted. They’re stuck in a past that never was at the expense of a future that can be. They divide us and keep us bickering while our civilization is facing unprecedented diversity and depth of existential challenges. Those stories are not simply our history. They are now our chains. And unless we break them, they will be our death sentence.
So, it is worth exploring if or how new stories, good stories can bring us up.
The human story that brought us into the 21st century was written and rewritten several times. The latest major update was perhaps during the industrial revolution. It is time to rewrite it again. We need a new story. A brave story. An unreasonable story. A story that can inspire, unite and motivate us to break free from the past and create the best possible future.
Which of the following options BEST captures the essence of a GOOD STORY?

Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.
As a generation, we are rethinking what we are to others. Our technological prowess has become a wireless lifeline for others. Some of us apply ourselves to innovation: hackathons and other forms of technological creativity. Our families look to us to know how to use technology both to waste time and to make meaning. Some of us set up Facetime for those denied face‐to‐face time. We show them it will be OK, that digital relationships are real relationships – though in fact we are not always sure.
Which of the following will be the most MEANINGFUL conclusion of the passage?

Direction: Read the poem and answer the TWO questions that follow.
The slow person you left behind when, finally,
you mastered the world, and scaled the heights you now command,
where is he while you
walked around the shaved lawn in your plus fours,
organizing with an electric clipboard
your big push to tomorrow?
Oh, I have come across him, yes, I have, more than once,
coaxing his battered grocery cart down the freeway meridian,
Others see in you sundry mythic types distinguished
not just in themselves but by the stories
we put in with beginnings, ends, surprises:
the baby Oedipus on the hillside with his broken feet
or the dog whose barking saves the grandmother
flailing in the millpond beyond the weir,
dragged down by her woolen skirt.
He doesn’t see you as a story, though.
He feels you as his atmosphere. When your sun shines,
he chorteles. When your barometric pressure drops
and the thunder heads gather,
he huddles under the overpass and writes me long letters with
the study little pencil he steals from the public library.
He asks me to look out for you.
Which of the following statements BEST interprets the lines “He doesn’t see you as a story, though/He feels you as his atmosphere”?

Direction: Read the following passage and answer the THREE questions that follow.
Socrates believed that akrasia (meaning procrastination) was, strictly speaking, impossible, since we could not want what is bad for us; if we act against our own interests, it must be because we don’t know what’s right. Loewenstein, similarly, is inclined to see the procrastinator as led astray by the “visceral” rewards of the present. As the nineteenth-century Scottish economist John Rae put it, “The prospects of future good, which future years may hold on us, seem at such a moment dull and dubious, and are apt to be slighted, for objects on which the daylight is falling strongly, and showing us in all their freshness just within our grasp.” Loewenstein also suggests that our memory for the intensity of visceral rewards is deficient: when we put off preparing for that meeting by telling ourselves that we’ll do it tomorrow, we fail to take into account that tomorrow the temptation to put off work will be just as strong.
Ignorance might also affect procrastination through what the social scientist Jon Elster calls “the planning fallacy.” Elster thinks that people underestimate the time “it will take them to complete a given task, partly because they fail to take account of how long it has taken them to complete similar projects in the past and partly because they rely on smooth scenarios in which accidents or unforeseen problems never occur.”
Which of the following is the meaning that comes CLOSEST to “our memory for the intensity of visceral rewards is deficient” as suggested by Loewenstein?