CAT 2025 Slot 1 · VARC · Question 1
CAT 2025 Slot 1 previous year question on RC Inference Questions, with the answer and a step-by-step solution.
RC passage 1: Complex Systems, Noise and Tail Events — this question belongs to a set. Read the full set with all 4 questions →
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Understanding the key properties of complex systems can help us clarify and deal with many new and existing global challenges, from pandemics to poverty . . . A recent study in Nature Physics found transitions to orderly states such as schooling in fish (all fish swimming in the same direction), can be caused, paradoxically, by randomness, or 'noise' feeding back on itself. That is, a misalignment among the fish causes further misalignment, eventually inducing a transition to schooling. Most of us wouldn't guess that noise can produce predictable behaviour. The result invites us to consider how technology such as contact-tracing apps, although informing us locally, might negatively impact our collective movement. If each of us changes our behaviour to avoid the infected, we might generate a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid: higher levels of interaction between the infected and susceptible, or high levels of interaction among the asymptomatic.
Complex systems also suffer from a special vulnerability to events that don't follow a normal distribution or 'bell curve'. When events are distributed normally, most outcomes are familiar and don't seem particularly striking. Height is a good example: it's pretty unusual for a man to be over 7 feet tall; most adults are between 5 and 6 feet, and there is no known person over 9 feet tall. But in collective settings where contagion shapes behaviour – a run on the banks, a scramble to buy toilet paper – the probability distributions for possible events are often heavy-tailed. There is a much higher probability of extreme events, such as a stock market crash or a massive surge in infections. These events are still unlikely, but they occur more frequently and are larger than would be expected under normal distributions.
What's more, once a rare but hugely significant 'tail' event takes place, this raises the probability of further tail events. We might call them second-order tail events; they include stock market gyrations after a big fall and earthquake aftershocks. The initial probability of second-order tail events is so tiny it's almost impossible to calculate – but once a first-order tail event occurs, the rules change, and the probability of a second-order tail event increases.
The dynamics of tail events are complicated by the fact that they result from cascades of other unlikely events. When COVID-19 first struck, the stock market suffered stunning losses followed by an equally stunning recovery. Some of these dynamics are potentially attributable to former sports bettors, with no sports to bet on, entering the market as speculators rather than investors. The arrival of these new players might have increased inefficiencies and allowed savvy long-term investors to gain an edge over bettors with different goals. . . .
One reason a first-order tail event can induce further tail events is that it changes the perceived costs of our actions and changes the rules that we play by. This game-change is an example of another key complex systems concept: nonstationarity. A second, canonical example of nonstationarity is adaptation, as illustrated by the arms race involved in the coevolution of hosts and parasites [in which] each has to 'run' faster, just to keep up with the novel solutions the other one presents as they battle it out in evolutionary time.
All of the following inferences are supported by the passage EXCEPT that:
- A
the text attributes the COVID-19 pandemic rebound in financial markets solely to displaced sports bettors and treats their entry as the overriding cause of the rapid recovery across assets and time horizons.
- B
heavy-tailed events make extreme outcomes more frequent and larger than bell curve expectations. This complicates forecasting and risk management in collective settings shaped by contagion and copying behaviour.
- C
learning can change the rules that actors face. So, a rare shock can alter payoffs and raise the odds of subsequent large disturbances within the same system, which supports the idea of second-order tail events.
- D
examples like runs on banks and toilet paper scrambles illustrate how contagion can amplify local choices into system-wide cascades that surprise participants and lead to patterns they did not intend to create.
Answer & solution
Answer: Option A
This is an EXCEPT question, so three options are supported by the passage and one is not. Work through them and keep the one that overstates or adds something the passage never says.
Option 2 is supported. Paragraph 2 says that in collective settings shaped by contagion, distributions are heavy-tailed, and that extreme events 'occur more frequently and are larger than would be expected under normal distributions'. That is exactly what option 2 states.
Option 3 is supported. Paragraph 5 says a first-order tail event 'changes the perceived costs of our actions and changes the rules that we play by', which is the nonstationarity idea. Rules changing and the odds of further large disturbances rising is precisely the second-order tail event idea of paragraph 3.
Option 4 is supported. Paragraph 2 gives 'a run on the banks, a scramble to buy toilet paper' as the very examples of contagion turning local choices into system-wide extremes, and paragraph 1 adds the idea of generating 'a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid'.
Option 1 is the odd one out, and on two counts. The passage hedges carefully: 'Some of these dynamics are potentially attributable to former sports bettors'. Option 1 upgrades this to 'solely' and to 'the overriding cause'. It also adds 'rapid recovery across assets and time horizons', a spread the passage never claims.
Shortcut: in an EXCEPT question, scan the options for absolute words – solely, only, always, overriding, invariably. The passage here is written in hedged language ('potentially', 'might have'), so an absolute option is almost certainly the answer. Option 1 carries both 'solely' and 'overriding'.
Hence, the answer is option 1.
More RC Inference Questions questions
- Q3Which one of the following cannot be inferred from Alexandra Schnell’s experiment?CAT 2021 Slot 1 · VARC · RC Inference Questions
- Q6All of the following statements can be inferred from the passage EXCEPT that:CAT 2021 Slot 1 · VARC · RC Inference Questions
- Q7Following from the passage, which one of the following may be seen as a characteristic of a utopian society?CAT 2021 Slot 1 · VARC · RC Inference Questions
- Q14Which one of the following best explains the “additional complexity” that the example of the incense burner…CAT 2021 Slot 1 · VARC · RC Inference Questions
- Q14We can infer all of the following about indigenous languages from the passage EXCEPT that:CAT 2021 Slot 2 · VARC · RC Inference Questions
- Q19The author implies that, like scholars, successful leaders:CAT 2021 Slot 2 · VARC · RC Inference Questions
All RC Inference Questions PYQs →
Take this paper as a timed test
Real exam timing, instant score, rank and topic-wise analysis.