CAT 2021 Slot 2 · VARC · RC passage 1: Knowledge, Scepticism and the Scandal of Philosophy

The full passage and all 4 questions (Q9–Q12) from CAT 2021 Slot 2, with answers and solutions.

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

It has been said that knowledge, or the problem of knowledge, is the scandal of philosophy. The scandal is philosophy’s apparent inability to show how, when and why we can be sure that we know something or, indeed, that we know anything. Philosopher Michael Williams writes: ‘Is it possible to obtain knowledge at all? This problem is pressing because there are powerful arguments, some very ancient, for the conclusion that it is not . . . Scepticism is the skeleton in Western rationalism’s closet’. While it is not clear that the scandal matters to anyone but philosophers, philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone, at least given a certain conception of knowledge. For, they explain, unless we can ground our claims to knowledge as such, which is to say, distinguish it from mere opinion, superstition, fantasy, wishful thinking, ideology, illusion or delusion, then the actions we take on the basis of presumed knowledge - boarding an airplane, swallowing a pill, finding someone guilty of a crime - will be irrational and unjustifiable.

That is all quite serious-sounding but so also are the rattlings of the skeleton: that is, the sceptic’s contention that we cannot be sure that we know anything - at least not if we think of knowledge as something like having a correct mental representation of reality, and not if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions. For, the sceptic will note, since reality, under that conception of it, is outside our ken (we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it), we have no way to compare our mental representations with things-as-they-are-in-themselves and therefore no way to determine whether they are correct or incorrect. Thus the sceptic may repeat (rattling loudly), you cannot be sure you ‘know’ something or anything at all - at least not, he may add (rattling softly before disappearing), if that is the way you conceive ‘knowledge’.

There are a number of ways to handle this situation. The most common is to ignore it. Most people outside the academy - and, indeed, most of us inside it - are unaware of or unperturbed by the philosophical scandal of knowledge and go about our lives without too many epistemic anxieties. We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them (I saw it with my own eyes; I heard it on Fox News; a guy at the office told me) and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people: experts and authorities, friends and family members, colleagues and associates. And we examine our convictions more or less closely, explain them more or less extensively, and defend them more or less vigorously, usually depending on what seems to be at stake for ourselves and/or other people and what resources are available for reassuring ourselves or making our beliefs credible to others (look, it’s right here on the page; add up the figures yourself; I happen to be a heart specialist).

Question 9 · RC Detail and Fact Based Questions

The author discusses all of the following arguments in the passage, EXCEPT:

  1. A

    sceptics believe that we can never fully know anything, if by “knowing” we mean knowledge of a reality that is independent of the knower.

  2. B

    if we cannot distinguish knowledge from opinion or delusion, we will not be able to justify our actions.

  3. C

    the best way to deal with scepticism about the veracity of knowledge is to ignore it.

  4. D

    philosophers maintain that the scandal of philosophy should be of concern to everyone.

Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option C

Check each option against what the author actually discusses.

Option 1 is discussed. The sceptic says we cannot be sure we know anything 'if we think of reality as something like things-as-they-are-in-themselves, independent of our perceptions'.

Option 2 is discussed. Unless we can tell knowledge from 'mere opinion, superstition . . . illusion or delusion', our actions 'will be irrational and unjustifiable'.

Option 4 is discussed. 'Philosophers point out that it should matter to everyone'.

Option 3 is not an argument the author makes. The author only reports that the most common way of handling scepticism 'is to ignore it'. Saying it is the most common way is a description; calling it 'the best way' is a judgement the author never makes.

Shortcut: separate 'most common' (a fact about people) from 'best' (the author's recommendation). The option that turns one into the other is the answer.

Hence, the answer is option 3.

Question 10 · RC - Questions

“. . . we cannot catch a glimpse of things-in-themselves around the corner of our own eyes; we cannot form an idea of reality that floats above the processes of our conceiving it . . .” Which one of the following statements best reflects the argument being made in this sentence?
  1. A
    Our knowledge of reality floats above our subjective perception of it.
  2. B
    If the reality of things is independent of our eyesight, logically we cannot perceive our perception.
  3. C
    Our knowledge of reality cannot be merged with our process of conceiving it.
  4. D
    If the reality of things is independent of our perception, logically we cannot perceive that reality.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option D

The quoted lines explain why reality, understood as things-in-themselves independent of us, is 'outside our ken'. We can never step outside our own seeing and conceiving to look at reality directly.

Option 4 states this exactly: if reality is independent of our perception, we have no means of perceiving it as it is.

Option 1 says the opposite – the sentence denies that we can form an idea of reality that 'floats above' our conceiving.

Option 2 narrows the point to eyesight and then makes an odd claim about perceiving our perception, which the sentence does not make.

Option 3 talks of 'merging' knowledge with the process of conceiving – the sentence is about not being able to get beyond that process, not about merging.

Shortcut: 'glimpse around the corner of our own eyes' = we cannot get past our own perception to the thing itself. Option 4 says this in plain words.

Hence, the answer is option 4.

Question 11 · RC Detail and Fact Based Questions

According to the last paragraph of the passage, “We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on” something. Which one of the following most broadly captures what we depend on?
  1. A
    How we come to hold them; how widely they are held in our social circles.
  2. B
    All of the options listed here.
  3. C
    How much of a stake we have in them; what resources there are to support them.
  4. D
    Remaining outside the academy; ignoring epistemic anxieties.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option A

The sentence in question reads: 'We hold our beliefs and presumptive knowledges more or less confidently, usually depending on how we acquired them . . . and how broadly and strenuously they seem to be shared or endorsed by various relevant people'.

So we depend on (a) how we came to hold the belief and (b) how widely it is shared by people around us. That is option 1.

Option 3 refers to a different sentence – what is at stake and what resources are available decide how closely we examine and defend our convictions, not how confidently we hold them. So option 2 ('All of the options') fails too.

Option 4 has nothing to do with what our confidence depends on.

Shortcut: read only the sentence the question quotes; the two 'how' clauses that follow it give the answer.

Hence, the answer is option 1.

Question 12 · Argument & viewpoint

The author of the passage is most likely to support which one of the following statements?
  1. A
    The confidence with which we maintain something to be true is usually independent of the source of the alleged truth.
  2. B
    The scandal of philosophy is that we might not know anything at all about reality if we think of reality as independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions.
  3. C
    The actions taken on the basis of presumed knowledge are rational and justifiable if we are confident that that knowledge is widely held.
  4. D
    For the sceptic, if we think of reality as independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions, we should aim to know that reality independently too.
Pick an option, then check.
Answer & solution

Answer: Option B

Option 2 restates the passage's own definition of the scandal: philosophy's inability to show that we know anything, a problem that arises 'at least not if we think of reality as . . . independent of our perceptions, ideas or descriptions'. The author would support it.

Option 1 is contradicted: our confidence depends 'on how we acquired them' – that is, on the source.

Option 3 is not supported: the passage says actions are unjustifiable unless we can ground knowledge; confidence from wide acceptance is merely how people cope, not a justification.

Option 4 reverses the sceptic's point: the sceptic says such a reality cannot be known, not that we should aim to know it.

Shortcut: the option that closely paraphrases the passage's central definition is usually the one the author supports.

Hence, the answer is option 2.

Take this paper as a timed test
Real exam timing, instant score, rank and topic-wise analysis.

Practice timed →