Directions:(1-10) Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions

Albert Einstein said that the ‘most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible’. He was right to be astonished. Human brains evolved to be adaptable, but our underlying neural architecture has barely changed since our ancestors roamed the savannah and coped with the challenges that life on it presented. It’s surely remarkable that these brains have allowed us to make sense of the quantum and the cosmos, notions far removed from the ‘commonsense’, everyday world in which we evolved.

But I think science will hit the buffers at some point. There are two reasons why this might happen. The optimistic one is that we clean up and codify certain areas (such as atomic physics) to the point that there’s no more to say. A second, more worrying possibility is that we’ll reach the limits of what our brains can grasp. There might be concepts, crucial to a full understanding of physical reality, that we aren’t aware of, any more than a monkey comprehends Darwinism or meteorology. Some insights might have to await a post-human intelligence.

Scientific knowledge is actually surprisingly ‘patchy’ – and the deepest mysteries often lie close by. Today, we can convincingly interpret  measurements that reveal two black holes crashing together more than a billion light years from Earth. Meanwhile, we’ve made little progress in treating the common cold, despite great leaps forward in epidemiology. The fact that we can be confident of arcane and remote cosmic phenomena, and flummoxed by everyday things, isn’t really as paradoxical as it looks. Astronomy is far simpler than the biological and human sciences. Black holes, although they seem exotic to us, are among the uncomplicated entities in nature. They can be described exactly by simple equations.

So how do we define complexity? The question of how far science can go partly depends on the answer. Something made of only a few atoms can’t be very complicated. Big things need not be complicated either. Despite its vastness, a star is fairly simple – its core is so hot that complex molecules get torn apart and no chemicals can exist, so what’s left is basically an amorphous gas of atomic nuclei and electrons. Alternatively, consider a salt crystal, made up of sodium and chlorine atoms, packed together over and over again to make a repeating cubical lattice. If you take a big crystal and chop it up, there’s little change in structure until it breaks down to the scale of single atoms. Even if it’s huge, a block of salt couldn’t be called complex.

Atoms and astronomical phenomena – the very small and the very large – can be quite basic. It’s everything in between that gets tricky. Most complex of all are living things. An animal has internal structure on every scale, from the proteins in single cells right up to limbs and major organs. It doesn’t exist if it is chopped up, the way a salt crystal continues to exist when it is sliced and diced. It dies.

Scientific understanding is sometimes envisaged as a hierarchy, ordered like the floors of a building. Those dealing with more complex systems are higher up, while the simpler ones go down below. Mathematics is in the basement, followed by particle physics, then the rest of physics, then chemistry, then biology, then botany and zoology, and finally the behavioural and social sciences (with the economists, no doubt, claiming the penthouse).

‘Ordering’ the sciences is uncontroversial, but it’s questionable whether the ‘ground-floor sciences’ – particle physics, in particular – are really deeper or more all-embracing than the others. In one sense, they clearly are. As the physicist Steven Weinberg explains in Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), all the explanatory arrows point downward. If, like a stubborn toddler, you keep asking ‘Why, why, why?’, you end up at the particle level. Scientists are nearly all reductionists in Weinberg’s sense. They feel confident that everything, however complex, is a solution to Schrödinger’s equation – the basic equation that governs how a system behaves, according to quantum theory.

But a reductionist explanation isn’t always the best or most useful one. ‘More is different,’ as the physicist Philip Anderson said. Everything, no matter how intricate – tropical forests, hurricanes, human societies – is made of atoms, and obeys the laws of quantum physics. But even if those equations could be solved for immense aggregates of atoms, they wouldn’t offer the enlightenment that scientists seek.

New concepts are particularly crucial to our understanding of really complicated things – for instance, migrating birds or human brains. The brain is an assemblage of cells; a painting is an assemblage of chemical pigment. But what’s important and interesting is how the pattern and structure appears as we go up the layers, what can be called emergent complexity.

So reductionism is true in a sense. But it’s seldom true in a useful sense. Only about 1 per cent of scientists are particle physicists or cosmologists. The other 99 per cent work on ‘higher’ levels of the hierarchy. They’re held up by the complexity of their subject, not by any deficiencies in our understanding of subnuclear physics.

In reality, then, the analogy between science and a building is really quite a poor one. A building’s structure is imperilled by weak foundations. By contrast, the ‘higher-level’ sciences dealing with complex systems aren’t vulnerable to an insecure base. Each layer of science has its own distinct explanations. Phenomena with different levels of complexity must be understood in terms of different, irreducible concepts.

We can expect huge advances on three frontiers: the very small, the very large, and the very complex. Nonetheless – and I’m sticking my neck out here – my hunch is there’s a limit to what we can understand. Efforts to understand very complex systems, such as our own brains, might well be the first to hit such limits. Perhaps complex aggregates of atoms, whether brains or electronic machines, can never know all there is to know about themselves. And we might encounter another barrier if we try to follow Weinberg’s arrows further down: if this leads to the kind of multi-dimensional geometry that string theorists envisage. Physicists might never understand the bedrock nature of space and time because the mathematics is just too hard.

Abstract thinking by biological brains has underpinned the emergence of all culture and science. But this activity, spanning tens of millennia at most, will probably be a brief precursor to the more powerful intellects of the post-human era – evolved not by Darwinian selection but via ‘intelligent design’. Whether the long-range future lies with organic post-humans or with electronic super-intelligent machines is a matter for debate. But we would be unduly anthropocentric to believe that a full understanding of physical reality is within humanity’s grasp, and that no enigmas will remain to challenge our remote descendants.

1. Why does the author give the example of black holes in the third paragraph?

Ans:3
Through the third paragraph, the author is trying to say that big things need not necessarily be complicated. Thus, option C, which says that is the right choice.

2. Why does the author think that science will stop progressing after some time?

Ans:5
Refer to the following line “There are two reasons why this might happen. The optimistic one is that … A second, more worrying possibility is that we’ll reach the limits of what our brains can grasp”. Thus both option A as well as option C are the reason why the author thinks that science will hit the buffers.
Hence, option E is the right choice.

3. How far can Science go would depend partly or completely on which of the following things?

Ans:4

Refer to the following sentence “So how do we define complexity? The question of how far science can go partly depends on the answer.” Option D highlights this point. Other options are either not relevant or answer the question incorrectly.

Hence, option D is the correct choice.

4. With which of the following options is the author most likely to agree with?

Ans:2

Refer to sentence, “…if those equations could be solved for immense aggregates of atoms, they wouldn’t offer the enlightenment that scientists seek…” Thus the author wouldn’t agree with A.
Refer to the following sentence, “‘…ground-floor sciences’ – particle physics, in particular – are really deeper or more all-embracing than the others. In one sense, they clearly are.” Thus, the author would agree with B.
One of the main argument put forward by the author is to show that humans have limits in understanding. Thus C is incorrect.

In the passage, the author has stated that concepts like black holes are remarkably simple. Hence, option D is incorrect.

Hence, option B is the right choice.

5. Why does the author give the example of salt crystal in the passage?

Ans:3

Refer to following sentences, “…there’s little change in structure until it breaks down to the scale of single atoms. Even if it’s huge, a block of salt couldn’t be called complex….Most complex of all are living things.” Thus, the main purpose of the author is to show that the structure of a living organism is complex while that of a molecule of salt is not. C highlights this and must be the correct choice.

Hence, option C is the right answer.

6. Why does the author say that the analogy between Science and a building is poor?

Ans:5
Refer to following sentences, “… building’s structure is imperilled by weak foundations. By contrast, the ‘higher-level’ sciences dealing with complex systems aren’t vulnerable to an insecure base. Each layer of science has its own distinct explanations… “
Thus, A which runs tangent to this is incorrect.
Option B, C and D are out of context of the passage.
Option E answers the question correctly and hence, must be the correct choice.
Hence, option E is the right answer.

7. Choose the option which is most similar in the meaning to ‘imperilled’ as used in passage

Ans:1
Imperilled means to put at risk of being harmed, endangered or injured.
Hence, option A is the right choice.

8. Choose the option which is most similar in the meaning to ‘assemblage’ as used in passage

Ans:3
‘Assemblage’ means collection or gathering of things.
Hence, option C is the right choice.

9. Choose the option which is most opposite in the meaning to ‘amorphous’ as used in passage

Ans:3
‘Amorphous’ means not having a clearly defined shape and size. Thus, structured is opposite in meaning to amorphous.
Hence, option C is the right choice.

10. Choose the option which is most opposite in the meaning to ‘enigma’ as used in passage

Ans:4
Enigma means person or thing which is mysterious or difficult to understand. Thus, ‘straightforword’ which means easily understandable must be the answer.
Hence, option D is the right choice.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

171 thoughts on “Reading Comprehension for Bank Exams, MBA, SSC and other exams”

  2. KSHITIJA Mishra

    Content relevant for rrb po
    Level and structure is same as banking exams ask for.
    Heartily thanks to the hardworking team who provided this content😊 🙏😇

  3. Kshitija Mishra

    Content relevant for rrb po
    Level and structure is same as banking exams ask for.
    Heartily thanks to the hardworking team who provided this content😊 🙏😇
    Thank you

  14. Coquitlam Physio Services

    Hello there, I found your site via Google while
    searching for a related subject, your site came up, it looks great.
    I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

    Hello there, just was aware of your weblog thru Google, and found that it is really informative.
    I’m gonna watch out for brussels. I will be grateful for
    those who proceed this in future. Lots of people will
    be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  16. digital marketing

    Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the pictures on this blog loading?
    I’m trying to find out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog.

    Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.

  17. ai

    This piece of writing provides clear idea designed for the new visitors of blogging,
    that really how to do blogging and site-building.

  18. elafonissi crete

    Hey just wanted to give you a brief heads up
    and let you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading correctly.

    I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same results.

  20. youtube channel eppadi create panrathu tamil

    It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d certainly donate to this
    outstanding blog! I guess for now i’ll settle for bookmarking and adding
    your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates and will share this blog with my Facebook group.
    Chat soon!

  21. architecte d'intérieur Toulouse

    Greate post. Keep posting such kind of information on your page.

    Im really impressed by it.
    Hello there, You’ve done a great job. I will certainly digg it
    and in my opinion suggest to my friends. I’m confident they will be benefited from
    this website.

  23. BitStarz Casino Bonus Code

    Please let me know if you’re looking for a
    article author for your weblog. You have some really great posts and I feel I
    would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d absolutely love to write some material for your blog
    in exchange for a link back to mine. Please send me an email if
    interested. Kudos!

  24. spicy webcam sessions

    A motivating discussion is worth comment. I think that you need to
    write more about this issue, it might not be a taboo matter but generally folks
    don’t discuss such subjects. To the next! Cheers!!

  25. visit the site

    You can definitely see your skills in the article you write.
    The arena hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who
    aren’t afraid to mention how they believe.
    Always follow your heart.

  26. camera tube ip Dahua

    Thanks for your marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you’re a great author.
    I will make sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back in the foreseeable future.

    I want to encourage yourself to continue your great writing, have a nice weekend!

  51. tinyurl.com

    Unquestionably consider that that you said. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the net the simplest factor
    to take into accout of. I say to you, I certainly get annoyed
    even as other folks consider concerns that they just do not know about.
    You controlled to hit the nail upon the top as smartly as defined out the entire thing without
    having side effect , people could take a signal.
    Will probably be again to get more. Thanks

    Also visit my web-site – nordvpn coupons inspiresensation (tinyurl.com)

  59. https://tinyurl.com

    Howdy, i read your blog from time to time and i own a
    similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of
    spam comments? If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can recommend?
    I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any support is
    very much appreciated.

    Visit my blog – nordvpn Coupons inspiresensation [https://tinyurl.com]

  75. nordvpn coupons inspiresensation

    I do not know if it’s just me or if everybody else experiencing
    problems with your blog. It seems like some of the written text within your posts
    are running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide feedback
    and let me know if this is happening to them too? This may be a issue with my browser because I’ve had this happen previously.
    Thanks

    Also visit my blog: nordvpn coupons inspiresensation

  77. nordvpn coupons inspiresensation

    Hi there I am so glad I found your site, I really found you by error,
    while I was researching on Bing for something else, Nonetheless I am
    here now and would just like to say thank you for a
    incredible post and a all round thrilling blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the moment but I have saved
    it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read
    a lot more, Please do keep up the awesome job.

    My site: nordvpn coupons inspiresensation

  87. bezimienna.com.pl

    What’s up everyone, it’s my first visit at this website,
    and piece of writing is actually fruitful in favor of me, keep up posting such articles
    or reviews.

  147. Stevenlix

    ¡Hola, maestros del juego !
    casinoonlinefueradeespanol con juegos en vivo – п»їп»їhttps://casinoonlinefueradeespanol.xyz/ casinos fuera de espaГ±a
    ¡Que disfrutes de asombrosas momentos memorables !

  152. MarioWaive

    ¡Saludos, participantes del juego !
    Juegos mГіviles en casinos extranjeros seguros – п»їhttps://casinosextranjero.es/ casino online extranjero
    ¡Que vivas increíbles instantes inolvidables !

  158. vxerxes1993

    Inside the Disco Volante is AP’s ultra-thin caliber 2003 a manual movement measuring just 1.64mm thick. Designed in collaboration with link LeCoultre and Vacheron it was the thinnest caliber when introduced in the ’40s take that F. Piguet 21!.

  162. CalvinGaw

    ¡Bienvenidos, estrategas del entretenimiento !
    Casino online fuera de EspaГ±a sin verificaciГіn por selfie – п»їhttps://casinofueraespanol.xyz/ casinofueraespanol.xyz
    ¡Que vivas increíbles victorias legendarias !

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top