set 62
1 a
2 c
3 c

set 63
1 c
2 c
3 b......

plz post the oa aftr sometime @billubhai...;)

Set# 60:


According to the passage, which of the following does not stem from popular wisdom on language?

1) Language is a cultural artifact.
2) Language is learnt as we grow.
3) Language is a psychological faculty.
4) Language is unique to Homo sapiens.
5) Language is a cultural invention.

Which of the following can be used to replace the spiders know how to spin webs analogy as used by the author?

1) A donkey carrying a load.
2) A kitten learning to jump over a wall
3) Bees collecting nectar.
4) A pet dog protecting its owner's property.
5) A horse running a Derby.

According to the passage, which of the following is unique to human beings?

1) Ability to communicate information to other members of the species.
2) All of the above.
3) Ability to use sound as means of communication.
4) Ability to communicate with each other through voice modulation.
5) Ability to use symbols while communicating with one another.

According to the passage, complexity of language cannot be taught by parents or at school to children because

1) children learn the language on their own.
2) children are born with the knowledge of semiotics.
3) children instinctively know language.
4) children know language better than their teachers or parents.
5) language is not amenable to teaching

Which of the following best summarizes the passage?

1) Language is instinctive ability of human beings.
2) Language is use of symbols unique to human beings.
3) Language is not a cultural invention or artifacts as it is made out.
4) Language is neither learnt nor taught.
5) Language is unique to Homo sapiens.

SET 63:

1) c
2) c
3) b

SET 61:

1) b
2) d
3) c

Sapyy Says

Where the hell are the OAs of previous 3 RCs.... We cant keep shooting darts in the air... We even need to know whether they are hitting the target...

Maybe you can do something useful instead of Shouting and Demanding. And if you are really interested in knowing the OA, you should PM the puy who posted the set.

PS: Have seen some of your earlier posts too. Please refrain from posting such Posts.

Set 63

In the 'God Delusion' Richard Dawkins talks about our inherent psychological tendency towards logical fallacies. He references cargo cults, tribes that formed superstitious beliefs around the arrival of US soldiers
upon their islands. They believed that communicating on the radio, and marching in unison were all rituals that brought precious gifts from the heavens in the form of supplies that came in by airplane to the island.
They saw what to them looked like strange ceremonial dancing when the soldiers were marching, and their logic was that this was a ritual to be performed to please the gods who then bought goods beyond their
wildest dreams. They saw that A came before B, and made the logical fallacy that A caused B. Genus Homo have possessed logical reasoning skills for millennia, however we have not always possessed
the knowledge upon which to base them. Logic works when based in knowledge, and this is an evolutionary advantage. When our ancestors saw the prints of an animal in the sand, they had the capacity of
understanding that an animal had been there - and this was reasoning based upon knowledge, we knew what kind of prints a certain animal would make, and we could deduce from seeing the print which direction
the animal was going in . This was useful in both hunting and avoiding predators.

As our knowledge increased we realized what causes disease, and what can be done to prevent it, we know how to engineer our way out of famine with our knowledge of crops and fertilizers. The failed logic of
old has been abandoned. Logic is a powerful tool when combined with knowledge, but without it, it can misfire and lead one to believe things that are unreasonable, and often harmful.

The fact that superstition is so prevalent in our species would seem to suggest that it is of evolutionary origin, and this is something that Dawkins discusses in the God Delusion. He argues that we have
an intuitive dualism - which is the propensity to believe that there is a separation between the mind and body. Stating that dualists have a tendency to "personify inanimate physical objects at the slightest
opportunity, seeing spirits and demons even in waterfalls and clouds." He talks about how we assign agents where there are none, getting angry at traffic lights as though they are personally out to get you, for
example.

Knowledge and reason are the best tools we have for advancing our species both morally and scientifically. Superstition causes many people to act in ways that a person possessing the facts simply could not.
People who believe crystals have magic properties, people who believe that certain diets can cure cancer, people who believe that homosexuality is an abomination, people who believe in ridiculous conspiracy
theories... The list goes on. None of these beliefs are based in knowledge, and the logic behind them is flawed. It's time to move on, we don't need to appease gods in order to ensure we won't get smallpox; we
conquered it with the practical application of knowledge and reason.

1. The author gives the example of the Cargo Cults to highlight which of the following?
(a) Understanding the wider picture does not necessarily lead to knowledge.
(b) What we see may sometimes not be what we are meant to see.
(c) Understanding without knowledge leads to logic becoming a fallacy.
(d) All of the above
2. The main idea of the passage is to
(a) explain the reason behind superstition and to denounce it.
(b) welcome the realization that failed logic is not good.
(c) highlight that logic is powerful when combined with knowledge.
(d) explain how dualism sometimes misleads us in absence of logic.

3. Which of the following behaviors is the author not likely to label superstitious?
(a) A cricketer blaming the number on his jersey for missing out on a century.
(b) A student blaming his/her leaking pen for failure in exams.
(c) A doctor certifying to the healing touch of prayers.
(d) None of the above

SET 62

Anti-Semitism turns up so often in the rsums of 20th-century artists, in fact, that it almost seems part of the job description, and critics and commentators have sometimes tried to mitigate if not excuse it. Wagner, they point out, had Jewish friends. Eliot was a devout, churchgoing Anglican - surely not a "bad" person in any extreme way. So for now, let's leave anti-Semitism off the list. How about misogyny, or generally creepy behavior toward women? Picasso probably takes the prize here: of the seven main women in his life, two went mad and two killed themselves. His standing could be in jeopardy, though, if the crime novelist Patricia Cornwell ever succeeds in proving her conviction - argued at length and at great expense in her book Portrait of a Killer: Jack the Ripper- Case Closed - that the British painter Walter Sickert was in fact the famous serial killer.
Speaking of killing, Norman Mailer in a rage once tried to kill one of his wives. The painter Caravaggio and the poet and playwright Ben Jonson both killed men in duels or brawls. Genet was a thief, Rimbaud was a smuggler, Byron committed incest, Flaubert paid for sex with boys. So case closed, one is tempted to say, invoking Ms. Cornwell's phrase: anti-Semitism, misogyny, racism (I left that out, but there are too many examples to cite), murderousness, theft, sex crimes. That's not to mention the drunkenness, drug-taking, backstabbing, casual adultery and chronic indebtedness that we know attended (or attends) the lives of so many people who make unquestionably good art. Why should we be surprised or think otherwise? Why should artists be any better than the rest of us?
The question - "Can bad people create good art?" - is misleading because badness and goodness in this formulation don't refer to the same thing. In the case of the artist, badness or goodness is a moral quality or judgment; in the case of his art goodness and badness are terms of aesthetic merit, to which morality does not apply. The conductor Daniel Barenboim, a Jew, is a champion of Wagner's music, for example, and has made a point of playing it in Israel, where it is hardly welcome. His defense is that while Wagner may have been reprehensible, his music is not. Barenboim likes to say that Wagner did not compose a single note that is anti-Semitic. And the disconnect between art and morality goes further than that: not only can a "bad" person write a good novel or paint a good picture, but a good picture or a good novel can depict a very bad thing. Think of Picasso's Guernica or Nabokov's Lolita , an exceptionally good novel about the sexual abuse of a minor, described in a way that makes the protagonist seem almost sympathetic.
Yet art, when you experience it, seems ennobling: it inspires and transports us, refines our discriminations, enlarges our understanding and our sympathies. Surely, we imagine, we are better people because of it. And if art does this much for those of us who merely appreciate it, then it must reflect something even better and truer and more inspiring in the lives and character of the people who actually create art. We cling to these notions - especially that art morally improves us - against all evidence to the contrary, for as the critic George Steiner has famously pointed out, the Holocaust contradicts them once and for all. "We know that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening," Steiner writes, "that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning." Or as Walter Benjamin once wrote: "At the base of every major work of art is a pile of barbarism." Another, possibly more interesting way to think about the question is to cross out bad and change it to good: Can good people make good art? Or to make it a little harder: Can good people make great art? The answer here might seem to be equally self-evident. There are countless artists who seemingly lead decent, morally upstanding lives, who don't beat their wives, slur the Jews, or even cheat on their taxes. There are many more of these, one wants to say, than of the other sort, the Wagners, Rimbauds, Byrons, et al., who are the exception rather than the rule. And yet the creation of truly great art requires a degree of concentration, commitment, dedication, and preoccupation - of selfishness, in a word - that sets that artist apart and makes him not an outlaw, exactly, but a law unto himself.

1)What is the tone of the paragraph?
a)Analytical, b)Argumentive, c)Cynical, d)Critical
2)What is the main idea of the passage?
a)Bad person can make good art.
b)Creation of great art is possible being in commonplace.
c)Challenging the notion: bad people cannot make good art.
d)Asserts certain degree of qualities set great artists apart from the others.
3)What could be a possible paragraph that will follow the excerpt?
a)Will state about anti-Semitic artists to explain how they created great art in spite of going through upheavals in their life.
b)Will state about why, so called, good people failed to create great art.
c)Will state about how great artists tend to live for their art more than for others.
d)Will state about a great artist whose domestic record is less inspiring than his artistic one.

yes! the thread is basically meant for discussion which cannot be done unless and until the correct choices are provided....and,this is the job of those who are posting the ques...

Where the hell are the OAs of previous 3 RCs.... We cant keep shooting darts in the air... We even need to know whether they are hitting the target...

Set 49:
a. 3
b. 4
c. 1

set 61
1 3
2 4
3 4
4 2
5 4

Set #60
5
3
4
3
1

Set# 61:

When I was little, children were bought two kinds of ice cream, sold from those white wagons with the canopies made of silvery metal: either the two-cent cone or the four-cent ice cream pie. The two-cent cone was very small, in fact it could fit comfortably into a childs hand, and it was made by taking the ice cream from its container with a special scoop and piling it on the cone. Granny always suggested I eat only a part of the cone, then throw away the pointed end, because it had been touched by the vendors hand (though that was the best part, nice and crunchy, and it was regularly eaten in secret, after a pretense of discarding it).
The four-cent pie was made by a special little machine, also silvery, which pressed two disks of sweet biscuit against a cylindrical section of ice cream. First you had to thrust your tongue into the gap between the biscuits until it touched the central nucleus of ice cream; then, gradually, you ate the whole thing, the biscuit surfaces softening as they became soaked in creamy nectar. Granny had no advice to give here: in theory the pies had been touched only by the machine; in practice, the vendor had held them against his hand while giving them to us, but it was impossible to isolate the contaminated area.
I was fascinated, however, by some of my peers, whose parents bought them not a four-cent pie but two two-cent cones. These privileged children advanced proudly with one cone in their right hand and one in their left; and expertly moving their head from side to side, they licked first one, then the other. This liturgy seemed to me so sumptuously enviable, that many times I asked to be allowed to celebrate it. In vain. My elders were inflexible: a four-cent ice, yes; but two two-cent ones, absolutely no.
As anyone can see, neither mathematics nor economy nor dietetics justified this refusal. Nor did hygiene, assuming that in due course the tips of both cones were discarded. The pathetic, and obviously mendacious, justification was that a boy concerned with turning his eyes from one cone to the other was more inclined to stumble over stones, steps, or cracks in the pavement. I dimly sensed that there was another secret justification, cruelly pedagogical, but I was unable to grasp it.
Today, citizen and victim of a consumer society, a civilization of excess and waste (which the society of the thirties was not), I realize that those dear and now departed elders were right. Two two-cent cones instead of one at four cents did not signify squandering, economically speaking, but symbolically they surely did. It was for this precise reason, that I yearned for them: because two ice creams suggested excess. And this was precisely why they were denied me: because they looked indecent, an insult to poverty, a display of fictitious privilege, a boast of wealth. Only spoiled children ate two cones at once, those children who in fairy tales were rightly punished, as Pinocchio was when he rejected the skin and the stalk. And parents who encouraged this weakness, appropriate to little parvenus, were bringing up their children in the foolish theater of Id like to but I cant. They were preparing them to turn up at tourist-class cheek-in with a fake Gucci bag bought from a street peddler on the beach at Rimini.
Nowadays the moralist risks seeming at odds with morality, in a world where the consumer civilization now wants even adults to be spoiled, and promises them always something more, from the wristwatch in the box of detergent to the bonus bangle sheathed, with the magazine it accompanies, in a plastic envelope. Like the parents of those ambidextrous gluttons I so envied, the consumer civilization pretends to give more, but actually gives, for four cents, what is worth four cents. You will throw away the old transistor radio to purchase the new one, that boasts an alarm clock as well, but some inexplicable defect in the mechanism will guarantee that the radio lasts only a year. The new cheap car will have leather seats, double side mirrors adjustable from inside, and a paneled dashboard, but it will not last nearly so long as the glorious old Fiat 500, which, even when it broke down, could be started again with a kick.
The morality of the old days made Spartans of us all, while todays morality wants all of us to be Sybarites.

Which of the following cannot be inferred from the passage?

(1) Todays society is more extravagant than the society of the 1930s.
(2) The act of eating two ice cream cones in akin to a ceremonial process.
(3) Elders rightly suggested that a boy turning eyes from one cone to the other was more likely to fall.
(4) Despite seeming to promise more, the consumer civilization gives away exactly what the thing is worth.
(5) The consumer civilization attempts to spoil children and adults alike.

In the passage, the phrase "little parvenus" refers to:

(1) foolish kids
(2) arrogant people
(3) naughty midgets
(4) young upstarts
(5) old hags
The author pined for two-cent cones instead of one four-cent pie because:

(1) it suggested intemperance
(2) he was a glutton
(3) it made dietetic sense
(4) it had a visual appeal
(5) it was more fun
What does the author mean by "now a days the moralist risks seeming at odds with morality"?

(1) The moralist of yesterday have become immoral today
(2) The concept of morality has changed over the years
(3) The risks associated with immorality have gone up
(4) Consumerism is amoral
(5) The purist's view of morality is fast becoming popular
According to the author, the justification for refusal to let him eat two cones was plausibly:

(1) dialectic
(2) dietetic
(3) diatonic
(4) diastolic
(5) didactic

Set -59

My Take
1-1
2-2
3-3

Set 60
1. 1
2. 3
3. 2
4. 1
5. 1

Set 60

3)
3)
4)
1)
1)

Please post the answers to RC 1.
My take
a.4
b.3
c.3
d.2

Set 59:

1) 3
2) 2
3) 3

SET 60

My Take:

1. 3

2. 3

3. 4

4. 1

5. 1

solution kab tak aate hain ??
new to this thread.... last 3 4 RCs dekhe...no solution ....

Set 60
1)3
2)3
3)4
4)1
5)1

PS: Nice Set MadHead:biggrin:

Set# 60:


1. 1
2. 3
3. 2
4. 1
5. 1

Set# 60:


1. 5
2. 3
3. 4
4. 1
5. 1

Set-59
1-4
2-1
3-3

Set# 60:

Language is not a cultural artifact that we learn the way we learn to tell time or how the federal government works. Instead, it is a distinct piece of the biological makeup of our brains. Language is a complex, specialized skill, which develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal instruction, is deployed without awareness of its underlying logic, is qualitatively the same in every individual, and is distinct from more general abilities to process information or behave intelligently. For these reasons some cognitive scientists have described language as a psychological faculty, a mental organ, a neural system, and a computational module. But I prefer the admittedly quaint term instinct. It conveys the idea that people know how to talk in more or less the sense that spiders know how to spin webs. Web-spinning was not invented by some unsung spider genius and does not depend on having had the right education or on having an aptitude for architecture or the construction trades. Rather, spiders spin spider webs because they have spider brains, which give them the urge to spin and the competence to succeed. Although there are differences between webs and words, I will encourage you to see language in this way, for it helps to make sense of the phenomena we will explore
Thinking of language as an instinct inverts the popular wisdom, especially as it has been passed down in the canon of the humanities and social sciences. Language is no more a cultural invention than is upright posture. It is not a manifestation of a general capacity to use symbols: a three year old, we shall see, is a grammatical genius, but is quite incompetent at the visual arts, religious iconography, traffic signs, and the other staples of the semiotics curriculum. Though language is a magnificent ability unique to Homo sapiens among living species, it does not call for sequestering the study of humans from the domain of biology, for a magnificent ability unique to a particular living species is far from unique in the animal kingdom. Some kinds of bats home in on flying insects using Doppler sonar. Some kinds of migratory birds navigate thousands of miles by calibrating the positions of the constellations against the time of day and year. In natures talent show we are simply a species of primate with our own act, a knack for communicating information about who did what to whom by modulating the sounds we make when we exhale.
Once you begin to look at language not as the ineffable essence of human uniqueness but as a biological adaption to communicate information, it is no longer as tempting to see language as an insidious shaper of thought, and, we shall see, it is not Moreover, seeing language as one of natures engineering marvels an organ with that perfection of structure and co-adaption which justly excites our admiration,in Darwins words- give us a new respect for your ordinary Joe and the much-maligned English language (or any language) The complexity of language, from the scientists point of view, is part of our biological birth right; it is not something that parents teach their children or something that must be elaborated in school as Oscar Wilde said,Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught pre schooler stacit knowledge of grammar is more sophisticated than the thickest style manual or the most state-of-the-art computer language system, and the same applies to all healthy human beings, even the notorious syntax-fracturing professional athlete and the, you know, like, inarticulate teenage skateboarder. Finally, since language is the product of a well-engineered biological instinct, we shall see that it is not nutty barrel of monkeys that entertainer-columnists make it out to be.

According to the passage, which of the following does not stem from popular wisdom on language?

1) Language is a cultural artifact.
2) Language is learnt as we grow.
3) Language is a psychological faculty.
4) Language is unique to Homo sapiens.
5) Language is a cultural invention.

Which of the following can be used to replace the spiders know how to spin webs analogy as used by the author?

1) A donkey carrying a load.
2) A kitten learning to jump over a wall
3) Bees collecting nectar.
4) A pet dog protecting its owner's property.
5) A horse running a Derby.

According to the passage, which of the following is unique to human beings?

1) Ability to communicate information to other members of the species.
2) All of the above.
3) Ability to use sound as means of communication.
4) Ability to communicate with each other through voice modulation.
5) Ability to use symbols while communicating with one another.

According to the passage, complexity of language cannot be taught by parents or at school to children because

1) children learn the language on their own.
2) children are born with the knowledge of semiotics.
3) children instinctively know language.
4) children know language better than their teachers or parents.
5) language is not amenable to teaching

Which of the following best summarizes the passage?

1) Language is instinctive ability of human beings.
2) Language is use of symbols unique to human beings.
3) Language is not a cultural invention or artifacts as it is made out.
4) Language is neither learnt nor taught.
5) Language is unique to Homo sapiens.

Set 59
1) 3
2) 2
3) 3

SET 59

Q1)3) Its linkages with value judgments.
Q2)4) An innate sense of intellectual superiority.
Q3)1) Individualistic interpretation of the nature of things.

Set 11
1) 2
2) 2
3) 5
4) 3
5) 4

SET 59
My Takes
1. 3
2. 2
3. 3

Took 4 minutes to solve. It's a request to fellow puys to mention the time it took to solve the passage. It gives a rough idea of ideal time it should take. Would help everyone to know if they took about average time or were they stuck and should have hurried.

set 59

1. - 3
2. - 2
3. - 3

SET 59

My Take is:

Q1) 3) Its linkages with value judgments.

Q2) 2) An instinctive utilitarian outlook.

Q3) 3) An element of commonality and objectivity in the evaluation
of things.

SET 59

1. 4

2. 1

3. 3

found the questions really tough;will be really happy if I get even one of them correct..

set 59
1 3
2 4
3 3
plz don't delay in posting oa../

set 59
1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

set 59
1. 3
2. 2
3. 3

p.s. : Please, post the correct answers by tomorrow!

this thread is so slow, Immensely Disappointing!.... The answer to RC passages should be there in 24 hours, and it should be the responsibility of the one who is posting the passage...

Takes on Set 57:-

1. D. It is possible to study obedience through a laboratory experiment.
2. B. obedience that is willingly given to ones superior.
3. C. A study that shows that most people do not have strongly held ethical
values

Takes on Set 58:-

1. (d) Being Spiritual
2. (c) Detachment does not prevent pain and compassion but rejects complication and pretense.

Please Post OA For Sets 57 and 58 ....

Rc 6
1) b
2)
3) b
4) c
5) c

Rc 4

1) 2
2) 1
3) 5

SET 57

My Take:

1. d

2. b

3. c

SET 58

My Take:

31. d

32. c

Set 58
d
c

Set 58
-------
1) C
2) C

Whats the answer puys

BilluBhai set pura tough hai .
Share some tips , how to solve these types of RCs

AS asked (Though not original..but the best I could find. It's a post from one of the Faculty at a premium institute..).

CHOOSE YOUR RC PASSAGE: This is the most important point in the verbal section. Dont attempt every RC passage. Verbal section is like any other section- you need to select questions that you are going to answer. Remember that it takes 10 minutes on average to answer an RC passage completely. Attempting a tough RC passage consumes more time than you take for an average RC passage, makes you unsure of your answers, leaves you unsettled and nervous about the paper. It even tires you out mentally and increases the panic situation. The best strategy is to give a brief glance to each RC passage, and then select the ones you are going to attempt. Make a firm resolve that you will NOT look at the passages that you have excluded. How do you select a passage? I have only one criterion- I select passages that are easier to read. Different people will find different passages easier to read depending on their backgrounds.
In CAT 2006, had you attempted only one RC passage and ignored the two others completely, you would have 15 questions at your disposal and you would have 50 minutes to solve them. You would have had more time to think in every question and it would have increased your accuracy remarkably. Even a 75% percent accuracy in these 15 questions would have fetched you the cut offs.
Which also does not mean that you have to leave some RCs necessarily. In CAT 2008, I found the RCs the most easy. I attempted all of them and achieved my cutoffs in the verbal section easily. So modify my advice a little- Choose your questions.

START SLOOOWWWLYYY: Most students start with an RC passage with a timer in their heads. Therefore, they try to hit the ground running. They want to finish the first paragraph as soon as they can, then move on to the second paragraph and finish it quickly and so on. In the process, they lose track of the main idea of the passage, tone of the author, the structure of the passage etc. By the time they reach halfway through the passage, they lose track of the argument and get confused. These students do not understand that the most important part of a passage is the first paragraph. The first paragraph introduces the topic and the main idea of the passage, and very often states the authors position on it. Start with the first paragraph SLOWLY! Do not move on to the second paragraph until you have understood the first one completely.

FORM AN OPINION AND TAKE A STAND: Do you realize how passively you absorb every line of a passage that was written by some highly opinionated jerk? Do you ever question whether the author of the passage is talking sense or feeding you crap? You become a punching bag whom someone is hitting with his ideas. For a change, why not start questioning the content of the passage? Why not start forming opinions about every paragraph in the passage and start taking sides? Trying to judge every paragraph will have the following effect:
In order to form an opinion, you will be forced to read the contents of a passage very minutely.

You will become aware of the logical points the author is trying to put across to convince you.
You will be forced to paraphrase every paragraph and summarize what the author is trying to say.

You will become a highly active reader, become interested in the passage and be able to maintain your focus throughout the passage.

CONNECT THE DOTS: While moving from one paragraph to another, be VERY aware of the logical flow of the passage. Be conscious about how the passage is structured. At any point in the passage, you should be able to say, the author started from X, then moved to Y, then discussed Z to prove his point, then discussed some points against Z and connect every part of the passage with the previous parts. Practice this technique again and again until it becomes a habit with you.

GO BACK TO THE PASSAGE TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION: Many errors in RC passages happen because a student facing crunch of time marks answers relying on his memory of the passage. He marks the options which he thinks are similar to something he read in the passage. Dont do it. The person who made the test is counting on you to do that and he has deliberately put similar sounding options in the questions. Go back to the passage and check out every option. Yes. EVERY option. Lets say that you are somewhat shaky about option b and even after checking the passage feel that it is probably right. But if you keep checking out the options you might find that option d is better than option b. So check every thing out. Be a suspicious bastard.

Set 57
d
d
c

Set 58
d
c

Set 55

OA

1.B
2.D
3.E
4.A
5.A

Set 57
1 b
2 b
3 c

Set 58

31.D
32.C

RC: SET 58

31. (d) Being Spiritual
32. (c) Detachment does not prevent pain and compassion but rejects complication and pretense.

set 58

1 d(a balanced and unbaised thinking is favoured ....but ,equality is a very wide term....
creativity is just a para to support ..not the theme...'intellectual limits 'is nt the main idea...so,i think it is 'being spritual'
2 c

set 57

1 d
2 e
3 a(since as per the author the fear/compulsion of authorities can result in disobedience and the survey a is saying the opp. thing...making author's argument weak)

set 58:
1. d
2. a

SET 57-->
1.D
2.C
3.C

PLEASE POST THE OA---->siddharthg1

SET 58:

31) d)
32) c)

RC: SET 58
==========
31--->a
32--->c

Set 57:
My take-
d
b
d
...........

Please post OA