Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follows.
Neuroscience, like many other sciences, has a bottomless appetite for data. Flashy enterprises such as the BRAIN Initiative, announced by Barack Obama in 2013, or the Human Brain Project, approved by the European Union in the same year, aim to analyse the way that thousands or even millions of nerve cells interact in a real brain. The hope is that the torrents of data these schemes generate will contain some crucial nuggets that let neuroscientists get closer to understanding how exactly the brain does what it does.
But a paper just published in PLOS Computational Biology questions whether more information is the same thing as more understanding. It does so by way of neuroscience’s favourite analogy: comparing the brain to a computer. Like brains, computers process information by shuffling electricity around complicated circuits. Unlike the workings of brains, though, those of computers are understood on every level.
Eric Jonas of the University of California, Berkeley, and Konrad Kording of Northwestern University, in Chicago, who both have backgrounds in neuroscience and electronic engineering, reasoned that a computer was, therefore, a good way to test the analytical toolkit used by modern neuroscience. Their idea was to see whether applying those techniques to a microprocessor produced information that matched what they already knew to be true about how the chip works.
Their test subject was the MOS Technology 6502, first produced in 1975 and famous for powering, among other things, early Atari, Apple and Commodore computers. With just 3,510 transistors, the 6502 is simple enough for enthusiasts to have created a simulation that can model the electrical state of every transistor, and the voltage on every one of the thousands of wires connecting those transistors to each other, as the virtual chip runs a particular program. That simulation produces about 1.5 gigabytes of data a second—a large amount, but well within the capabilities of the algorithms currently employed to probe the mysteries of biological brains.
The chips are down One common tactic in brain science is to compare damaged brains with healthy ones. If damage to part of the brain causes predictable changes in behaviour, then researchers can infer what that part of the brain does. In rats, for instance, damaging the hippocampus—two small, banana-shaped structures buried towards the bottom of the brain—reliably interferes with the creatures’ ability to recognise objects.
When applied to the chip, though, that method turned up some interesting false positives. The researchers found, for instance, that disabling one particular group of transistors prevented the chip from running the boot-up sequence of “Donkey Kong”—the Nintendo game that introduced Mario the plumber to the world—while preserving its ability to run other games. But it would be a mistake, Dr. Jonas points out, to conclude that those transistors were thus uniquely responsible for “Donkey Kong”. The truth is more subtle. They are instead part of a circuit that implements a much more basic computing function that is crucial for loading one piece of software, but not some others.
Another neuroscientific approach is to look for correlations between the activity of groups of nerve cells and particular behavior. Applied to the chip, the researchers’ algorithms found five transistors whose activity was strongly correlated with the brightness of the most recently displayed pixel on the screen. Again, though, that seemingly significant finding was mostly an illusion. Drs Jonas and Kording know that these transistors are not directly involved in drawing pictures on the screen. (In the Atari, that was the job of an entirely different chip, the Television Interface Adaptor.) They are only involved in the trivial sense that they are used by some part of the program which is ultimately deciding what goes on the screen.
The researchers also analysed the chip’s wiring diagram, something biologists would call its connectome. Feeding this into analytical algorithms yielded lots of superficially impressive data that hinted at the presence of some of the structures which the researchers knew were present within the chip. On closer inspection, though, little of it turned out to be useful. The patterns were a mishmash of unrelated structures that were as misleading as they were illuminating. This fits with the frustrating experience of real neuroscience. Researchers have had a complete connectome of a tiny worm, Caenorhabditis elegans, which has just 302 nerve cells, since 1986. Yet they understand much less about how the creature’s “brain” works than they do about computer chips with millions of times as many components.
The essential problem, says Dr. Jonas, is that the neuroscience techniques failed to find many chip structures that the researchers knew were there, and which are vital for comprehending what is actually going on in it. Chips are made from transistors, which are tiny electronic switches. These are organised into logic gates, which implement simple logical operations. Those gates, in turn, are organised into structures such as adders (which do exactly what their name suggests). An arithmetic logic unit might contain several adders. And so on.
But inferring the existence of such high-level structures—working out exactly how the mess of electrical currents within the chip gives rise to a cartoon ape throwing barrels at a plumber—is difficult. That is not a problem unique to neuroscience. Dr. Jonas draws a comparison with the Human Genome Project, the heroic effort to sequence a complete human genome that finished in 2003. The hope was that this would provide insights into everything from cancer to aging. But it has proved much more difficult than expected to extract those sorts of revelations from what is, ultimately, just a long string of text written in the four letters of the genetic code.
Things were not entirely hopeless. The researchers’ algorithms did, for instance, detect the master clock signal, which co-ordinates the operations of different parts of the chip. And some neuroscientists have criticized the paper, arguing that the analogy between chips and brains is not so close that techniques for analyzing one should automatically work on the other.
Gaël Varoquaux, a machine-learning specialist at the Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, in France, says that the 6502, in particular, is about as different from a brain as it could be. Such primitive chips process information sequentially. Brains (and modern microprocessors) juggle many computations at once. And he points out that, for all its limitations, neuroscience has made real progress. The ins-and-outs of parts of the visual system, for instance, such as how it categorizes features like lines and shapes, are reasonably well understood.
Dr. Jonas acknowledges both points. “I don’t want to claim that neuroscience has accomplished nothing!” he says. Instead, he goes back to the analogy with the Human Genome Project. The data is generated, and the reams of extra information churned out by modern, far more capable gene-sequencers, have certainly been useful. But hype-fuelled hopes of an immediate leap in understanding were dashed. Obtaining data is one thing. Working out what they are saying is another.
1. What, according to the context, is true about the analysis of the researchers?
a. the presence of some of the structures which were present within the chip b. five transistors whose activity was strongly correlated with the brightness of the most recently displayed pixel on the screen c. disabling one particular group of transistors prevented the chip from running the boot-up sequence of a programme.

A. Only a & b B. Only b & c C. Only a & c D. None of these E. All are correct

Answer: Option E
2. What, according to context, are chips?
a. chips are transistors b. chips are electronic switches c. chips are adders

A. Only a B. Only b C. Only c D. Only a & c E. Only b & c

Answer: Option B
3. What is the most appropriate synonym of “nuggets”:

A. abhors B. teasures C. duds D. debts E. All are correct

Answer: Option B
4. What is the main objective of the initiatives launched by Flashy enterprises?

A. to have created a simulation that can model the electrical state of every transistor B. to test the analytical toolkit used by modern neuroscience C. to understand how exactly the brain does what it does D. to analyse the way that thousands or even millions of nerve cells interact in a real brain E. All are correct

Answer: Option D
5. What is similar between a computer and a brain?
a. predictable changes b. testing analytical toolkit c. processing information

A. Only a & c B. Only b & c C. Only c D. None of these E. All are correct

Answer: Option E
6. What is the meaning of “false positive”?

A. a test result B. wrongly indicate a particular condition C. some evaluation process D. a condition to be tested E. All are correct

Answer: Option E
7. What is the argument of the scientists against the paper published in “PLOS Computational Biology”?

A. the analogy between chips and brains is far from each other B. the reams of extra information churned out by modern, far more capable gene-sequencers, have certainly been useful C. how the creature’s “brain” works D. the presence of some of the structures which the researchers knew were present within the chip. E. All are correct

Answer: Option A
8. What is the appropriate antonym of “trivial”:

A. titanic B. serious C. royal D. petty E. All are correct

Answer: Option D
9. What is the tone of the passage?

A. Scientific B. Descriptive C. Analytical D. Informative E. All are correct

Answer: Option E
10. What, according to the context, is the appropriate title of the passage?

A. Donkey Kong B. Human Genome C. Through a glass, darkly D. Plumber to the world E. None of these

Answer: Option C

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follows.
It is a niche market, but a big one, and it is increasingly dominated by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. On January 20th its reinsurance subsidiary, National Indemnity Company (NICO), agreed with American International Group (AIG), a big insurer, to acquire excess losses on old insurance policies. In one of the largest such “retroactive reinsurance” deals ever announced, NICO will be on the hook for four-fifths of all losses above $25bn, up to $20bn, in exchange for a payment of $9.8bn now. The deal comes just a few weeks after a similar deal giving up to $1.5bn of coverage to Hartford, another American insurance giant.
For much of the 15 years since the term retroactive reinsurance came into use, Berkshire, through NICO, has been at the forefront. The structure allows insurers to rid themselves of so-called “long-tail” exposures, ie, claims that may come in years or decades after policies were written. Often, they cover long-term environmental risks like pollution, or asbestos-related disease, where workers may fall ill many years after exposure. In the largest previous deal in 2006, NICO provided reinsurance coverage worth $7bn for asbestos risks to Equitas, a vehicle set up to bail out Lloyd’s insurance market in the 1990s.
Such deals can be lucrative for both sellers and buyers. The insurer caps its liabilities and frees up capital (AIG plans to return some to shareholders). And for Berkshire, such deals are an important source of “float”. Insurers enjoy a form of financing that is in essence free, because premium income, including reinsurance payments, comes in long before claims have to be paid out. In September 2016 Berkshire’s float was $91bn. Unlike other insurance companies that invest in a conservative portfolio of bonds, NICO’s money is deployed to buy Mr Buffett’s latest acquisition targets. The high investment returns that result can, in turn, weather greater insurance losses.
Lawyers who have represented insurance claimants in past cases worry that this kind of deal threatens policyholders’ interests. Since the buyer has no direct relationship with them, it may be more likely to delay and quibble about payouts, to maximise its own financial gain. In most Berkshire deals, claims management has been handled by its subsidiary, Resolute Management, which has faced a number of lawsuits in recent years. The two most recent deals, with Hartford and AIG, are different, with the selling insurers explicitly retaining responsibility for claims management.
A broader worry is a concentration of risk. A risk manager who had diversified by taking out insurance with a variety of different companies might find that all of his firm’s long-tail risks now sit in just one pot: Berkshire. On asbestos, for instance, Jonathan Terrell of KCIC, a claims-management consultancy, reckons Berkshire’s accumulation of legacy liabilities is not just the largest in the industry today, but the largest it has ever seen. That’s a long tail with a dangerous whisk.
1. Which kind of deal can be lucrative for both seller and buyer? a. deals with insurance coverage b. life-threatening deals c. environmental riskful deals

A Only a & b B Only b & c C Only c & a D Only b E All are correct

Answer: Option C
2. What, according to the passage, are the worries related to Berkshire deals?
a. concentration of risk b. threatening kind of deal c. accumulation of legacy liabilities

A. Only a & b B. Only b & c C. Only c & a D. Only a E. All are correct

Answer: Option A
3. What are long tail exposures?

A. denies B. refutes C. waives D. claims E. All are correct

Answer: Option D
4. What is the most appropriate synonym of “whisk”?

A. whip B. whiz C. dart D. convulse E. All are correct

Answer: Option E
5. What, according to the passage, is true about NICO?
a. it assisted in buying Mr Buffett’s latest acquisition targets b. it provided $7bn for asbestos risks to Equitas c. it is a reinsurance subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway

A. Only a & b B. Only b & c C. Only c & a D. Only a E. All are correct

Answer: Option E
6. What, according to the passage, is true about Berkshire Hathaway?
a. It is an insurance giant b. It is a subsidiary of Resolute Management c. It is a niche market

A. Both a & b B. Both b & c C. Both c & a D. Only b E. All are correct

Answer: Option C
7. What is the most appropriate antonym of “portfolio”?

A. farrago B. information C. summary D. folder E. All are correct

Answer: Option A
8. What, according to the passage, is true about Resolute Management?

A. it is an asbestos-related giant B. it is an insurance company C. it is a a subsidiary of claimant management. D. Both b & c E. All are correct

Answer: Option C
9. What is the tone of the passage?

A. Caustic B. Apathetic C. Dogmatic D. Emotional E. All are correct

Answer: Option B Apathetic = Emotionless; not interested/ concerned; indifferent; unresponsive
10. What is the most suitable title of the passage?

A. Dangerous Whisk B. Niche market C. Reinsurance giant D. Daddy long tail E. All are correct

Answer: Option D

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions that follows.
LOSING THE PRESIDENCY in 2016 to someone most Democratic activists consider unfit for the office even on a good day was terrifying because it suggested they did not understand the country they aspired to govern. It was also a little exciting. Ever since the Reagan revolution, Democrats have had a sickening feeling that their core idea about government is unsellable. “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” still sounds comforting to many of them, but they suspect they are not allowed to say it. The lessons of Bill Clinton’s victory in 1992 and the backlash against Barack Obama’s attempts to fix health care seemed to be that the country is as hostile to big government as ever. Then Donald Trump ran, without making any of the usual conservative promises to starve the beast, and won. Before 2016 liberals thought they were fighting an idea. Now, it seemed, they were fighting a man. Perhaps the old rules no longer applied.
The sense of possibility that came with this has been a tequila shot for those trying to push the Democratic Party leftwards. One prominent effort to do so is being masterminded from the top floor of an art-deco building in downtown San Francisco. This is where Tom Steyer oversees NextGen America, which he calls the largest grassroots political organisation in the country. Mr. Steyer, a former fund manager, and his wife have given $30m to Democratic and liberal causes in this election cycle according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, making them the most generous political donors in the country. But Mr. Steyer has a fractious relationship with the Democratic Party’s leadership, which he views as weak-kneed. He funded an advertising campaign that called for the impeachment of the president. Party grandees hated it. Mr Steyer thought this hypocritical. “Every Democratic politician thinks Donald Trump has met the standard for impeachment, they just can’t say it,” he says. “Telling the truth and standing up for our values is important in and of itself.”
Doing so, Mr. Steyer believes, is also good politics. The Democratic leadership tends to divide candidates into centrists, who can win in marginal districts, and lefties, who are fine in safe seats but will lose otherwise winnable ones. This makes intuitive sense, but it is an idea that political scientists have found hard to stand up. The “median voter theorem” once held that the party that hews closest to the views of the median voter usually wins. It was taught to this generation of academics as akin to the law of gravity but has since become the political-science equivalent of believing Earth to be flat. When politics is so polarised, people no longer cluster in the ideological middle. And besides, the belief that voters are calculating machines who carefully weigh policies before opting for whoever offers them the best deal, is hard to sustain. That strengthens the arguments of those pushing for boldness. “The idea that there is a trade-off between pleasing the base and winning is completely false,” says Mr. Steyer. “Turnout in elections is pathetic; the strategy of trying to talk to both sides simply doesn’t work.”
Almost all Democratic candidates now favor raising the minimum wage and also endorse universal health care and criminal-justice reform. The disagreement is over how to get there. Lee Drutman looked at the division between Clinton and Sanders supporters in the Democratic primary of 2016 for the Democracy Fund, a bipartisan foundation, and found few disagreements on policy, except for a slight difference over the benefits of foreign trade. Larry Bartels of Vanderbilt University concurs. The notion that Clinton and Sanders supporters were divided by ideology, he writes, is starkly contradicted by statistical analysis.
Within activist circles, though, this division is real. What might look to outsiders like small policy differences reveal a larger philosophical difference?. Candidates who favor incremental changes are signaling that they are basically happy with the country as it is, says Karthik Ganapathy of MoveOn, one of the largest pressure groups on the left. More uncompromising candidates are signaling that they know that something is fundamentally wrong with American society, he says. Thus differences over whether the federal government should offer a public health insurance option or introduce a single-payer system can become litmus tests for the party’s progressive wing.
Democratic senators have recently proposed plans for universal single-payer health care, free college tuition, a national $15 minimum wage and a federal job guarantee for those unable to find employment. This last measure alone could increase the federal government’s payroll tenfold. The senators usually spoke of as contenders for the party’s presidential nomination in 2020—Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders—have all endorsed some or part of this. Twenty years ago a Democratic president declared that the era of big government was over. Now it seems to be back.
Contrary to popular belief, there is some evidence for the idea that Americans might quite like some more government. Another consistent finding in political science is that voters are ideological conservatives but operational liberals. Small government is more popular than big government in theory, but voters do not like spending cuts. “The public mostly agrees with the Republicans in philosophical terms and with the Democrats in policy terms,” writes David Hopkins and Matt Grossmann in “Asymmetric Politics”, the best recent book about how the two parties became what they are. This is not just an unwillingness to choose between two good things. Even when voters are told that spending will require higher taxes or budget deficits they still want it, according to Messrs Grossmann and Hopkins. A survey took a year after Mr. Trump won found that 55% of Republicans thought the government should make sure everyone has access to good health care and 60% of Republicans thought the government should provide a decent standard of living for those unable to work. Perhaps, these numbers suggest, Democrats are not so out-of-tune with the country after all.
1. Why the country is hostile to big government?
a. They have big names Only. b. They are not concerned about the Services which are given to the Public. c. The govt. did not understand the country.

A. Both a & b B. Both b & c C. Both c & a D. Only b E. All are correct

Answer: Option B
2. What, according to the passage is true about Tom Steyer?

A. He is a former fund manager B. He has a peevish relationship with the Democratic Party’s leadership C. He tends to divide candidates into three wings. D. He funded an advertising campaign. E. All except C

Answer: Option E
3. What is “median-voter theorem”?
a. The centrist wing and the leftist are under government control. b. The left-wing is the determiner of the winning party. c. Party getting votes from at least two wings will be the winner.

A. Both a & b B. Both b & c C. Both c & a D. Only c E. All are correct

Answer: Option D
4. What is the reason behind division of Clinton and Sanders supporters in 2016 for the Democracy Fund?
a. The supported are funded by Democratic Activists. b. Sanders and Clinton’s supporters faced a religious turmoil c. Both the parties are not favouring all the needed reforms.

A. Both a & b B. Both b & c C. Both c & a D. Only c E. All are correct

Answer: Option D
5. What, according to the passage, is wrong with American society?

A. federal government is offering a public health-insurance option or introduce a single-payer system B. Uncompromising candidates knew that major parties are not concerned with the needed reforms. C. The increase in the federal government’s payroll tenfold D. Both a & b E. None of these

Answer: Option B
6. What is the most appropriate synonym of the word “payroll ” :

A. appointee B. salary C. incumbent D. teleworker E. None of these

Answer: Option B
7. Why Democrats are not so out-of-tune with the country?

A. Democratic candidates now favor raising the minimum wage. B. Democratic senators have recently proposed free college tuition. C. Democrats and Republicans, both put more emphasis on Health-insurance policies. D. All of these E. None of these

Answer: Option C
8. What is the most appropriate antonym of the word “starkly “:

A. austerely B. severly C. copiously D. sparely E. bluntly

Answer: Option C
9. What is the meaning of “spending cuts”?

A. to balance the budget B. the act of reducing spending C. the act of reducing the budget value D. Both b & c E. None of these

Answer: Option B
10. What is the most suitable title of the passage?

A. Fork in the Road B. Financing Charitable work C. The remains of the Day D. Complex and Clever E. None of these

Answer: Option A