[nohope]

Earlier post extended:

Correct, Arrange and Complete:

A. Regrettably/Regretfully, this has led to a healthy distrust/mistrust of the mechanism for selection.
B. The very previous year(,) they had done the exact same thing.
C. Nothing could be further/farther from the truth that any rationale for such a paper could be credulous/credible.
D. I am beside(s) myself with rage at their using a comma to decide the fates of hundreds of students.
E. The IIM faculty that was/were chosen to set the paper is/are at sixes and sevens about how to set an unambiguous paper to avoid censure/censor.

(1) BCEDA (2)CBEDA (3)ABDEC (4)CABDE (5)DACBE

Para conclusion:
(1) Being over-exclusive doesn't guarantee quality.
(2) As far as IIMs keep many good people out, they would be able to sustain the myth that those that get in are better.
(3) You need mind reading skills to be a manager.
(4) If luck screws you out of IIMs, then it would have screwed you even if you had got in. So why bother?
(5) Forget IIMs.


Junta pour in your answers..
and stay tuned for my random key!


Dedicated to all the brilliant individuals out there.
IIMs don't deserve you.

[justlikethat]

Originally Posted by nohope

Earlier post extended:

Correct, Arrange and Complete:

A. Regrettably/Regretfully, this has led to a healthy distrust/mistrust of the mechanism for selection.
B. The very previous year(,) they had done the exact same thing.
C. Nothing could be further/farther from the truth that any rationale for such a paper could be credulous/credible.
D. I am beside(s) myself with rage at their using a comma to decide the fates of hundreds of students.
E. The IIM faculty that was/were chosen to set the paper is/are at sixes and sevens about how to set an unambiguous paper to avoid censure/censor.

(1) BCEDA (2)CBEDA (3)ABDEC (4)CABDE (5)DACBE

Para conclusion:
(1) Being over-exclusive doesn't guarantee quality.
(2) As far as IIMs keep many good people out, they would be able to sustain the myth that those that get in are better.
(3) You need mind reading skills to be a manager.
(4) If luck screws you out of IIMs, then it would have screwed you even if you had got in. So why bother?
(5) F**K IIMs.


Junta pour in your answers..
and stay tuned for my random key!


Dedicated to all the brilliant individuals out there.
IIMs don't deserve you.

My answers:

1. 5....ideally the para shuld start from E
2. 5 (obviously)...but since i cant mark that nw...i will go with 4

Cheers!

[buck_was]

Some show of creativity, nohope .. I guess, we can set better (read lesser ambiguous) VA sectionals.. CAT Group for 2008 may as well consider outsourcing the job to PaGaLGuY.com's willing and qualified volunteers

[thebestofme]

This refers to the 3rd (highly controversial) Q no. 63 (as per set 333) from the RC on sociology (Author: Steve Bruce).

My logic for the answer as B is:

The passage says that WE(The society) would not be surprised by a waitress who tries to
present the true picture of her actual self (The passage doesn't say that she does or
doesn't do so !) because the society doesn't ascribe that much importance to this role;
However, we would be surprised AND offended by a father playing his role tongue-in-cheek because WE (The society) have attached so much importance to a father's role that OUR conception of any father's self has become aligned with that role
being performed. That is, a person who is a father..is a father first, and "the
individual/the self" (that he is) follows. And that is why, we feel offended by such a
father. And this makes a father's role (taken as an example to illustrate the point) more
ABSORBING (one may imagine SELF being absorbed into the society's conception) than a
waitress's role. The "actor" doesn't align the conception of self with the role, but the
society (in lieu of its great expectations from the actor's role) does.
Hence, B only.
Statement A is a more general statement that applies to both the waitress' & father's roles, and therefore, can't justify the logic of one role being "more absorbing" than the other.

Puys, your comments please. Coz this Q makes all the diff to my score in VA ...19 or 24 !!! (I know even a 24 might not save me...but there's an outside chance).

DB

[harinirajagopal]

i seriously have a big time prob with the answers given by the insti's for the passage on paradigms rules thing...
the first question as to what the author is trying to illustrate.. though the first line talks about the relationships the essense of the passage is clearly to understand a scientific tradition .. what helps and what might not help in understanding a scientif tradition.. isn't it??
the second question regarding the loci of commitment it is very clear that it is plural as in OCI and the words used are that havebeen.. illustrations and paradigms!! then how can the answer be a certain paradigm which is singular an individual pattern while it is clear that it is a set of patterns which people agree upon .. wont global patterns be more relevant..

The third question as to what author agrees upon.. as in a line it's stated thatby practicing with the paradigms the members of community learn their trade.. lack of std interpretation of rules does not prevent a paradigm from guiding results.. with the paradigms the core of solved techniques is clear.. wont the answer beparadigm almost entirely defines a scientific tradition... cause it's given the exixtence of paradigm need not even imply that a set of rules exixts.. rules may be derived from paradigms o need not be but paradigms do not represent rules... paradigms might be used to derive rules!!!!
do help me!!

[deep_agrawal]

Puys,

Check some shocking results:

define: distrust - Google Search

define: mistrust - Google Search

Courtesy: A friend of mine .

[Rohit .Sinha]

Originally Posted by harinirajagopal

i seriously have a big time prob with the answers given by the insti's for the passage on paradigms rules thing...
the first question as to what the author is trying to illustrate.. though the first line talks about the relationships the essense of the passage is clearly to understand a scientific tradition .. what helps and what might not help in understanding a scientif tradition.. isn't it??
the second question regarding the loci of commitment it is very clear that it is plural as in OCI and the words used are that havebeen.. illustrations and paradigms!! then how can the answer be a certain paradigm which is singular an individual pattern while it is clear that it is a set of patterns which people agree upon .. wont global patterns be more relevant..

The third question as to what author agrees upon.. as in a line it's stated thatby practicing with the paradigms the members of community learn their trade.. lack of std interpretation of rules does not prevent a paradigm from guiding results.. with the paradigms the core of solved techniques is clear.. wont the answer beparadigm almost entirely defines a scientific tradition... cause it's given the exixtence of paradigm need not even imply that a set of rules exixts.. rules may be derived from paradigms o need not be but paradigms do not represent rules... paradigms might be used to derive rules!!!!
do help me!!

Dear friend,

About the third question, you are taking the written lines in isolation.

Explanation--

1. Last para, 3rdlast line

"The results are not prevented to be guided by the paradigms in the absence of rules."
"Nornal science can be detremined in part by the direct inspection of the paradigm.
This means that when the rules are not there, paradigms can play a big role their, but the very fact that the absence of rules have been mentioned, it is suggestive of they playing a role. And look at the highlighted part.


2. Yes I do have a problem with the first question but I strongly feel that answer id 4 i.e
"Ways of understanding the scientific tradition"

because

First paragraphs talks about the generality and a guiding ability of paradigms in the scientific tradition

Second paragraph talks bout the further detailed understanding of the undrstanding by using rules. But suddenly we see the author writing "Anyone who has tried to analyse or describe the scientific tradition will have.. principles". Then it hits you that what is the crux of the problem. Then again he reititerates the same thing in the last line "As a result, ..a given normal scientific tradition becomes.."

Third paragraph goes on to reitirate the same thing that paradigm plays an important role with or without rules. This confirms that rules are not that important to understand the tradition.

So how can 1st be the answer? i.e relationship between rules, paradigms and science when he himself admits that rules are not that important.

[social_loafer]

Originally Posted by Rohit .Sinha

Dear friend,

About the third question, you are taking the written lines in isolation.

Explanation--

1. Last para, 3rdlast line

"The results are not prevented to be guided by the paradigms in the absence of rules."
"Nornal science can be detremined in part by the direct inspection of the paradigm.
This means that when the rules are not there, paradigms can play a big role their, but the very fact that the absence of rules have been mentioned, it is suggestive of they playing a role. And look at the highlighted part.


2. Yes I do have a problem with the first question but I strongly feel that answer id 4 i.e
"Ways of understanding the scientific tradition"

because

First paragraphs talks about the generality and a guiding ability of paradigms in the scientific tradition

Second paragraph talks bout the further detailed understanding of the undrstanding by using rules. But suddenly we see the author writing "Anyone who has tried to analyse or describe the scientific tradition will have.. principles". Then it hits you that what is the crux of the problem. Then again he reititerates the same thing in the last line "As a result, ..a given normal scientific tradition becomes.."

Third paragraph goes on to reitirate the same thing that paradigm plays an important role with or without rules. This confirms that rules are not that important to understand the tradition.

So how can 1st be the answer? i.e relationship between rules, paradigms and science when he himself admits that rules are not that important.

totally agree.with u ..i also think..that the answer for that question is 4...."option 1"....appears to be a direct answer and more likely to be a trap..set by IIM...the central idea is definitely given by" ways of understanding scientific tradition.."..

PS: i can bet on this question that ans for this will be 4.....anyone game for it?

[Rohit .Sinha]

I too am royally pissed off. And don't talk about these institutes. Had google not been there they would have come up with such answers that we would have got mad. Even then, they don't know to use google properly.

IMS marks the rennasance wala question as "The artists and poets of rennaisance". They porbably failed to notice that there is a person mention who has been called the consummation of all this(Shakespeare). And he was in 17th century not in Rennaisance period.

TIME faculty donot know that "the council is always elected" and the council is at sixes and sevens is all right and council are at sixes and sevens also right.

Woh to shukra hai ki option, "The council that was elected last year are at sixes and sevens" option nahi tha warna yeh log wohi marte.

Bunch of jokers.(IIMs are no less)

So dear puys, Hold on your breath till 8th jan, we will see a lot of fortunes changing.

[the_phantom]

Originally Posted by Rohit .Sinha

Dear friend,

About the third question, you are taking the written lines in isolation.

Explanation--

1. Last para, 3rdlast line

"The results are not prevented to be guided by the paradigms in the absence of rules."
"Nornal science can be detremined in part by the direct inspection of the paradigm.
This means that when the rules are not there, paradigms can play a big role their, but the very fact that the absence of rules have been mentioned, it is suggestive of they playing a role. And look at the highlighted part.


2. Yes I do have a problem with the first question but I strongly feel that answer id 4 i.e
"Ways of understanding the scientific tradition"

because

First paragraphs talks about the generality and a guiding ability of paradigms in the scientific tradition

Second paragraph talks bout the further detailed understanding of the undrstanding by using rules. But suddenly we see the author writing "Anyone who has tried to analyse or describe the scientific tradition will have.. principles". Then it hits you that what is the crux of the problem. Then again he reititerates the same thing in the last line "As a result, ..a given normal scientific tradition becomes.."

Third paragraph goes on to reitirate the same thing that paradigm plays an important role with or without rules. This confirms that rules are not that important to understand the tradition.

So how can 1st be the answer? i.e relationship between rules, paradigms and science when he himself admits that rules are not that important.

Agree with you...

Also considering the fact that the first line of the passage itself is the first option given...I wonder if iims will give such a direct lift from the passage as a question..

Even i had marked ways of understanding scientific tradition as the first option seemed too simple - too direct..