OAs for PJ set 1 
P.S- Thread pe bhut sanata h these days 😛 Keep posting
Happy CATing 
P.S- Thread pe bhut sanata h these days 😛 Keep posting
@miseera acc. to the original source, 4th pj ka order BDACE hona chahiye, but ye options mein nhi hai
SET (4) PC 
1. Most firms consider expert individuals to be too elitist, temperamental, egocentric, and difficult to work with. Force such people to collaborate on a high-stakes project and they just might come to fisticuffs. Even the very notion of managing such a group seems unimaginable. So most organizations fall into default mode, setting up project teams of people who get along nicely. _______________________
1. The result, however, is disastrous.
2. The result is mediocrity.
3. The result is creation of experts who then become elitists.
4. Naturally, they drive innovations.
1. The result, however, is disastrous.
2. The result is mediocrity.
3. The result is creation of experts who then become elitists.
4. Naturally, they drive innovations.
2. Federer's fifth grand slam win prompted a reporter to ask whether he was the best ever. Federer is certainly not lacking in confidence, but he wasn't about to proclaim himself the best ever. The best player of this generation, yes, he said, But nowhere close to ever. Just look at the records that some guys have. I'm a minnow. _______________________
1. His win against Agassi, a genius from the previous generation, contradicts that.
2. Sampras, the king of an earlier generation, was as humble.
3. He is more than a minnow to his contemporaries.
4. The difference between “the best of this generation “ and the best ever is a matter of perception.
1. His win against Agassi, a genius from the previous generation, contradicts that.
2. Sampras, the king of an earlier generation, was as humble.
3. He is more than a minnow to his contemporaries.
4. The difference between “the best of this generation “ and the best ever is a matter of perception.
3. Thus the end of knowledge and the closing of the frontier that it symbolizes is not a looming crisis at all, but merely one of many embarrassing fits of hubris in civilization's long industry. In the end, it will pass away and be forgotten. Ours is not the first generation to struggle to understand the organizational laws of the frontier, deceive itself that it has succeeded, and go to its grave having failed. _______________________
1. One would be wise to be humble.
2. But we might be the first generation to actually reach the frontier.
3. But we might be the first generation to deal with the crisis.
4. However, this time the success is not illusory.
1. One would be wise to be humble.
2. But we might be the first generation to actually reach the frontier.
3. But we might be the first generation to deal with the crisis.
4. However, this time the success is not illusory.
Happy CATing
@DN2686 Thanks for replying. I was solving a paper n found the correct answer as '' none of the men WERE arrested which is plural. Can u reason out this?
@miseera : Great going Sumit Bhai 😃 :thumbsup:
My take, Set 4:
1) 3, 2) 3, 3) 2
Tag me with the OA. (Do not visit this thread more often 
)
)
@dhanishtha So I read up a bit on this some time back - plural form is also acceptable at some places. the acceptance of singular form is more universal though. Recently there have been changes where 'None of Them is/are' is governed by 'them' which is plural.
So I guess the more generally accepted rule in spoken english today becomes 'None of [singular entity/plural entity] [singular verb/plural verb]
Eg: 'None of it is' and 'None of them are'
So I guess the more generally accepted rule in spoken english today becomes 'None of [singular entity/plural entity] [singular verb/plural verb]
Eg: 'None of it is' and 'None of them are'
No One Active Here 
CAT 13 se two Days Pahle Jagenge It seems 
OAs For SET -4 PC
2,3,1
@ScareCrow28 @vijay_chandola and All :D
Keep Posting 
CAT Gyan
What is a Deductive Argument?
A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:
All men are mortal. (premise)
Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible for the conclusion to be false. If you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth of the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if you reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself.
What is an Inductive Argument?
An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example). Words which tend to mark an argument as inductive - and hence probabilistic rather than necessary - include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.
Deductive Arguments vs. Inductive Arguments
It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don't arrive at new information - at best, we are shown information which was obscured or unrecognized previously. Thus, the sure truth-preserving nature of deductive arguments comes at a cost.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for deductive arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may be used most often with mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of inductive arguments.
A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.
An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.
The difference between the two comes from the sort of relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.
The noun “deduction” refers to the process of advancing a deductive argument, or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. “Induction” refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.
Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, the truth of the conclusion is “contained within” the truth of the premises; i.e., the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. For example, the following are deductive arguments:
There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the lower shelf of the bookcase. There are no books anywhere else in my bookcase. Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden. If Bergen is in Norway, then Bergen is in Scandinavia. If Bergen is in Sweden, the Bergen is in Scandinavia. Therefore, Bergen is in Scandinavia.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can appeal to any consideration that might be thought relevant to the probability of the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, therefore, can take very wide ranging forms, including arguments dealing with statistical data, generalizations from past experience, appeals to signs, evidence or authority, and causal relationships.
Some dictionaries define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. While this usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and mathematical contexts, for the most part, it is outdated. For example, according to the more modern definitions given above, the following argument, even though it reasons from the specific to general, is deductive, because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:
The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.
Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is inductive:
It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.
It is worth noting, therefore, that the proof technique used in mathematics called “mathematical induction”, is, according to the contemporary definition given above, actually a form of deduction. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:
Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary standards.
Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depening on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.
Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.
It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of “champagne” proper and that therefore, the conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker's mind. He or she may merely believe that most champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive.
It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.
This argument is logically invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.
Predictive arguments make a case for anticipating events based on the characteristics of a category. Once you have identified an animal as a squirrel then you can anticipate what it will do based on the general knowledge of the classification, "squirrel." The conclusion: 'If you keep feeding the squirrel it will do damage to your home' requires an argument of the form:
Example 1: Squirrels are small furry animals that live in and about your property and can nest in your home by feeding it food and can do damage to the wiring in the walls of your home.
Example 2: There is a squirrel in the wall of the house.
Therefore : That squirrel that is in the wall will damage the wiring.
A deductive argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true but the conclusion false. Thus, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises and inferences. In this way, it is supposed to be a definitive proof of the truth of the claim (conclusion). Here is a classic example:
All men are mortal. (premise)
Socrates was a man. (premise)
Socrates was mortal. (conclusion)
As you can see, if the premises are true (and they are), then it simply isn't possible for the conclusion to be false. If you have a deductive argument and you accept the truth of the premises, then you must also accept the truth of the conclusion; if you reject it, then you are rejecting logic itself.
What is an Inductive Argument?
An inductive argument is one in which the premises are supposed to support the conclusion in such a way that if the premises are true, it is improbable that the conclusion would be false. Thus, the conclusion follows probably from the premises and inferences. Here is an example:
Socrates was Greek. (premise)
Most Greeks eat fish. (premise)
Socrates ate fish. (conclusion)
In this example, even if both premises are true, it is still possible for the conclusion to be false (maybe Socrates was allergic to fish, for example). Words which tend to mark an argument as inductive - and hence probabilistic rather than necessary - include probably, likely, possibly and reasonably.
Deductive Arguments vs. Inductive Arguments
It may seem that inductive arguments are weaker than deductive arguments because there must always remain the possibility of their arriving at false conclusions, but that is not entirely true. With deductive arguments, our conclusions are already contained, even if implicitly, in our premises. This means that we don't arrive at new information - at best, we are shown information which was obscured or unrecognized previously. Thus, the sure truth-preserving nature of deductive arguments comes at a cost.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, do provide us with new ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for deductive arguments to achieve. Thus, while deductive arguments may be used most often with mathematics, most other fields of research make extensive use of inductive arguments.
A deductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. In a deductive argument, the premises are intended to provide support for the conclusion that is so strong that, if the premises are true, it would be impossible for the conclusion to be false.
An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.
The difference between the two comes from the sort of relation the author or expositor of the argument takes there to be between the premises and the conclusion. If the author of the argument believes that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion due to definition, logical entailment or mathematical necessity, then the argument is deductive. If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises definitely establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reason to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive.
The noun “deduction” refers to the process of advancing a deductive argument, or going through a process of reasoning that can be reconstructed as a deductive argument. “Induction” refers to the process of advancing an inductive argument, or making use of reasoning that can be reconstructed as an inductive argument.
Because deductive arguments are those in which the truth of the conclusion is thought to be completely guaranteed and not just made probable by the truth of the premises, if the argument is a sound one, the truth of the conclusion is “contained within” the truth of the premises; i.e., the conclusion does not go beyond what the truth of the premises implicitly requires. For this reason, deductive arguments are usually limited to inferences that follow from definitions, mathematics and rules of formal logic. For example, the following are deductive arguments:
There are 32 books on the top-shelf of the bookcase, and 12 on the lower shelf of the bookcase. There are no books anywhere else in my bookcase. Therefore, there are 44 books in the bookcase.Bergen is either in Norway or Sweden. If Bergen is in Norway, then Bergen is in Scandinavia. If Bergen is in Sweden, the Bergen is in Scandinavia. Therefore, Bergen is in Scandinavia.
Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can appeal to any consideration that might be thought relevant to the probability of the truth of the conclusion. Inductive arguments, therefore, can take very wide ranging forms, including arguments dealing with statistical data, generalizations from past experience, appeals to signs, evidence or authority, and causal relationships.
Some dictionaries define “deduction” as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction” as reasoning from the specific to the general. While this usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and mathematical contexts, for the most part, it is outdated. For example, according to the more modern definitions given above, the following argument, even though it reasons from the specific to general, is deductive, because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion:
The members of the Williams family are Susan, Nathan and Alexander.
Susan wears glasses.
Nathan wears glasses.
Alexander wears glasses.
Therefore, all members of the Williams family wear glasses.
Moreover, the following argument, even though it reasons from the general to specific, is inductive:
It has snowed in Massachusetts every December in recorded history.
Therefore, it will snow in Massachusetts this coming December.
It is worth noting, therefore, that the proof technique used in mathematics called “mathematical induction”, is, according to the contemporary definition given above, actually a form of deduction. Proofs that make use of mathematical induction typically take the following form:
Property P is true of the number 0.
For all natural numbers n, if P holds of n then P also holds of n + 1.
Therefore, P is true of all natural numbers.
When such a proof is given by a mathematician, it is thought that if the premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, such an argument is deductive by contemporary standards.
Because the difference between inductive and deductive arguments involves the strength of evidence which the author believes the premises to provide for the conclusion, inductive and deductive arguments differ with regard to the standards of evaluation that are applicable to them. The difference does not have to do with the content or subject matter of the argument. Indeed, the same utterance may be used to present either a deductive or an inductive argument, depening on the intentions of the person advancing it. Consider as an example.
Dom Perignon is a champagne, so it must be made in France.
It might be clear from context that the speaker believes that having been made in the Champagne area of France is part of the defining feature of “champagne” proper and that therefore, the conclusion follows from the premise by definition. If it is the intention of the speaker that the evidence is of this sort, then the argument is deductive. However, it may be that no such thought is in the speaker's mind. He or she may merely believe that most champagne is made in France, and may be reasoning probabilistically. If this is his or her intention, then the argument is inductive.
It is also worth noting that, at its core, the distinction has to do with the strength of the justification that the author or expositor of the argument intends that the premises provide for the conclusion. If the argument is logically fallacious, it may be that the premises actually do not provide justification of that strength, or even any justification at all. Consider, the following argument:
All odd numbers are integers.
All even numbers are integers.
Therefore, all odd numbers are even numbers.
This argument is logically invalid. In actuality, the premises provide no support whatever for the conclusion. However, if this argument were ever seriously advanced, we must assume that the author would believe that the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Therefore, this argument is still deductive. A bad deductive argument is not an inductive argument.
Predictive arguments make a case for anticipating events based on the characteristics of a category. Once you have identified an animal as a squirrel then you can anticipate what it will do based on the general knowledge of the classification, "squirrel." The conclusion: 'If you keep feeding the squirrel it will do damage to your home' requires an argument of the form:
Example 1: Squirrels are small furry animals that live in and about your property and can nest in your home by feeding it food and can do damage to the wiring in the walls of your home.
Example 2: There is a squirrel in the wall of the house.
Therefore : That squirrel that is in the wall will damage the wiring.
@miseera said:No One Active Here CAT 13 se two Days Pahle Jagenge It seemsOAs For SET -4 PC2,3,1 @ScareCrow28@vijay_chandola and All Keep Posting
Thanks for quoting 😃 You have to popularize this thread so that others also come here 😛 use your marketing skills..
We Should Start With Easy SOme 😁 😁
SET -5 Again PJ's
1
A .The inner self provides us with a touchstone to evaluate our interface in nature.
B. There is hierarchy of consciousness
C. Stones, Planets, fish and human beings represent consecutively higher levels of consciousness.
D. Interface with nature, which leads to the growth of higher consciousness, is desirable.
a) DABC b) BCAD c) DBCA d) ABCD
A .The inner self provides us with a touchstone to evaluate our interface in nature.
B. There is hierarchy of consciousness
C. Stones, Planets, fish and human beings represent consecutively higher levels of consciousness.
D. Interface with nature, which leads to the growth of higher consciousness, is desirable.
a) DABC b) BCAD c) DBCA d) ABCD
2
A. Senior Management is usually overwhelmed by the complexity of budget setting.
B. They are rather bored by the budget process
C. It is a misconception that the budget is set by the senior management
D. Senior managers jump at a chance to accept a budget analysis recommendation for budget changes
A) CDAB B) CABD C)ABDC D) ABCD
A. Senior Management is usually overwhelmed by the complexity of budget setting.
B. They are rather bored by the budget process
C. It is a misconception that the budget is set by the senior management
D. Senior managers jump at a chance to accept a budget analysis recommendation for budget changes
A) CDAB B) CABD C)ABDC D) ABCD
3
A. Risk stemming from fluctuation in exchange rate loans hover constantly on the horizon of foreign investment
B. In view of higher risk, a firm contemplating foreign investment would naturally expect a higher rate of return
C. A multinational company may be accused of profiteering, even when it may simply be following the sound financial practice of asking a high rate of return commensurate with risks charactering the project
D. In addition, foreign investment is subject to discriminatory treatment and selection control in various forms
A. Risk stemming from fluctuation in exchange rate loans hover constantly on the horizon of foreign investment
B. In view of higher risk, a firm contemplating foreign investment would naturally expect a higher rate of return
C. A multinational company may be accused of profiteering, even when it may simply be following the sound financial practice of asking a high rate of return commensurate with risks charactering the project
D. In addition, foreign investment is subject to discriminatory treatment and selection control in various forms
A) ADBC B) CDBA C) ACBD D) BACD
Happy CATing
@vijay_chandola said:@miseera ye easy set h...? 1- a~d 2- b3- aTook more than 9-10 minutes to solve
Bhai ha 😁 said Easy set h 😛
@miseera said:PJ Set 1A.Last year a New York counsellor proposed a law that would prohibit the use of mobile phones in ' places of public performance' such as theatres, art galleries and concert halls , punishable by a $50 fine.B.At the same time, though, using a mobile phone can seem profoundly anti-social ,not least to people in the immediate vicinity.C.In retausrants, theatres ansd museums or trains or even standing in the super market check out queue , there is no escape from chirping and bleeping phones, nor from the inane converstaions of theit owners.D.But his proposal has been denied as unenforceable.E.The mobile phone is a paradoxical device.Its primary function is social; to enable its owner to communicate with other people.1.CADEB 2.EBCAD 3.ECBAD 4.ADEBCA.The years following the 1982 Asian Games saw an exponential rise in growth, which coincided with the setting up of Doordarshan kendras in many parts of the country.B.The govt. adopted a policy of encouraging the sector, which resulted in many TV companies being established.C.By 1989, there were over 200 TV companies with sales of 5.2 million sets.D.However due to high import content (picture tubes) of Tv's there was a huge outflow of foriegn exchange .E.The 80's saw the TV industry growing at a fast rate of 30% per year.1.EABCD 2.BDEAC 3.BCDAE 4.ECDABA.Is the Kyoto Protocol dead?B.A delegation from the European Union was rebuffed in Washington when they tried to get the US to reconsider its decision to turn its back on the treaty.C.The visit followed two recent bombshells dropped by George BUsh.D.Last month, he abruptly announced a U-turn on his intention to control the emission of carbon dioxide , the principal greenhouse gas, through domestic regulations.E.And lst week, he made it clear that his opposition to the Kyoto deal was not just posturing but "unequivocal".1.BECDA 2.ECDAB 3.BCDAE 4.ABCDEA.The French are renowned for their sensitivity to smell - Parisian cabbies are said to be able to nme perfumes that linger in their cabs long aftre the wearer is gone.B.Legend has it that when the royal famlliy tried to flee France disguised as commoners, they were betrayed by Marie Antoinette's perfume.C.Their's is assumed to be culturally conditioned talent.Sensitivity to smell is believed to be the result of nurture not nature abd is bound up with Proustian memories,sexual instincts and other enigmatic impulses.D.As she emerged from their carnage at Varennes, her heavenly Houbigant scent revealed her to be no ordinary citoyenne.E.Alone of all the senses, smell has remained a mystery ; no one yet has fully understood how the nose knoes.1.BADCE 2.ACBDE 3.BDEAC 4.ACEBDA.Towards the end of the boom and bust cycle, cement prices fell down taking down with it th cement companies' profitability.B.The last two years gave testimony to the last stage of the cycle.C.The profitability of cement companies suffered and the scrips took a beating on the stock markets.D.But the good part is that the glut in the industry and the resulting crunch in profitability deterred many enterpreneurs from entering the sector.1.DCAB 2.CDBA 3.ABCD 4.BDCAHappy CATing
1.4
2.1
3.4
4.2
5.3
2.1
3.4
4.2
5.3
Confusing Words
SET-7
1. I. The climatic(A)/climactic(B) moment of the mystery revealed the murderer to be the character least suspected by all.
II. He was criticized for his contemptuous(A)/contemptible(B) behavior in the class.
III. In order to not get noticed, he kept a discreet(A)/discrete(B) distance while following her.
IV. His childlike(A)/childish(B) pranks did not go down well with his classmates.
V. The dining(A)/dinning(B) room was already full of guests when I entered.
OPTIONS
1) BABAB
2) ABBAA
3) BBAAB
4) BBABA
5) ABABA
II. He was criticized for his contemptuous(A)/contemptible(B) behavior in the class.
III. In order to not get noticed, he kept a discreet(A)/discrete(B) distance while following her.
IV. His childlike(A)/childish(B) pranks did not go down well with his classmates.
V. The dining(A)/dinning(B) room was already full of guests when I entered.
OPTIONS
1) BABAB
2) ABBAA
3) BBAAB
4) BBABA
5) ABABA
2. I. He was in a dilemma(A)/quandary(B) because of the number of options that the company offered.
II. John Keats, dying, expected his poetry to be forgotten, as the epitaph(A)/epigraph(B) he wrote for his tombstone reads: "Here lies one whose name was writ in water.
III. We are advancing the date of the trip in order to ensure(A)/insure(B) that we enjoy good weather.
IV. The management found it expedient(A)/expeditious(B) to blame the laborers for its own failure.
V. The candidates were not informed that the selection process also included an extemporaneous(A)/impromptu(B) speech of three minutes on a surprise topic.
II. John Keats, dying, expected his poetry to be forgotten, as the epitaph(A)/epigraph(B) he wrote for his tombstone reads: "Here lies one whose name was writ in water.
III. We are advancing the date of the trip in order to ensure(A)/insure(B) that we enjoy good weather.
IV. The management found it expedient(A)/expeditious(B) to blame the laborers for its own failure.
V. The candidates were not informed that the selection process also included an extemporaneous(A)/impromptu(B) speech of three minutes on a surprise topic.
Happy CATing
@OMG_CAT
avert words gives clue that second will be negative word , so I think..
C) statutorily - calamitous... would be the answer.