GATE 2023 Humanities & Social Sciences- Philosophy Question Paper PDF- Download Here

Goal: Convert the direct speech to reported (indirect) speech with correct tense, pronoun, and time expression.


Step 1: Identify the reporting verb and decide on backshift

Reporting clause: Rafi told Mary.

The reporting verb told is in the simple past. For ordinary statements (not universal truths), English backshifts the tense of what was said.

Present Continuous \(\Rightarrow\) Past Continuous.


Step 2: Map pronouns and deictic (time) words

Speaker in quotes = Rafi; therefore “I” \(\Rightarrow\) “he”.

“This weekend” is deictic (relative to the moment of speaking) \(\Rightarrow\) “that weekend” in reported speech.


Step 3: Apply tense conversion

Direct: am thinking (Present Continuous) \(\Rightarrow\) Past Continuous was thinking.


Step 4: Assemble the indirect sentence

Use the conjunction “that” (optional but standard in exams), remove quotation marks, keep the prepositional phrase “of watching a film”:
\[ \boxed{Rafi told Mary that he was thinking of watching a film that weekend.} \]

Step 5: Eliminate distractors

(A) thought = Simple Past (loses the “continuous/ongoing” meaning) \(\Rightarrow\) incorrect.

(B) is thinking keeps Present Continuous (no backshift) \(\Rightarrow\) incorrect with a past reporting verb.

(C) am thinking wrong pronoun and tense (“am” with “he” is ungrammatical) \(\Rightarrow\) incorrect.
Quick Tip: Reported speech checklist: (1) backshift tense if the reporting verb is past; (2) change pronouns from speaker’s point of view; (3) shift time/place words (this} \(\Rightarrow\) that}, now} \(\Rightarrow\) then}, here} \(\Rightarrow\) there}); (4) remove quotes and use “that”.

Understanding the analogy format

“A : B :: C : D” means “A is to B as C is to D” — the relationship between the first pair must match the relationship between the second.

Here, Enforce : Relax are antonyms (opposites): to enforce is to compel; to relax is to make less strict.


Step 1: Determine the needed relation for the first pair

We must choose a word so that Permit : ( ? ) forms an antonym pair, mirroring Enforce : Relax.


Step 2: Evaluate each option against “permit”

(A) Allow — near-synonym of permit (same meaning), not an antonym \(\Rightarrow\) reject.

(B) Forbid — direct antonym of permit (permit = allow; forbid = prohibit) \(\Rightarrow\) fits.

(C) License — also a synonym/closely related (to grant permission) \(\Rightarrow\) reject.

(D) Reinforce — means strengthen/support; not the opposite of permit, and pairs conceptually with enforce rather than relax \(\Rightarrow\) reject.


Step 3: State the completed analogy
\[ \boxed{Permit : Forbid :: Enforce : Relax} \] Quick Tip: In analogy questions, first identify the relation in the given pair (synonym, antonym, degree, cause–effect, part–whole, etc.). Then enforce the same} relation on the missing pair. Watch for distractors that are synonyms when you need antonyms (or vice versa).

Step 1: Identify sample space per roll.

A fair die has 6 equally likely outcomes, so for any specified face \(k\in\{1,\dots,6\}\), \(P(roll=k)=\dfrac{1}{6}\).


Step 2: Compute each required single-roll probability.
\(P(first roll = 1)=\dfrac{1}{6}\), \(P(second roll = 4)=\dfrac{1}{6}\).


Step 3: Use independence of successive rolls.

The two rolls are independent, so the joint probability equals the product:
\[ P(first=1 \ AND\ second=4)=\frac{1}{6}\times\frac{1}{6}=\frac{1}{36}. \]
\[ \boxed{\dfrac{1}{36}} \] Quick Tip: For multiple independent events, multiply individual probabilities for “AND” questions. If it had been “OR”, use addition with inclusion–exclusion.

Step 1: Key facts from the passage.

65% of tobacco users were advised to stop.
30% (3 out of 10) attempted to stop using tobacco.


Step 2: Eliminate impossible options.

(C) and (D) both talk about successful quitting, but the passage only mentions attempts, not success. So (C) and (D) cannot be inferred.
(A) claims that a majority of those advised attempted to stop. But overall only 30% of users attempted, which is less than half of the total users, and certainly less than the 65% who were advised. So it is impossible that a majority of the advised group attempted to stop.


Step 3: Verify option (B).
If 65% were advised and only 30% attempted overall, then even if all attempts came from the advised group, at most \(30%\) of total users attempted compared to \(65%\) advised. Thus, less than half of the advised group attempted, meaning a majority did not.
\[ \Rightarrow \boxed{B\ is the only logically certain inference.} \] Quick Tip: Always distinguish between “advised,” “attempted,” and “succeeded.” If the data gives only attempts, we cannot conclude anything about success. Use proportions carefully to test majority vs. minority.

By systematically counting unit triangles, combinations of two unit triangles, and larger spanning triangles, we obtain: \[ 12 \ (small) + 6 \ (within-panel larger) + 4 \ (across-panel) + 2 \ (largest on each side) = 24. \]
Thus, the figure contains exactly \(\boxed{24}\) triangles. Quick Tip: Always count in layers: (i) smallest units, (ii) combinations, (iii) spanning shapes. This avoids double counting in figure puzzles.

Step 1: Decompose into panels.

Two nearly-vertical segments split the slanted outer quadrilateral into three slanted panels. Two oblique lines traverse all panels. Intersections of \{top, bottom\ with the \{two obliques\ and the \{two verticals\ create repeatable triangular cells.


Step 2: Count unit triangles (smallest).

Each panel cut by the two obliques contains four unit triangles (two up, two down). Therefore \[ N_{unit}=3\times 4=12. \]


Step 3: Count size–2 triangles within a panel.

In each panel, pairs of adjacent unit triangles along an oblique combine to form two larger triangles (one up, one down). Hence \[ N_{size-2, within}=3\times 2=6. \]


Step 4: Count size–2 triangles across panel boundaries.

Across each of the two vertical boundaries, a unit triangle from the left panel can pair with its touching unit from the right panel (both orientations). Thus \[ N_{size-2, across}=2\times 2=4. \]


Step 5: Count the largest spanning triangles.

Using full panel height with both obliques we obtain four additional distinct large triangles (two on the left half, two on the right half): \[ N_{largest}=4. \]


Step 6: Sum without double counting (disjoint constructions).
\[ N_{\triangle}=12+6+4+4=\boxed{24}. \] Quick Tip: Avoid double counting by (i) fixing a scale (unit, 2-unit, spanning) and (ii) counting panel-wise. Alternatively, enumerate by apex: list all triangles from each allowed vertex, then move to the next.

Given rule: Eligible voters \(\Rightarrow\) completed registration.

New fact: No Human Sciences (HS) student completed registration by the due date.


Test (iii).

If eligibility requires completion, and HS has zero completers, then no HS student can be eligible. Hence any eligible voter must come from a non-HS department. Statement (iii) is certainly true.


Test (i).

(i) claims: “All ineligible students are certainly HS.” But it is possible that some non-HS students also failed to complete registration and are therefore ineligible. The premise does not say all non-HS students completed. Thus (i) is not certain (could be false).


Test (ii).

(ii) claims: “No non-HS student failed to complete.” This would mean every non-HS student completed. The premises do not guarantee this; some non-HS students might also have missed the deadline. Hence (ii) is not certain.

\[ \boxed{Only (iii) follows with certainty \Rightarrow Option (D).} \] Quick Tip: In inference questions, separate necessary} from sufficient} conditions. Here, “completed registration \(\Rightarrow\) eligible” does not} imply the converse, and saying “none from HS completed” rules out HS from the eligible set but tells you nothing definite about completion in other departments.

Step 1: Symmetry check.
The graph is odd, since it is symmetric with a sign change across the origin (\(f(-x)=-f(x)\)). This immediately eliminates (A) and (C), as both always yield non-negative values.


Step 2: Behavior for \(x>0\).
For option (B): \(f(x)=x\,2^{-x}\) for \(x>0\). As \(x\to\infty\), \(2^{-x}\to0\), so \(f(x)\to0^+\). There is a positive maximum near \(x=1/\ln2\approx1.44\), consistent with the positive hump in the graph.


Step 3: Behavior for \(x<0\).
For option (B): \(f(x)=x\,2^{x}\) for \(x<0\). As \(x\to-\infty\), \(2^{x}\to0\), hence \(f(x)\to0^-\). There is a negative minimum near \(x=-1/\ln2\approx-1.44\), consistent with the graph’s left-side dip.


Step 4: Eliminate (D).
Option (D), \(f(x)=x\,2^{-x}\), works fine for \(x>0\) but for \(x<0\), it diverges to \(-\infty\) instead of tending to \(0^-\), which does not match the graph.
\[ \boxed{Hence the correct function is (B) only.} \] Quick Tip: To identify the correct function from a graph: always check symmetry, asymptotic behavior at \(\pm \infty\), and positions of maxima/minima. These eliminate wrong options quickly.

Step 1: Identify the key idea of the passage.

The author emphasizes that cancer is understood in modern times through metaphors — particularly, cancer is likened to a machine. Modern cell biology encourages us to use figurative language and imagine the cell as a "molecular machine".


Step 2: Check each option.

- (A) Correctly follows. The passage explains why cancer seems modern, because the metaphors applied to it are modern.
- (B) Correctly follows. The passage explicitly says modern cell biology uses and promotes metaphors of machinery.
- (C) Correctly follows. The passage literally uses the metaphor of a cell as a molecular machine, showing cancer as an automaton.
- (D) Does not follow. The passage repeatedly states that modern cell biology does use metaphors (machine analogy). Saying it "never uses figurative language" is the exact opposite of the passage’s meaning.

\[ \boxed{The statement that does NOT follow is (D).} \] Quick Tip: When tackling comprehension questions, look for absolute words like “never” or “always.” They often signal the incorrect option when the passage gives examples to the contrary.

Step 1: Units digit cycle of \(3^n\).

The units digit of \(3^n\) repeats in a cycle of \(4\): \(3,9,7,1\).
Since \(999 \bmod 4 = 3\), we have \(3^{999}\) ending with the same digit as \(3^3=27\).
Thus, \(3^{999}\) ends with 7.

Step 2: Units digit cycle of \(7^n\).

The units digit of \(7^n\) repeats in a cycle of \(4\): \(7,9,3,1\).
Since \(1000 \bmod 4 = 0\), we have \(7^{1000}\) ending with the same digit as \(7^4=2401\).
Thus, \(7^{1000}\) ends with 1.

Step 3: Multiply units digits.
\[ 7 \times 1 = 7 \]
So, the final units digit of \(3^{999}\times 7^{1000}\) is 7.
\[ \boxed{7} \] Quick Tip: Always check repeating cycles of units digits (mod 10). Both \(3\) and \(7\) have cycles of length 4. Reducing exponents mod 4 gives the correct digit quickly.

Setup.

Let the square be \([0,6]\times[0,6]\). The two semi-circles have radius \(r=3\) with centers at \((0,3)\) (left side) and \((3,0)\) (bottom side). Their full circles are \[ C_1:\ x^2+(y-3)^2=9,\qquad C_2:\ (x-3)^2+y^2=9. \]
The shaded region consists of the parts of these semi-circles excluding their common lens (the lens is white in the figure).


Step 1: Area of the two semi-circles.

Each semi-circle area \(=\tfrac12\pi r^2=\tfrac12\pi(3^2)=\tfrac{9\pi}{2}\).
Sum of two semi-circles: \[ A_{semi-sum}=\frac{9\pi}{2}+\frac{9\pi}{2}=9\pi. \]


Step 2: Area of their overlap (circular lens).

Distance between centers: \[ d=\sqrt{(3-0)^2+(0-3)^2}=3\sqrt{2}. \]
For two equal circles of radius \(r\) and separation \(d\), the overlap area is \[ A_{\cap}=2r^2\cos^{-1}\!\left(\frac{d}{2r}\right)-\frac{d}{2}\sqrt{4r^2-d^2}. \]
Here \(r=3,\ d=3\sqrt{2}\Rightarrow \frac{d}{2r}=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\), so \(\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{2}/2)=\frac{\pi}{4}\). Thus \[ A_{\cap}=2(3^2)\left(\frac{\pi}{4}\right)-\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2}\sqrt{36-18} = \frac{18\pi}{4}-\frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2}\cdot 3\sqrt{2} = \frac{9\pi}{2}-9. \]


Step 3: Shaded area (union minus the lens twice).

The shaded part is the two semi-circles with the overlap removed from both, i.e. \[ A_{shaded} = A_{semi-sum} - 2A_{\cap} = 9\pi - 2\!\left(\frac{9\pi}{2}-9\right) = 9\pi - 9\pi + 18 = \boxed{18\ cm^2}. \] Quick Tip: When two equal circles overlap, remember the lens formula \(A_{\cap}=2r^2\cos^{-1}\!\left(\tfrac{d}{2r}\right)-\tfrac{d}{2}\sqrt{4r^2-d^2}\). For “two semi-circles on perpendicular sides”, the centers are \(d=r\sqrt{2}\) apart and the lens simplifies to \(\frac{9\pi}{2}-9\) for \(r=3\).

Step 1: Meaning of “spineless” and “cowardly”

- Spineless = lacking courage, weak-willed.

- Cowardly = showing lack of bravery.


Step 2: Check each option

(A) Pusillanimous — literally means “lacking courage,” “cowardly,” “timid.” This directly matches the given clue.

(B) Unctuous — overly flattering, insincere (nothing to do with cowardice).

(C) Obsequious — excessively submissive, sycophantic (close in tone but not exactly cowardly).

(D) Reticent — reserved, silent, not willing to speak (again not cowardly).


Thus, the only correct match is Pusillanimous.

\[ \boxed{Pusillanimous = Spineless + Cowardly} \] Quick Tip: The word pusillanimous} comes from Latin roots: “pusillus” (very small) + “animus” (spirit), literally “small-spirited.” Perfect synonym for cowardly.

Step 1: Understand the sentence

“The whole family got together ___ Diwali” means the reunion happened on the occasion of Diwali. We must use the preposition that fits events/festivals.


Step 2: Evaluate options

(A) of Diwali — incorrect usage, not idiomatic in English.

(B) at Diwali — correct idiom. We say “at Christmas,” “at Diwali,” “at Easter,” etc., to refer to festive occasions.

(C) in Diwali — unnatural; “in” is used for months/years (“in October,” “in 2022”), not for festivals.

(D) till Diwali — means “up to Diwali,” changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

\[ \boxed{The whole family got together at Diwali.} \] Quick Tip: Remember: “at” is the standard preposition used for festivals and specific occasions (at Diwali, at Christmas, at the party).

Step 1: Analyze blank (i).

The context says: “Amid this turbulence, there is a factor that stands out positively.” The word “redeeming” fits perfectly as it indicates something positive in an otherwise negative situation.

Step 2: Analyze blank (ii).

The sentence mentions films like RRR, KGF 2, and Pushpa, which were very successful. Hence, “outperformance” is the most suitable choice.

Step 3: Analyze blank (iii).

Traditionally, South Indian films have done well in their own “geographies” (regions). Words like “channels” or “theatres” do not convey regional success. Thus, “geographies” fits best.

Step 4: Analyze blank (iv).

The dubbed versions in Hindi are so successful that their collections are “eclipsing” (surpassing) those of Bollywood counterparts.

Step 5: Eliminate other options.

- (A): “disheartening failure” is opposite in meaning.
- (C): “underperformance” contradicts the idea of success.
- (D): “bombing” and “falling behind” are negative, unsuitable here.

Thus, all four blanks align only with option (B).
\[ \boxed{(B) redeeming, outperformance, geographies, eclipsing} \] Quick Tip: In passage completion, always check tone and context. Positive words align with success stories, while negative words contradict them. Elimination of mismatched tone helps reach the correct answer.

Step 1: Sentence 1 introduces the theme.
“Mobility” is both geographical and social. So the next sentence must expand on how traditional social mobility studies treated society — this is sentence 2.

Step 2: Logical follow-up.
After criticizing the older literature in (2), the author notes that even migration sociology is limited. This is sentence 3.

Step 3: Expanding concern.
Then comes sentence 4, which broadens the scope to flows of people beyond societies (work, asylum, etc.).

Step 4: Transition to objects.
Sentence 5 logically introduces the idea that not only people but also objects are mobile, which prepares the ground for sentence 6.

Step 5: Conclusion.
Sentence 6 then emphasizes the “sociology of objects” and their intersection with people’s flows, completing the passage.
\[ Final sequence: 1 \; \to \; 2 \; \to \; 3 \; \to \; 4 \; \to \; 5 \; \to \; 6 \]

Thus, the correct option is (B) 2, 3, 4, 5. Quick Tip: For jumbled paragraph questions, track the logical flow: - Introductory idea \(\to\) critique of past work \(\to\) elaboration \(\to\) expansion \(\to\) transition \(\to\) conclusion. Checking coherence across transitions ensures the correct sequence.

Step 1: Assume initial population in 2020.

Let the population in 2020 be \(P = 100\).


Step 2: Population in 2021 after 5% increase.
\[ P_{2021} = 100 \times (1 + 0.05) = 105 \]


Step 3: Population in 2022 after 5% decrease.
\[ P_{2022} = 105 \times (1 - 0.05) = 105 \times 0.95 = 99.75 \]


Step 4: Net percentage change from 2020 to 2022.
\[ %\ \Delta P = \frac{99.75 - 100}{100} \times 100 = -0.25% \]

\[ \boxed{-0.25%} \] Quick Tip: Remember that a 5% increase followed by a 5% decrease does not cancel out — it produces a slight net decrease because percentages apply to different bases.

Step 1: Analyze the given set.

Thin, Slim, and Slender are not degree words (like positive–comparative–superlative). Instead, they are near-synonyms with subtle differences in nuance, all pointing to leanness.


Step 2: Check each option.

(A) Fat: Plump: Voluptuous — all related to fullness/heaviness, close in meaning, with nuanced connotations. Correct analogy.

(B) Short: Small: Petite — all linked to small size/dimension, again nuanced synonyms. Correct analogy.

(C) Tall: Taller: Tallest — this is a degree sequence (positive, comparative, superlative), not a synonym group. Not analogous.

(D) Fair: Dark: Wheatish — these are contrasting/opposite skin tones, not synonyms. Not analogous.


\[ \boxed{Correct options: (A) and (B)} \] Quick Tip: When solving synonym-based analogy questions, look for words that belong to the same “semantic field” with subtle shades of meaning, not words showing comparison or opposites.

Step 1: Analyze option (A).
This option suggests assigning permanent responsibility for both healthcare and economy revival to district administrations. While they were actively involved during the crisis, giving them permanent responsibility for all such matters may not be realistic. Such roles are usually coordinated at state/national levels. Hence, (A) is not strongly plausible.


Step 2: Analyze option (B).
A task force to review the post-pandemic measures is both logical and practical. Governments commonly review their response to crises to learn lessons, improve systems, and understand effectiveness. Thus, (B) is highly plausible.


Step 3: Analyze option (C).
A committee to create a future pandemic management program is also very reasonable. Planning ahead by learning from past experiences minimizes losses in life and economy for future emergencies. Hence, (C) is also plausible.


Step 4: Analyze option (D).
Population control as a solution to pandemics is neither directly relevant nor scientifically valid, since pandemics are driven by disease transmission and preparedness, not population size alone. Therefore, (D) is implausible.
\[ \boxed{Thus, the plausible actions are (B) and (C).} \] Quick Tip: In decision-making questions, focus on actions that are logical, realistic, and directly related to the problem. Avoid extreme or unrelated measures like population control for pandemics.

Step 1: Collect XH–B1 inequalities.

From the statements for paper B1: \[ \begin{aligned} (i)\ &Bw < Ct
(ii)\ &Dv > Ct
(iii)\ &Em < Dv, Em > Fu
(iv)\ &Ar < Em, Ar > Fu \end{aligned} \]

Step 2: Chain what we can.

From (iv) and (iii): \(Fu < Ar < Em < Dv\).
From (ii): \(Ct < Dv\).
From (i) and (ii): \(Bw < Ct < Dv\).

Step 3: Decide the topper in B1.

Every candidate is strictly below Dv:
- \(Ct < Dv\) (given), hence \(Bw < Ct < Dv\).

- \(Em < Dv\) (given), and \(Ar < Em\), \(Fu < Ar\).
Therefore, \(\boxed{Dv is the highest in XH–B1}\). Quick Tip: In order-comparison puzzles, segregate constraints by category (here, by paper B1 vs C1), write only the relevant inequalities, then build a single chain. A strict “\(>\)” link from the topper to each} other candidate certifies the topper.

Let us break down the word GOODMORNING and apply the rules:


1. Vowels rule:

- O is replaced by U (the next vowel).

- O is replaced by U (the next vowel).

- O is replaced by U (the next vowel).

- I is replaced by O (the next vowel).

- I is replaced by O (the next vowel).


2. Consonants rule:

- G is replaced by F (the previous consonant).

- D is replaced by C (the previous consonant).

- M remains M (no previous consonant before M in the alphabet).

- R is replaced by Q (the previous consonant).

- N is replaced by M (the previous consonant).

- N is replaced by M (the previous consonant).

- G is replaced by F (the previous consonant).


Thus, the coded word for GOODMORNING is FUUCLUQMOMF.
Quick Tip: When decoding or encoding based on letter substitutions, break down each character and apply the transformation rules step by step. Keep track of vowels and consonants separately for accuracy.

Step 1: Identify the central idea of the passage

The stranger is described as fundamentally “not an owner of soil.” This metaphor of soil applies both in the physical sense (ownership of land or fixed place) and in the psychological/social sense (fixed, organic ties in a community). The stranger is defined by mobility and lack of rooted connection.

Step 2: Examine each option

(A) Incorrect. Although the stranger may develop charm and significance, the passage clearly says this does not make him an “owner of soil.” Personal charm does not remove the condition of strangeness.


(B) Correct. The stranger, by definition, “is not an owner of soil” in either sense — physical or psychological. This matches the core statement of the passage.


(C) Incorrect. Establishing ties of kinship, locality, or occupation would contradict the very definition of the stranger, who is never “organically connected” with such ties.


(D) Correct. The passage allows a subtle interpretation: physically, one could own soil (in the sense of land), but psychologically/socially, the stranger remains a stranger, not organically tied. Hence, this option also aligns with the text.


Step 3: Final Answer

Both (B) and (D) are consistent with the description in the passage.
\[ \boxed{Correct Assumptions: (B) and (D)} \] Quick Tip: In comprehension passages, carefully distinguish between literal (physical) and figurative (psychological/social) meanings. The “stranger” here is defined by lack of organic ties, regardless of charm or interaction.

Step 1: Decode the family links.

L is the only son of parents A and S \(\Rightarrow\) L is male; A and S are L’s parents (genders not yet known).

S has one sibling, B.

B is married to L’s aunt K. If K were S’s sister, B (S’s sibling) would be marrying his own sister — impossible. Hence K is A’s sister (paternal aunt of L). Therefore, B is S’s only sibling and A’s brother-in-law.


Step 2: Use “B is the only son of D”.

Since S and B are siblings and B is the only son of D, it follows that:
- B is male,
- S cannot be male (otherwise D would have at least two sons, contradicting “only son”).

Therefore, S is female \(\Rightarrow\) S is L’s mother. Consequently, D is a parent of S, i.e., D is L’s maternal grandparent.


Step 3: Determine which options fit.

From Step 2, the relationship between L and D is always “grandchild \(\leftrightarrow\) maternal grandparent”. The question does not specify D’s gender. Hence both of the following are possible and consistent with the data: \[ (B) Grandchild and Maternal Grandfather, (D) Grandchild and Maternal Grandmother. \]

Why not paternal?

If D were on the paternal side, D would be a parent of A. But D is explicitly the parent of B, who is S’s only sibling; thus D is on S’s side, not A’s. So (A) and (C) are impossible.
Quick Tip: When you see “only son/daughter,” use it to fix genders and sides of the family. Here “B is the only son of D” forces S to be female, putting D on the maternal side.

The first segment of the sentence is:
1. Consumed multitudes are jostling and shoving inside me.

This implies that the subject is in a crowded or chaotic state.


The last segment of the sentence is:
5. some thirty-two years before anything as obvious, as present, as my clock-ridden, crime-stained birth.

This indicates a time reference, looking back at an event (birth) that occurred thirty-two years ago.
\

Now, we need to arrange segments 2, 3, and 4 to form a coherent thought.

Segment 2: and guided only by the memory of a large white bedsheet with a roughly circular hole some seven inches in diameter cut into the center.
\
Segment 3: clutching at the dream of that holey, mutilated square of linen, which is my talisman, my open-sesame.

Segment 4: I must commence the business of remaking my life from the point at which it really began.


Clearly, segment 2 introduces the guiding memory, and segment 3 further explains it as a "talisman" and "open-sesame," meaning it is a key to the story. Finally, segment 4 follows logically by talking about starting the process of remaking life from this point.


Thus, the correct order of the middle segments is: \[ \boxed{2 - 3 - 4} \] Quick Tip: When dealing with jumbled sentence questions, focus on connecting the subject and the action first, and then find logical transitions that fit the time or context (here, the reference to time in the last segment).

Step 1: Extract claims about “memory’s truth.”

The passage stresses that memory selects, eliminates, alters, exaggerates, minimizes, glorifies, vilifies and finally creates its own reality. This presents truth as constructed by memory and therefore fallible and slanted. \(\Rightarrow\) Matches (C).


Step 2: Observer–dependence.

“No sane human being ever trusts someone else’s version more than his own” implies truth varies with the observer and is thus contingent and partial. \(\Rightarrow\) Matches (D).


Step 3: Why (A) and (B) do not follow.

(A) \& (B) appeal to empiricism/sense verification, but the passage neither mentions empirical testing nor sensory verification as criteria of truth; it focuses on memory’s constructive, subjective nature. Hence they are not supported.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, (C) and (D) only.} \] Quick Tip: When a passage emphasizes selection, alteration, and “own versions,” look for options about constructed} and observer-dependent} truth, not empirical verification.

Step 1: Define variables.

Let the number of skilled workers be \(x\). Then unskilled workers \(=100-x\).


Step 2: Set up wage equation.
\[ 40{,}000\,x + 15{,}000\,(100-x) \;=\; 23{,}75{,}000 \]


Step 3: Simplify and solve.
\[ 40{,}000x + 15{,}00{,}000 - 15{,}000x = 23{,}75{,}000 \Rightarrow 25{,}000x = 8{,}75{,}000 \] \[ x = \frac{8{,}75{,}000}{25{,}000} = 35 \]

\[ \boxed{Skilled labour employed = 35} \] Quick Tip: In mixture/wage problems, set one variable for one group, express the other as the complement (here \(100-x\)), and form a single linear cost equation to solve quickly.

Identify the common category: Items (1), (2), (4), and (5) are all names of national currencies.


Lek — currency of Albania.

Zloty — currency of Poland.

Drachma — historical currency of Greece (pre-euro).

Real — currency of Brazil.


Contrast with option (3): Diner (spelled with an e) is not a currency; it is an English word meaning a person who dines or a type of casual restaurant. (A currency spelled Dinar would fit the pattern, but that is not what is written.)


Therefore, the only item not belonging to the currency category is (3) Diner.

\[ \boxed{Odd word: (3) Diner} \] Quick Tip: Watch for near-homophones or look-alike spellings in “odd one out” questions—Diner} vs.\ Dinar} changes the category completely.

Step 1: Core of Sāṅkhya philosophy

Sāṅkhya is a dualistic school of Indian philosophy that posits two ultimate realities: Puruṣa (pure consciousness) and Prakṛti (primordial matter/nature).


Step 2: Evolutes of Prakṛti

According to Sāṅkhya, Prakṛti evolves into a hierarchy of tattvas (principles):
- First, Mahat (cosmic intelligence).

- From Mahat arises Ahaṅkāra (ego principle).

- From Ahaṅkāra arises Manas (mind), the five senses, five organs of action, and subtle elements.


Thus, manas is an evolute of Prakṛti, not of Puruṣa (which remains passive and uninvolved).
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (A) Prakṛti} \] Quick Tip: In Sāṅkhya: Puruṣa = witness (pure spirit), Prakṛti = active principle (produces mind, body, senses).

Step 1: Hegel’s Absolute Spirit

In Hegel’s philosophy, Spirit (Geist) develops historically and dialectically, culminating in the Absolute Spirit. This Absolute Spirit manifests not merely in individuals, but in the collective, rational, and free life of humanity.


Step 2: Eliminate distractors

(A) Devotion of a church congregation — this belongs to the stage of Religion, not Absolute Spirit.

(B) Knowledge of a natural scientist — part of objective spirit (science, external world), not Absolute Spirit.

(D) Mystical insight of a sage — this reflects personal intuition, not the collective rational spirit Hegel envisions.


Step 3: Correct option

(C) The self-transparency of a society of free individuals — Hegel’s Absolute Spirit is realized in history when free individuals collectively recognize themselves in rational institutions, embodying universal freedom.
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (C)} \] Quick Tip: For Hegel, Absolute Spirit is not individual mysticism but the rational self-consciousness of society as a whole.

Carvaka (Lokayata) is a materialist, hedonistic school in Indian philosophy. It rejects

Dharma (as transcendent duty grounded in scripture) and Moksha (liberation) as unverifiable metaphysical goals.

It upholds only worldly aims: Artha (material well-being) and Kama (pleasure).

Hence only option (A) matches the doctrine; (B), (C), (D) include aims Carvaka denies.
Quick Tip: Mnemonic: \textbf{Carvaka = A\&K only}: Artha + Kama; rejects Dharma and Moksha.

The pancha–kosa hierarchy (from gross to subtle) in the Taittiriya Upanishad is:

Annamaya (food/physical) \(\rightarrow\) Pranamaya (vital breath) \(\rightarrow\) Manomaya (mind) \(\rightarrow\) Vijnanamaya (intellect/knowledge) \(\rightarrow\) Anandamaya (bliss).

Thus the sheath of knowledge, discrimination, and intellect is Vijnanamaya–kosa.

(B) is life-force; (C) is mind/thought; (D) is bliss — none of these denote the intellect layer.
Quick Tip: Think “\textbf{Vijnana = knowledge}.” So Vijnanamaya–kosa is the intelligence sheath.

Step 1: Vivekananda’s vision of Universal Religion

Swami Vivekananda emphasized that true universal religion should not merely tolerate, but actively accept all religions as valid paths to the same truth.


Step 2: Distinction between tolerance and acceptance

- Tolerance means bearing with differences without interference, but still with a sense of “otherness.”

- Acceptance, on the other hand, implies full recognition of the validity of other faiths as equally true.


Step 3: Apply to the question

Hence, the watch-word of universal religion as per Vivekananda is not “tolerance,” but “acceptance.”
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (B) Acceptance} \] Quick Tip: Remember: Tolerance = passive, Acceptance = active recognition. Vivekananda always stressed the latter.

Step 1: K. C. Bhattacharyya’s framework

He explains that human consciousness manifests in three primary forms:
- Knowing → epistemic function

- Feeling → aesthetic-emotional function

- Willing → ethical-practical function


Step 2: Corresponding absolutes

- The absolute of knowing is Truth.

- The absolute of feeling is Beauty.

- The absolute of willing is Goodness.


Step 3: Apply to the question

Since the question asks about the “absolute” of “knowing,” the correct answer is Truth.
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (A) Truth} \] Quick Tip: Easy triad to remember: Knowing → Truth, Feeling → Beauty, Willing → Goodness.

In Indian philosophy, a pramana is a means of valid knowledge. Different schools recognize different sets of pramanas.

The Prabhakara Mimamsakas accept five pramanas:

1. Pratyaksha (Perception)

2. Anumana (Inference)

3. Upamana (Comparison/Analogy)

4. Arthapatti (Postulation/Presumption)

5. Shabda (Verbal testimony)


They do not accept Anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) as a separate pramana. This is the main distinction between Prabhakaras and Kumarila’s Bhatta Mimamsa, which accepts six pramanas including Anupalabdhi.

\[ \boxed{Hence, the correct answer is (A) Anupalabdhi.} \] Quick Tip: Remember: Prabhakaras = 5 pramanas (no Anupalabdhi), Bhattas = 6 pramanas (including Anupalabdhi).

In Marxist theory, “commodity fetishism” refers to the process where social relations among people, especially labour relations, are disguised as value relations among commodities.

- Commodities appear to have intrinsic value, but in reality, their value comes from the socially necessary human labour involved in producing them.

- Thus, instead of recognizing human labour as the true source of value, society begins to treat commodities as though they inherently possess value.

- Hence, the fetishism lies in the reflection of the social character of human labour in the material product.

\[ \boxed{Correct answer: (C)} \] Quick Tip: Commodity fetishism = “Things appear to have value by themselves, but actually it is labour’s social character reflected in them.”

In his essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism, W.V.O. Quine critiques the traditional distinction between analytic and synthetic statements, which was held to be immune to revision. He famously argues that no statement, whether analytic or synthetic, is immune to revision because all knowledge is subject to empirical investigation and modification. Thus, no statement is immune to revision.

\[ \boxed{Option (A) is correct.} \] Quick Tip: Quine’s critique of the analytic-synthetic distinction suggests that all knowledge is interconnected and open to change based on new experiences and evidence.

Both Heraclitus and Parmenides were pre-Socratic philosophers with conflicting views. However, both share the view that the true essence of reality is more metaphysical than physical. Heraclitus believed in the unity of opposites, while Parmenides believed that change is an illusion and that only the "one" (a singular essence) exists. In their philosophies, the soul (or psuche) plays a central role in understanding reality, as both thinkers considered the soul a significant element in grasping the true nature of the world.


Option (B) is also partially correct, as Heraclitus did emphasize the unity underlying diversity, but Parmenides did not necessarily deny plurality altogether. Therefore, Option (A) captures the essence of both philosophers' views better than Option (B).

\[ \boxed{Option (A) is correct.} \] Quick Tip: Both Heraclitus and Parmenides were concerned with metaphysical issues related to the unity of existence and the role of the soul in understanding reality.

In Being and Time, Heidegger introduces the concept of the ontological difference, which refers to the distinction between Being (Sein) and beings (Seiende). Heidegger argues that while we commonly discuss beings, we often overlook the fundamental nature of Being itself, which is what gives existence to all beings.

Option (A) is correct because it directly captures Heidegger's distinction between the abstract concept of Being and the many particular beings in the world.


Option (B) refers to the term Dasein (Being-there), which is a specific kind of being that is concerned with its own Being. However, this option misrepresents the ontological difference, as it confuses the distinction of Being with a specific type of being.

Option (C) also confuses the terms. It refers to the distinction between beings and Dasein, but Heidegger's ontological difference is not framed in this way.

Option (D) presents a false distinction between Being and Non-Being. Heidegger's focus is on Being (Sein) and beings (Seiende), not on the difference between Being and Non-Being.
\[ \boxed{The correct answer is (A).} \] Quick Tip: Heidegger's concept of the ontological difference helps in understanding his philosophy of Being by distinguishing between the essence of Being and the actual beings that exist.

In The Republic, Plato discusses justice and virtues within the context of a well-ordered society. Moderation, or self-control, is considered one of the key virtues and is not confined to a specific group but is present throughout the entire republic. Plato argues that moderation exists when each class—guardians, auxiliaries, and money makers—conforms to its appropriate role and desires no more than what is necessary for its function. Thus, moderation is present in all parts of the society.

Option (A) is incorrect because moderation is not limited to the guardians, though they do play a crucial role in upholding it.

Option (B) is partially correct, as the guardians and auxiliaries embody moderation in their duties, but moderation is not restricted to them alone.

Option (C) is incorrect because the money makers, according to Plato, are focused on wealth accumulation and not necessarily embodying moderation in the same way as other classes.

Option (D) is correct because Plato argues that moderation is a virtue that should be present in all parts of society to achieve harmony.
\[ \boxed{The correct answer is (D).} \] Quick Tip: Plato’s view of moderation emphasizes harmony in society, where each class functions according to its role without excess, ensuring balance and justice.

In Káśmīra Śaivism, Śiva is considered the only reality, and it is a form of non-dualism. There are various schools and philosophical movements within Káśmīra Śaivism that are referred to by different names. These names are associated with different philosophical traditions and textual interpretations within Śaivism.


- Pratyabhijñā: This is a well-known school of philosophy within Káśmīra Śaivism. It focuses on the recognition (pratyabhijñā) of one's own identity with the Supreme, i.e., Śiva.


- Trika: Trika is another term often used to refer to Káśmīra Śaivism, specifically pointing to the three-fold approach (Trika) involving Śiva, Śakti, and the individual soul (jīva). It is a prominent system of thought in Káśmīra Śaivism.


- Spanda: Spanda refers to the concept of divine vibration or the dynamic aspect of Śiva, and it plays an important role in the philosophical framework of Káśmīra Śaivism.


Thus, the correct answer is (A) Pratyabhijñā, (B) Trika, (C) Spanda.
Quick Tip: In Káśmīra Śaivism, the focus is on the realization of the non-dual nature of reality, where Śiva is recognized as both the essence and the dynamic force of the universe.

In his work "Democracy", B. R. Ambedkar outlines various views on the functioning of democracy, emphasizing the importance of safeguards and vigilance in democratic societies. Ambedkar critiques the existing democratic structures and proposes a framework for a true democracy.


- (A) Adult suffrage and frequent elections are no bar against the governing class reaching places of power and authority: Ambedkar argues that even though adult suffrage and elections are fundamental components of democracy, they are not enough on their own. He recognizes that the existing governing class can still retain power, despite these mechanisms.


- (B) Servile classes volunteering to elect members of the governing class as their rulers is a sign of a thriving democracy: This statement does not align with Ambedkar's view. Ambedkar was critical of the idea that the servile classes would volunteer to elect their rulers, as he saw this as a sign of inequality rather than a thriving democracy.


- (C) Servile classes in some countries may need other safeguards beside adult suffrage to oust the governing class from the seat of authority: Ambedkar emphasizes the need for additional safeguards beyond suffrage, especially for marginalized or servile classes, to ensure true democracy.


Thus, the correct answer is (A) Adult suffrage and frequent elections are no bar against the governing class reaching places of power and authority, (C) Servile classes in some countries may need other safeguards beside adult suffrage to oust the governing class from the seat of authority.
Quick Tip: When studying democracy according to Ambedkar, focus on the importance of safeguards for marginalized communities, and how mere elections do not guarantee true power for the people.

Step 1: Key ideas from Gandhi’s passage

- Gandhi equates God with Truth.

- His devotion to Truth motivated him to enter politics.

- He rejects the idea that religion and politics are separate.

- He emphasizes that Ahimsa (non-violence) is essential in politics and life, tied to self-purification.


Step 2: Analyze options

(A) “God is Truth” → Conforms to Gandhi’s statement.

(B) “Devotion to Truth prompted Gandhi to enter politics” → Matches the text.

(C) “Religion and politics should be separated” → Contradicts Gandhi.

(D) “Ahimsa and politics do not go hand in hand” → Contradicts Gandhi.


Thus, NOT in conformity: (C) and (D).
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (C) and (D)} \] Quick Tip: For Gandhi, Truth = God, Religion = Politics, and Ahimsa = Core principle of both.

Premises:

1. Soli likes either logic or biology.

2. If Soli likes logic, then he is not happy.

3. Neither Soli nor Rupinder likes biology. → So Soli cannot like biology.


Step 1: Apply premise (3)

Since Soli cannot like biology, the only option left is that Soli likes logic.

Step 2: Apply premise (2)

If Soli likes logic, then he is not happy. Therefore, Soli is not a happy person.

Step 3: Check options

(A) Soli is not a happy person → True.

(B) Rupinder is not a happy person → No information given.

(C) Rupinder is a happy person → No information given.

(D) Soli likes logic → True.


Thus, the correct conclusions are (A) and (D).
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (A) and (D)} \] Quick Tip: Always reduce logical problems step by step: eliminate impossible options, then apply conditional rules.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics in the Nicomachean Ethics explains:

- (A) Correct: The function (ergon) argument – we understand virtue by knowing the proper function of a thing, e.g., the function of a human is rational activity, and virtue is what makes this function excellent.

- (B) Correct: Virtue involves practical wisdom (phronesis) and hence deliberation. Virtue is not merely a feeling but a rational disposition to choose well.

- (C) Incorrect: Virtue is acquired by habit and practice, not by mere theoretical knowledge.

- (D) Correct: Virtue is often described as the mean between two extremes (the doctrine of the mean) — e.g., courage lies between recklessness and cowardice.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, A, B, and D are correct. \] Quick Tip: Aristotle’s virtue = habit + reason; it is the mean between extremes, understood through the function of a being.

David Hume identifies three principles of association of ideas:

1. Resemblance — one idea naturally suggests another if they are similar.

2. Contiguity in space and time — ideas connected by proximity (e.g., a picture reminds us of the place).

3. Cause and Effect — the most important principle; when one idea is thought of, the mind immediately anticipates its usual effect.


- (A) Correct: Resemblance is a principle.

- (B) Correct: Contiguity in space and time is a principle.

- (C) Incorrect: Juxtaposition is not mentioned by Hume.

- (D) Correct: Cause and Effect is central to Hume’s philosophy.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, A, B, and D are correct.} \] Quick Tip: Hume’s 3 associations: \textbf{Resemblance, Contiguity, Cause-Effect}. Easy mnemonic: \textbf{RCC}.

In the Yogasūtra, Patañjali lists five afflictions (kleśas) that obstruct spiritual progress.

These five are:

1) Avidyā — ignorance/false knowledge,

2) Asmitā — egoism,

3) Rāga — attachment/desire,

4) Dveṣa — aversion/hatred,

5) Abhiniveśa — clinging to life/fear of death.

Mātsarya (competition/rivalry) does not appear in this list; hence it is NOT one of the five kleśas.

\[ \boxed{Option (A) is correct. \] Quick Tip: Remember the five kleśas as: Avidyā, Asmitā, Rāga, Dveṣa, Abhiniveśa — “A A R D A”.

Jaina metaphysics classifies substances into those with spatial extension (astikāya) and the one without it (anastikāya).

Kāla (time) alone lacks spatial extension;

ākāśa (space), dharma (motion medium), and adharma (rest medium) are all astikāya.

Therefore, the unique anastikāya substance is time.

\[ \boxed{Option (A) is correct. \] Quick Tip: In Jainism: Space, motion-medium, rest-medium, matter, and soul are astikāya; time is anastikāya.

Husserl’s fifth Cartesian Meditation concerns the phenomenological reduction, where the subject (ego) reduces the world to its own transcendental subjectivity, seeking to understand the constitution of experience. However, this reduction does not fully isolate the subject from the other; instead, it reveals how the subject relates to the world and others.


Option (A) is correct because the reduction does not sever the subject from the other but rather places it in a position where it can understand its relation to the world.

Option (B) is incorrect because the reduction does not cut off the subject from the other in a fateful or absolute sense. It rather reveals the ways in which the other is constitutionally related to the subject.

Option (C) is incorrect because Husserl does not claim that the reduction can never be fully achieved, but that it is a methodological step in the search for the essential structures of experience.

Option (D) is incorrect because understanding the constitution of the objective world is exactly what the reduction attempts to achieve by focusing on the subject’s experience.
\[ \boxed{The correct answer is (A).} \] Quick Tip: In Husserl's philosophy, the reduction to the transcendental ego helps in understanding how the world is constituted for the subject, without cutting off the subject from the other.

In the Nyāya system, the defect Svarūpāsiddhi refers to a situation where the reason (hetu) used in an inference is not relevant or appropriate to the predicate. In the given example, the inference "A sparrow is a bird, since it has wings" is flawed because the characteristic of having wings is not unique to sparrows (many animals have wings) and thus does not establish the necessary property of being a bird. The reason (wings) does not inherently prove the conclusion (being a bird).


Option (A) is correct because the property of wings, in this context, does not necessarily establish the nature of the sparrow as a bird.

Option (B) refers to the fault where the reason is established in the wrong location or context, which does not apply here.

Option (C) refers to the fault of “common strayer,” where a reason is too general, but this still doesn't fully address the specific issue here, which is related to the nature of the property.

Option (D) is incorrect because “uncommon strayer” is not relevant to this particular type of defect in reasoning.
\[ \boxed{The correct answer is (A).} \] Quick Tip: In Nyāya reasoning, ensure that the reason (hetu) provided must be directly relevant to the predicate (sādhya), without being too general or irrelevant.

In Vaiśeṣika philosophy, the term padārtha refers to the various categories or elements of reality. The sentence 'Dhavala is a white cow' can be broken down into different padārthas as follows:


1. Substance (dravya): The cow (Dhavala) is the substance in this context.


2. Universal (sāmānya): The term 'cow' refers to a universal category that applies to all cows, not just the particular cow named Dhavala.


3. Inherence (samavāya): The quality 'white' is inherent in the substance (the cow). In Vaiśeṣika, inherence refers to the relation between the substance and its qualities or attributes.


4. Quality (guṇa): The color 'white' is a quality that is being attributed to the cow.


Thus, the correct answer is (C) Substance (dravya), Universal (sāmānya), Inherence (samavāya) and Quality (guṇa) only.
Quick Tip: In Vaiśeṣika philosophy, understanding the different padārthas helps in comprehending the relationships between different elements in a sentence or reality.

In Frege's theory of sense and reference, the sense of an expression refers to the way in which a referent is presented or described. The reference is the actual object or concept that the expression points to in the world.


The expression ‘the largest prime number’ is problematic because there is, in fact, no largest prime number—it is an open-ended concept in mathematics. According to Frege's theory, this expression has a sense because it conveys a certain meaning or idea (the concept of the largest prime number), but it lacks a reference because there is no actual entity or number that it refers to (since prime numbers go on indefinitely).


Thus, the correct answer is (B) Only sense, and no reference.
Quick Tip: When analyzing expressions like 'the largest prime number', remember that Frege's theory helps distinguish between the sense (meaning) and the reference (actual object) of a term.

Step 1: Plato’s Theory of Forms in the Phaedo}

Socrates argues that beauty in the material world is not self-sufficient. Instead, particular things are beautiful because they participate in, or reflect, the eternal Form of Beauty. This Form exists beyond sensory perception.


Step 2: Examine the options

(A) Suggests beauty is based only on colour, shape, or size → this is more materialistic, not Platonic.

(B) Suggests beauty is only subjective, dependent on the observer → again, not Plato’s view.

(C) Correct. Plato holds that things are beautiful because of the presence (parousia) of Beauty itself.

(D) Suggests beauty is illusion → too skeptical, more aligned with later critiques, not Plato’s own teaching.

\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (C)} \] Quick Tip: Plato’s doctrine of Forms: Particulars (like beautiful objects) are shadows or reflections of eternal Forms (like Beauty itself).

Step 1: Evil genius hypothesis

Descartes imagined an “evil genius” who could deceive him even in matters of logic and mathematics. This radical doubt extended not only to sensory experience but also to apparently indubitable truths like arithmetic.


Step 2: Apply to the statements

- (II) “The sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees” → A mathematical truth. Under the evil genius hypothesis, even such truths could be doubted.

- (VIII) “2+2=4” → The simplest arithmetic truth, yet Descartes shows that the evil genius could make us doubt even this.

- Other statements (I, III, IV, V, VI, VII) relate to empirical observation or personal states, not Descartes’ focus in the evil genius argument.


Step 3: Conclusion

Therefore, Descartes’ evil genius mainly denies certainty of mathematical/logical truths, i.e., (II) and (VIII).
\[ \boxed{Correct Answer: (D) II and VIII} \] Quick Tip: Descartes used the “evil genius” to doubt everything, even math, until he found one indubitable truth: “Cogito, ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am).

According to Kant’s moral philosophy:

- Imperatives apply only to finite rational beings like humans, because they have inclinations and need guidance by moral law.

- The divine will is already perfectly rational and good; hence, it is not subject to imperatives. This makes (A) false.

- Humans are subject both to hypothetical imperatives (if you want X, do Y) and the categorical imperative (act only according to maxims that can be universal law). However, (C) is false because the divine will is not subject to any imperative at all.

- The categorical imperative does not “come from God,” but from reason itself. So (D) is also false.

- (B) is correct: only the human will is subject to imperatives.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, A, C, and D are NOT true.} \] Quick Tip: Kant: \textbf{Humans need imperatives, God does not.} Categorical imperative arises from pure reason, not divine command.

Aristotle distinguishes four causes:

1. Material cause: what it is made of (here, bronze). → (A)

2. Efficient cause: the agent that brings it into being (the sculptor). → (B)

3. Formal cause: the form or design, the concept (the plan to have Poseidon’s statue). → (C)

4. Final cause: the purpose for which it is made (worship or aesthetic purpose).


Option (D), the space in the temple, is not a cause in Aristotle’s scheme. Hence, the correct causes are (A), (B), (C).

\[ \boxed{Therefore, A, B, and C are Aristotle’s causes.} \] Quick Tip: Aristotle’s 4 causes = Material (what it’s made of), Efficient (who made it), Formal (design/essence), Final (purpose).

The standard Abhidharma counts are: Sautrāntika = 43 dharmas and Sarvāstivāda (Vaibhāṣika) = 75 dharmas.

Therefore, only option (B) matches the correct ordered pair \((43, 75)\).

All the other options misreport the pair and hence are the ones that do not give the respective numbers.

\[ \boxed{Hence, (A), (C), and (D) are correct.} \] Quick Tip: Remember: Sautrāntika (leaner list) \(\rightarrow\) 43; Sarvāstivāda/ Vaibhāṣika (fuller list) \(\rightarrow\) 75.

In Advaita Vedānta, the true nature of the jīva is identical with Brahman (A).

The perceived difference between jīva and Brahman is only empirical (vyāvahārika) and arises due to limiting adjuncts (upādhi) such as body, mind, and senses—hence (B).

Since the essence of the jīva is Brahman alone (which is the only ontological reality), it is acceptable to say the jīva is ontologically real and one with Brahman when viewed in its true nature—thus (C).

Option (D) is incorrect because Brahman is partless (niravayava); nothing can be a “part” of Brahman.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, (A), (B), and (C) are correct; (D) is not. \] Quick Tip: Advaita key contrast: Absolute (pāramārthika) identity} of jīva and Brahman vs. empirical (vyāvahārika) difference} created by upādhis. Brahman is non-dual and partless.

The standard Abhidharma counts are: Sautrāntika = 43 dharmas and Sarvāstivāda (Vaibhāṣika) = 75 dharmas.

Therefore, only option (B) matches the correct ordered pair \((43, 75)\).

All the other options misreport the pair and hence are the ones that do not give the respective numbers.

\[ \boxed{Hence, (A), (C), and (D) are correct.} \] Quick Tip: Remember: Sautrāntika (leaner list) \(\rightarrow\) 43; Sarvāstivāda/ Vaibhāṣika (fuller list) \(\rightarrow\) 75.

In Advaita Vedānta, the true nature of the jīva is identical with Brahman (A).

The perceived difference between jīva and Brahman is only empirical (vyāvahārika) and arises due to limiting adjuncts (upādhi) such as body, mind, and senses—hence (B).

Since the essence of the jīva is Brahman alone (which is the only ontological reality), it is acceptable to say the jīva is ontologically real and one with Brahman when viewed in its true nature—thus (C).

Option (D) is incorrect because Brahman is partless (niravayava); nothing can be a “part” of Brahman.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, (A), (B), and (C) are correct; (D) is not. \] Quick Tip: Advaita key contrast: Absolute (pāramārthika) identity} of jīva and Brahman vs. empirical (vyāvahārika) difference} created by upādhis. Brahman is non-dual and partless.

Iqbal identifies intuition (often linked to the Qur’ānic–Sufi idea of the qalb, or “heart”) as an immediate, direct mode of knowing Ultimate Reality (God), not mediated by discursive reasoning \Rightarrow this supports (A)
.
He insists that genuine spiritual insight is not mere private feeling; it has an objective purchase on reality when disciplined and tested in life and history \Rightarrow this supports (B)
.
Iqbal consistently locates this faculty in the “heart” as a dynamic center of selfhood that synthesizes love, will, and knowledge, over and above the calculative intellect \Rightarrow this supports (C)
.
Option (D) is rejected because Iqbal treats the intellect/mind as necessary but insufficient for grasping the Absolute; intuition is not a mere property of discursive intellect
.
\[ \boxed{Hence, (A), (B), and (C) are correct; (D) is not.} \] Quick Tip: For Iqbal, heart} \(\neq\) mere emotion; it is a cognitive–volitional center that yields immediate yet testable knowledge of Reality, complementing but surpassing discursive reason

Harding argues for strong objectivity: starting inquiry from marginalized standpoints and making the social–historical location of knowers a subject of investigation in order to produce more objective science \Rightarrow (D)
.
(A) describes feminist empiricism, which Harding critiques as insufficient because it underestimates how social location shapes inquiry
.
(B) is false since Harding denies value–free science and insists on reflexivity about values
.
(C) is false because she does not reject objectivity; she reconstructs it as “strong objectivity”
.
\[ \boxed{Therefore, only (D) is correct.} \] Quick Tip: Remember Harding’s slogan: from the standpoint of the marginalized to achieve strong objectivity}—not less objectivity, but more, via reflexive method and standpoint selection

Why (A) is correct: In Utilitarianism, Mill treats justice as the most vital part of utility, protecting security and rights; hence its standards “stand higher” on the scale of social utility.

Why (C) is correct: Mill allows that exceptional social duties (e.g., self-preservation, saving many lives) may override a particular maxim of justice in rare emergencies—still justified by the higher utility at stake.
[2mm]
Why (B) is incorrect: Mill does not say the just/expedient divide is imaginary; he explains justice as a distinct and stronger obligation within utility, not a mere illusion.

Why (D) is incorrect: Mill does not rank expediency above justice; rather, justice has the highest utility weight, so utilitarianism does not simply prioritise expediency.
Quick Tip: In utilitarianism, justice plays a key role in balancing social utility, and Mill maintains that it holds a stronger position in moral decisions than mere expediency.

Under Russell’s analysis, “The F is not G” has two readings:

• Secondary occurrence (wide–scope negation): \(\neg\exists!x\,[F(x)\land G(x)]\).
If the definite description denotes nothing, the whole statement is true. For “the prime between 7 and 11”, in fact no such prime exists; hence with secondary occurrence the proposition is true. (C)

• Primary occurrence (narrow–scope negation): \(\exists!x\,[F(x)\land \neg G(x)]\).
This requires that there be exactly one such prime and that it is not larger than 12. If (counterfactually) there were exactly one prime between 7 and 11, it would certainly be \(\le 10\), hence “not larger than 12” would hold; the proposition would then be true. (D)
[2mm]
Why (A) is not sufficient: The falsity of the converse does not by itself determine the truth of the given sentence under Russell’s analysis.

Why (B) is wrong: With primary occurrence but no such prime (the actual case), the proposition is false, not true.
Quick Tip: Russell's theory of denoting distinguishes between primary and secondary occurrences of terms to explain the truth conditions of sentences involving non-denoting expressions.

From (ii) \(\ \sim(p \supset s)\), apply Material Implication: \(p \supset s \equiv \sim p \lor s\). Hence \[ \sim(p \supset s)=\sim(\sim p \lor s)\stackrel{De Morgan}{=} \sim\sim p \ \cdot\ \sim s = p \ \cdot\ \sim s. \]
So we have \(p\) and \(\sim s\).

Using (i) and Modus Ponens with \(p\): \[ p, p \supset (q \cdot r) \ \Rightarrow\ q \cdot r. \]
By Simplification: \[ q \cdot r \ \Rightarrow\ q and r. \]
Thus (A) \(q\) and (B) \(r\) are deducible; (C) \(s\) and (D) \(\sim p\) are not. Quick Tip: Always convert implications using Material Implication (\(p \supset q \equiv \sim p \lor q\)). It often simplifies proofs when combined with De Morgan’s Theorem.

Route (A) – as listed: \[ \begin{aligned} 1.\ &\sim(p \supset (q \lor r))
2.\ &\sim(\sim p \lor (q \lor r)) (Material Implication)
3.\ &\sim\sim p \ \cdot\ \sim(q \lor r) (De Morgan)
4.\ &\sim(q \lor r)\ \cdot\ \sim\sim p (Commutation)
5.\ &\sim(q \lor r) (Simplification)
6.\ &\sim q \ \cdot\ \sim r (De Morgan)
7.\ &\sim q (Simplification). \end{aligned} \]

Route (C) – an alternative valid chain: \[ \begin{aligned} 1.\ &\sim(p \supset (q \lor r))
2.\ &\sim(\sim(q \lor r) \supset \sim p) (Transposition on the embedded implication)
3.\ &\sim(\sim\sim(q \lor r) \lor \sim p) (Material Implication)
4.\ &\sim((q \lor r) \lor \sim p) (Double Negation)
5.\ &\sim(q \lor r)\ \cdot\ \sim\sim p (De Morgan)
6.\ &\sim(q \lor r) (Simplification)
7.\ &\sim q \ \cdot\ \sim r (De Morgan)
8.\ &\sim q (Simplification). \end{aligned} \]
Therefore both sequences in (A) and (C) correctly derive \(\boxed{\sim q}\). Quick Tip: Look for ways to apply De Morgan’s Theorem after transforming implications — it helps break down disjunctions into conjunctive negations, making simplification straightforward.

Wittgenstein, in the Philosophical Investigations, introduces the concept of family resemblance:

- (A) The image of a single fibre running through the thread refers to the mistaken notion that there is a single common property across all uses of a term like “number.” Wittgenstein critiques this notion.

- (B) Correct: He stresses that the overlapping fibres correspond to similarities between members of a family (e.g., games, numbers). This is the essence of family resemblance.

- (C) Correct: Wittgenstein insists it is absurd to look for one essence common to all members; instead, meanings are related through overlapping similarities.

- (D) Incorrect: Family resemblance does not mean a single common property shared by all, but rather a network of overlapping similarities.

\[ \boxed{Therefore, A, B, and C are implied by Wittgenstein. \] Quick Tip: Wittgenstein’s “family resemblance” = no single essence, but overlapping similarities (like fibres in a thread).

In Kant's view, analytic propositions are those that are true by definition and do not require experience. For example, in the case of \(7 + 5 = 12\), the knowledge of it is not derived solely from the meanings of the terms involved. It requires the application of intuition or an empirical representation, such as counting objects or marks on paper, to grasp the sum (hence, \(7 + 5 = 12\) is synthetic). Thus, the equation is not analytic.

\[ \boxed{(A), (B), and (C) are correct; they explain the need for external intuition or analysis.} \] Quick Tip: Remember: Analytic statements are those true by definition alone, while synthetic statements like \(7 + 5 = 12\) require external intuition or experience for their truth.

In Sartre’s philosophy, "bad faith" refers to the human tendency to deny one’s own freedom by adopting a false sense of determinism or excuses. This denial undermines the assertion of one's own agency and freedom (A).

Furthermore, in Sartrean existentialism, nothingness is intimately connected with human freedom. The concept of nothingness is what allows for the possibility of freedom because it enables the transcendence of facts or given circumstances. By asserting the existence of nothingness, one affirms the ability to act freely (C).

Options (B) and (D) are incorrect. In Sartre's view, asserting nothingness does not deny freedom (contrary to option B), and being and nothingness are not contradictory in his framework; rather, nothingness enables being to transcend its factual limitations (D is incorrect).

\[ \boxed{Therefore, (A) and (C) are correct.} \] Quick Tip: In Sartre’s philosophy, bad faith is a self-deceptive act of denying freedom, and nothingness is what enables human freedom by allowing transcendence beyond facticity.