CAT 2025 Slot 1 · VARC · Question 2
CAT 2025 Slot 1 previous year question on Argument & viewpoint, 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.
- AIndividuals base movement choices partly on observed infections and on the behaviour of others. So, local responses interact, which turns many small adjustments into large scale patterns that can frustrate the intended aim of risk reduction.
- BUrban networks have uniform traffic conditions at all hours, which allows perfectly predictable routing independent of personal choices, social signals, or crowd reactions and, therefore, makes interdependence negligible in city movement decisions.
- CApp alerts always include precise location to within one metre and deliver real time updates for all users, which ensures that the data feed is perfectly accurate regardless of privacy settings, power limits, or network conditions.
- DMost users uninstall apps within a week, which leaves only highly exposed individuals participating. This neutralises any systematic bias in routing decisions and prevents any predictable change in aggregate contact patterns.
Answer & solution
Answer: Option A
First fix what the passage actually claims. Paragraph 1 says: 'If each of us changes our behaviour to avoid the infected, we might generate a collective pattern we had aimed to avoid'. The mechanism is individual avoidance adding up into an unintended collective pattern.
An assumption is what the argument needs to be true in order to work. Here the argument needs two things – that people react to the information they get, and that these individual reactions interact rather than stay isolated.
Option 1 states exactly those two conditions: movement choices respond to observed infections and to others' behaviour, and local responses interact to produce large-scale patterns that defeat the intended aim. Remove this and the claim collapses, which is the test of a necessary assumption.
Option 2 asserts that interdependence is negligible. That is the opposite of what the argument needs – it would destroy the claim, not support it.
Option 3 is about data accuracy to within one metre. The passage's worry works whether or not the data is pinpoint accurate, so this is not required.
Option 4 says the predictable change in aggregate contact patterns is prevented. Again this contradicts the claim instead of underpinning it.
Shortcut: for a 'most necessary assumption' question, apply the negation test – negate each option and see which one breaks the argument. Negating option 1 (people do not respond to others, responses do not interact) kills the claim outright, so option 1 is the assumption.
Hence, the answer is option 1.
More Argument & viewpoint questions
- Q9The author of this book review is LEAST likely to support the view that:CAT 2021 Slot 1 · VARC · Argument & viewpoint
- Q12The author of the passage is most likely to support which one of the following statements?CAT 2021 Slot 2 · VARC · Argument & viewpoint
- Q15From the passage, we can infer that the author is in favour of:CAT 2021 Slot 2 · VARC · Argument & viewpoint
- Q18The author would support none of the following statements about political power EXCEPT that:CAT 2021 Slot 2 · VARC · Argument & viewpoint
- Q9Which one of the following statements best summarises the author’s position about Pinker’s book?CAT 2021 Slot 3 · VARC · Argument & viewpoint
- Q1We can infer that the author would approve of a more evolved engineering pedagogy that includes all of the following…CAT 2022 Slot 2 · VARC · Argument & viewpoint
All Argument & viewpoint PYQs →
Take this paper as a timed test
Real exam timing, instant score, rank and topic-wise analysis.