CAT 2020 Slot 1 VARC Question & Solution

Reading ComprehensionMedium

Passage

The passage below is accompanied by a set of questions. Choose the best answer to each question.

Vocabulary used in speech or writing organizes itself in seven parts of speech (eight, if you count interjections such as Oh! and Gosh! and Fuhgeddaboudit!). Communication composed of these parts of speech must be organized by rules of grammar upon which we agree. When these rules break down, confusion and misunderstanding result. Bad grammar produces bad sentences. My favorite example from Strunk and White is this one: “As a mother of five, with another one on the way, my ironing board is always up.”

Nouns and verbs are the two indispensable parts of writing. Without one of each, no group of words can be a sentence, since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb); these strings of words begin with a capital letter, end with a period, and combine to make a complete thought which starts in the writer’s head and then leaps to the reader’s.

Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away. Even William Strunk, that Mussolini of rhetoric, recognized the delicious pliability of language. “It is an old observation,” he writes, “that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric.” Yet he goes on to add this thought, which I urge you to consider: “Unless he is certain of doing well, [the writer] will probably do best to follow the rules.”

The telling clause here is Unless he is certain of doing well. If you don’t have a rudimentary grasp of how the parts of speech translate into coherent sentences, how can you be certain that you are doing well? How will you know if you’re doing ill, for that matter? The answer, of course, is that you can’t, you won’t. One who does grasp the rudiments of grammar finds a comforting simplicity at its heart, where there need be only nouns, the words that name, and verbs, the words that act.

Take any noun, put it with any verb, and you have a sentence. It never fails. Rocks explode. Jane transmits. Mountains float. These are all perfect sentences. Many such thoughts make little rational sense, but even the stranger ones (Plums deify!) have a kind of poetic weight that’s nice. The simplicity of noun-verb construction is useful—at the very least it can provide a safety net for your writing. Strunk and White caution against too many simple sentences in a row, but simple sentences provide a path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric—all those restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, those modifying phrases, those appositives and compound-complex sentences. If you start to freak out at the sight of such unmapped territory (unmapped by you, at least), just remind yourself that rocks explode, Jane transmits, mountains float, and plums deify. Grammar is . . . the pole you grab to get your thoughts up on their feet and walking.

Question 1

Which one of the following statements, if false, could be seen as supporting the arguments in the passage?

An understanding of grammar helps a writer decide if she/he is writing well or not.

Regarding grammar, women writers tend to be more attentive to method and
accuracy.

It has been observed that writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric.

Perish the thought that complete sentences necessarily need nouns and verbs!

Solution:

We need to find a statement, which if false, aligns with the discussion/serves as a supporting argument. Let us inspect the individual options:

Option A: In its current form, this statement is in tune with the author's assertion. However, if false, it is antagonistic to the claim being made in the passage. Hence, we can eliminate this option.

Options B and C: Regardless of whether these statements are true or false, they do very little to further the idea presented in the passage.

Option D: This statement implies that complete sentences do not need nouns and verbs. However, in the passage, the author says otherwise; thus, if this sentence is false, it perfectly aligns with the argument made in the passage. Therefore, Option D, if false, could be seen as a supplementary argument.

Question 2

“Take any noun, put it with any verb, and you have a sentence. It never fails. Rocks explode. Jane transmits. Mountains float.” None of the following statements can be seen as similar EXCEPT:

Take any vegetable, put some spices in it, and you have a dish

Take an apple tree, plant it in a field, and you have an orchard.

A group of nouns arranged in a row becomes a sentence.

A collection of people with the same sports equipment is a sports team.

Solution:

The author intends to highlight that the rudimentary combination of a noun and a verb serves as the simplest form of expression; two basic yet immensely significant entities coupled together that is representative of a broader and perhaps, complex group of entities {a sentence}. Option A is closest to such a relationship: vegetables and spices (two elements) combined to represent a larger group - 'dishes'. The same cannot be said about the rest of the options, since they evidently deviate from the core message being conveyed.

Question 3

Which one of the following quotes best captures the main concern of the passage?

“The telling clause here is Unless he is certain of doing well.”

“Bad grammar produces bad sentences.”

“Strunk and White caution against too many simple sentences in a row, but simple sentences provide a path you can follow when you fear getting lost in the tangles of rhetoric . . .”

“Nouns and verbs are the two indispensable parts of writing. Without one of each, no group of words can be a sentence . . .”

Solution:

The author begins by highlighting the necessity for a set of codes (enabled by grammar) to organize communication and avoid confusion. He then proceeds to present supplementary arguments in this regard (elements associated with rhetoric and its specialists) and emphasizes how even proper, intentional simplification can be attained only through a firm grasp of the rudiments of grammar. Therefore, it can be observed that grammar is the focal point here and the correct choice should definitely align with this. Option B aptly captures the main concern raised in the passage. Options A and C fail to include the idea revolving around grammar and instead focuses on the additives. Option D is close; however, the mention of nouns and verbs is with the intention to supplement the idea highlighted in B. These simply serve as an illustration to emphasize the significance of grammar. Thus, between the two options B and D, Option B is the suitable choice.

Question 4

All of the following statements can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT that:

sentences do not always have to be complete.

the subject-predicate relation is the same as the noun-verb relation.

the primary purpose of grammar is to ensure that sentences remain simple.

“Grammar Police” is a metaphor for critics who focus on linguistic rules.

Solution:

Option A: This can be inferred from "...Must you write complete sentences each time, every time? Perish the thought. If your work consists only of fragments and floating clauses, the Grammar Police aren’t going to come and take you away..." The author presents an illustration to show how a simple combination of a noun and verb forms a complete expression.

Option B: Based on the limited information available from the passage, we can make this inference from "...no group of words can be a sentence, since a sentence is, by definition, a group of words containing a subject (noun) and a predicate (verb)..."

Option C: The author does not make any such claim. Grammar serves as a mechanism to organize communication and avoid confusion. However, the "primary purpose" of grammar is not to ensure that sentences remain "simple". Since we cannot infer this statement from the passage, it is the correct answer.

Option D: Although not explicitly mentioned, we can understand the sentiment behind using the term "Grammar Police". The author is using this as a metaphor for the strong adherents of the grammatic rules (who are perhaps swift to judge and criticize).

Therefore, we can infer all of the statements except for the one in Option C.

Question 5

Inferring from the passage, the author could be most supportive of which one of the following practices?

The availability of language software that will standardise the rules of grammar as an aid to writers.

A campaign demanding that a writer’s creative license should allow the breaking of grammatical rules.

A Creative Writing course that focuses on how to avoid the use of rhetoric.

The critique of standardised rules of punctuation and capitalisation.

Solution:

In this question, we need to identify the statement that coincides with the aspects discussed by the author. Putting ourselves in the author's shoes, we know that grammar (and the necessity to appropriately learn it) is the primary idea that needs to be conveyed. Writers with a substantial understanding of the elementary rules in grammar can appreciate the "comforting simplicity at its heart" (is what the author claims). Thus, the author will surely support any stance that concurs with the above.

Option A: This will definitely supplement the assertion made by the author. It will enable writers with the requisite understanding of the standard governing rules - a significant necessity highlighted by the author. He is bound to favor such an action.

Option B: The author would endorse such drastic measures (does not match the tone). The pliability of grammatical rules is a noticeable comment made by the author (but only for those well-versed with it). Hence, we can eliminate this option.

Option C: The author does not portray any view that promotes the eschewal of rhetoric. This again deviates from the discussion in the passage and can be scrapped as the correct choice.

Option D: The focus is broad: on grammar (not just on punctuation and capitalization).

It is evident that Option A is the only sensible statement that the author would support here.