17.03 RCs

Solutions - https://www.facebook.com/events/554093021435725/


Empathy makes us reach out to others, first just emotionally, but
later in life also by understanding their situation.

This capacity likely evolved because it served our ancestors' survival
in two ways. First, like every mammal, we need to be sensitive to the
needs of our offspring. Second, our species depends on cooperation,
which means that we do better if we are surrounded by healthy, capable
group mates. Taking care of them is just a matter of enlightened
self-interest. It is hard to imagine that empathy –a characteristic so
basic to the human species that it emerges early in life, and is
accompanied by strong physiological reactions – came into existence
only when our lineage split off from that of the apes. It must be far
older than that. Examples of empathy in other animals would suggest a
long evolutionary history to this capacity in humans.

Instead of evolution having replaced simpler forms of empathy with
more advanced ones, the latter are merely elaborations on the former
and remain dependent on them. This also means that empathy comes
naturally to us. At heart, it is a hard-wired response that we
fine-tune and elaborate upon in the course of our lives, until it
reaches a level at which it becomes such a complex response that it is
hard to recognize its origin in simpler responses, such as body
mimicry and emotional contagion.

Biology holds us "on a leash," in the felicitous words of biologist
Edward Wilson, and will let us stray only so far from who we are. We
can design our life any way we want, but whether we will thrive
depends on how well that life fits human predispositions.

I hesitate to predict what we humans can and can't do, but we must
consider our biological leash when deciding what kind of society we
want to build, especially when it comes to goals like achieving
universal human rights.

If we could manage to see people on other continents as part of us,
drawing them into our circle of reciprocity and empathy, we would be
building upon, rather than going against, our nature.

For instance, in 2004, the Israeli Minister of Justice caused
political uproar for sympathizing with the enemy. Yosef Lapid
questioned the Israeli army's plans to demolish thousands of
Palestinian homes in a zone along the Egyptian border. He had been
touched by images of people looking for medicines in the ruins of
their homes on the evening news. "What would I say if they were my
family members?'" he said.

This incident shows how a simple emotion can widen the definition of
one's group. Lapid had suddenly realized that Palestinians were part
of his circle of concern, too. Empathy is the one weapon in the human
repertoire that can rid us of the curse of xenophobia.

Empathy is fragile, though. Among our close animal relatives, it is
switched on by events within their community, such as a youngster in
distress, but it is just as easily switched off with regards to
outsiders or members of other species, such as prey. This applies
equally to humans. Our evolutionary background makes it hard to
identify with outsiders. We've evolved to hate our enemies, to ignore
people we barely know, and to distrust anybody who doesn't look like
us. Even if we are largely cooperative within our communities, we
become almost a different animal in our treatment of strangers.

This is the challenge of our time: globalization by a tribal species.
In trying to structure the world such that it suits human nature, the
point to keep in mind is that political ideologues by definition hold
narrow views. They are blind to what they don't wish to see. The
possibility that empathy is part of our primate heritage ought to make
us happy, but we are not in the habit of embracing our nature. When
people kill each other, we call them "animals." But when they give to
the poor, we praise them for being "humane." We like to claim the
latter tendency for ourselves. Yet, it will be hard to come up with
anything we like about ourselves that is not part of our evolutionary
background. What we need, therefore, is a vision of human nature that
encompasses all of our tendencies: the good, the bad, and the ugly.



6.When the author says that "This is the challenge of our times" (last
paragraph), he is referring to
a)
our natural suspicion of strangers and people different from us.
b)
the fact that it is possible for man to overcome his natural proclivities.
c)
our tendency to appropriate positive qualities to ourselves while
attributing negative qualities to animals.
d)
the fact that though we seek to build a global village, our instincts
still lie in our tribal past.



7.The origin of empathy, according to the author,
a)
can be traced back to the point where our lineage split off from that
of the apes.
b)
begins a few hundred years ago when man developed intellectually to
understand himself and others.
c)
is deep rooted in our evolutionary past as it is also found in other animals.
d)
is lost in a maze of claims and counter claims by sociologists and scientists.



8.The author uses the example of the Israeli Minister of Justice to show that
a)
visual images have the power to change people's attitude to others,
even enemies.
b)
universal human rights is not an unachievable goal.
c)
even tough hardliners are not totally bereft of gentler emotions.
d)
empathy can help us overcome our fear and hatred of strangers.


9.From the author's use of the phrase "biological leash" (fifth
paragraph), we understand that
a)
our biological pasts limits our ability to empathise with strangers.
b)
we should take our predispositions into consideration when we seek to
structure the world.
c)
universal human rights is not an achievable goal since we are
naturally xenophobic.
d)
biology sets a limit to what is achievable and we must respect that in
order to survive.




*****************



WHEN economists talk of political risk, they usually mean war,
terrorism or, at the very least, national elections. And 2014 will be
a busy year at the polls, with votes in Brazil, India and Indonesia
(among the big emerging markets), plus America's mid-terms. Countries
with a combined population of more than 2 billion will be endorsing or
rejecting their current governments. But there is another kind of
political risk: the temptation for governments of all political
colours to change the rules, whether they relate to tax, the way that
companies operate or how markets behave. And that risk has increased
significantly since the 2008 crisis.

Given the scale of the banking collapse, extra regulation of the
financial industry was only to be expected. New rules requiring banks
to hold more capital should make future crises less severe, although
the immediate effect may be to restrict lending to firms as banks
shrink their balance-sheets. Some other regulatory efforts – the
European Union's financial-transactions tax, for example, or its
alternative-investment fund managers directive – look rather less
useful. A broad threat to investors comes from governments with votes
to buy and budget deficits to fill. The piles of cash accumulated by
companies in recent years are a tempting target. In a sense, firms
have only themselves to blame: they have stockpiled earnings, or spent
them buying their own shares, rather than using the money to expand
capacity and hire workers. But arbitrary decisions by governments may
reduce business confidence, and thus inhibit the investment the
politicians want to see.

Many governments are trapped between a desire to please voters (whose
incomes have been squeezed by austerity and higher commodity prices)
and the danger of offending corporate bosses, who have the ability to
move their operations elsewhere. This confusion has been amply
demonstrated in France, where François Hollande's government has
proposed and withdrawn a series of taxes, including a levy on the sale
of internet devices and an increase in duty on diesel fuel. A 75% tax
on high incomes still looms, although perhaps the threatened
cancellation of football matches at top clubs in protest will change
the government's mind. To voters, kicking a ball is a much more
popular activity than running a business. Mr Hollande has admitted
that taxes may have risen too fast, and is seeking to change the focus
to spending cuts.

In Britain, high energy bills have prompted the opposition Labour
Party to propose a price freeze for consumers after the 2015 election.
That has led to talk of a revival of 1970s socialism. Yet oil
executives are still steaming over the introduction of a windfall tax
by the current, Conservative-led, coalition government. In Italy, the
centre-left Democratic Party is proposing a "Google tax", forcing
internet firms to use local agencies to handle their advertising
business, and thus generate tax revenue.

And then there is the general temptation to add to the weight of
regulation. Every year the World Economic Forum publishes a
competitiveness survey, based on interviews with executives. One
question asks for their assessment of the regulatory burden in their
country. Singapore always comes out best. Europe's performance is
dismal: Spain is ranked 125th out of 148 countries in the latest
survey, France 130th, Greece 144th and Italy 146th (beating only
Brazil and Venezuela). In general, European rankings have been
deteriorating, not improving. More regulations are still being added:
for example, vacuum-cleaners will be limited to a 1,600-watt motor
from next September, a figure below the current average.

Excessive regulation in the EU is hardly a surprise, but there has
also been a striking deterioration in the perception of America's
regulatory burden. The country has slipped from 23rd to 80th in the
global rankings over the past seven years.

What troubles business folk and investors most is the random nature of
the process. They do not know where the next tax will be levied or
regulatory boot descend. When rules are proposed, it can take ages for
the details to emerge, making it hard for companies to plan ahead.
That is the most insidious – and most underestimated – form of
political risk.



16.The author mentions "the danger of offending corporate bosses" to
broadly imply that
a)
corporates do not know where the regulatory boot will land next.
b)
corporate taxes may have risen too fast.
c)
multinational companies must use local talent to handle their business.
d)
multinational companies can shift their activity to low-tax countries.



17.Based on the discussion in the passage, which of the following
correctly captures, in ascending order, the global rankings of
countries in the competitiveness survey published by the World
Economic Forum?
a)
Singapore, America, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Brazil, Venezuela
b)
Brazil, Venezuela, Italy, France, Greece, Spain, America, Singapore
c)
Venezuela, Brazil, Italy, Greece, France, Spain, America, Singapore
d)
Singapore, America, Italy, France, Greece, Spain, Venezuela, Brazil


18.According to the author, which of the following is the "most
insidious – and most underestimated – form of political risk"?
a)
Corporate uncertainty over new regulations.
b)
Arbitrary taxes imposed by governments.
c)
The random nature of regulatory burden.
d)
Excessive regulation in Europe.


19.According to the passage, investors and companies are struggling with
a)
political risk in terms of national elections.
b)
the arbitrary nature of new taxes and regulations.
c)
the proposal and withdrawal of a series of taxes.
d)
the lack of governments' drive to cut red tape.


***************

Though man has compelled the world to minister to his needs, some of
the recent attempts at the replanning of society are alive with
danger. The application of modern science to production and
distribution enabled us to provide the possibilities of material
well-being for all and made poverty an anachronism, still large
numbers of men are suffering from poverty and starvation. This chaotic
condition is due to a lack of fellowship and co-operation. The Russian
experiment, whatever we may think of it, is at least an honest attempt
to secure for all an equal share in things which constitute the
physical basis of life. The glaring contrasts of poverty and wealth
are not accepted by them as inevitable. Even fascism is labouring to
build up a true communal life and effect a more equitable distribution
of power, wealth and opportunity. Only, the unfortunate result of
these attempts is mutual conflict and suppression of individual
liberty. There is a standardization of souls, a loss of
self-confidence, a tendency to seek salvation in herds. Not only is
the individual robbed of his freedom to order his life as he wills, he
is also deprived of the liberty to think as he will and express his
thoughts and opinions. Society has become a prison. That there is a
real feeling for humanity in these desperate attempts to check the
economic exploitation of the masses, one can readily admit. But if it
is to be achieved by the other exploitation of the baser passions of
human nature, its selfishness and hatred, its insolence and
fanaticism, the ideal order will be an inhuman one. Let us by all
means establish a just economic order, but let us also note that the
economic man is not the whole man. For a complete human being, we
require the cultivation of the grace and joy of soul overflowing in
love and devotion and free service of a regenerated humanity. If we
wish to realize the reign of law and justice in this world, it is to
enable the soul to gain inward peace. Physical efficiency and
intellectual alertness are dangerous if spiritual illiteracy prevails.
Aldous Huxley's Brave New World gives us a picture of perfect
adaptation of means to ends which will mean at the same time the
breeding of men and women in bottles, the disappearance of all family
life, of art and literature, of philosophy and religion, the death of
all things of the spirit. The elimination of the inner world of
personal experience is not a sign of progress. The present crisis of
civilization is the direct result of the loosening hold of ethical and
spiritual ideals.

We see things happening in the civilized world today that recall the
worst phases of the dark ages. New gods of race and nation are set up
in place of God who is dethroned. The souls of men are poisoned and
perverted by collective myths. They control their loyalties, present
apocalyptic hopes, demand an intense and passionate devotion to a goal
outside and greater than the self and serve as religions which have
the power to give luminous meaning to life and stir the will to
action. The few who have the perception of the unity of mankind and
feel the happiness and misery of a neighbouring people as though it
was their own are swamped by the millions who are thought to accustom
themselves to the idea of humanity as an assemblage of combatant
communities whose strength is tested through war. The perilous
rivalries of nation states are accompanied by furious competition in
armaments. It is no use deceiving ourselves that armaments are not
meant to be used. We cannot help using them any more than an animal
eating food can help throwing out filth. At the rate at which
preparations for war are proceeding and men's passions are stirred, a
catastrophe, compared with which the last war was only a picnic, seems
to be drawing near.

It is not, however, the part of wisdom to accept the collapse as
inevitable and abandon all struggle against it. It would be the surest
way of bringing it about. Nothing is inevitable in human affairs
except peace. It is the world's desperate need. Many leading
scientists devote their lives to the study of the hidden causes of
natural cataclysms such as earthquakes, which man is powerless to
overcome. Wars are human phenomena, and it is our duty to investigate
their causes.



23.What does the author mean by 'standardisation of souls'?
a)
Evolving common standards of ethics and morals for human beings.
b)
To work for upliftment of groups of people neglecting needs of individuals.
c)
Liberating individuals from all bondages of social norms.
d)
Equalization of all individuals without any consideration whatsoever
for genuine differences.


24.From the passage, we can infer that the author's attitude towards
the notion of arms as deterrent is that
a)
it is fallacious.
b)
he is in partial agreement with it.
c)
he is wary and perturbed about it.
d)
he condemns it outright.


25.What, according to the author, is the failure of the Russian experiment?
a)
That there is bound to be a contrast of poverty and wealth is not
accepted by them as inevitable.
b)
It is an attempt to secure an equal share in things which constitute
the physical basis of life which is utopian to achieve.
c)
It attempts to aid the society but cripples the individual.
d)
It is akin to Fascism and hence doomed to failure.

26.Which of the following statements can be understood from the passage?
a)
It is unwise to accept war as inevitable because it is immoral not to
do anything to prevent a war which causes human destruction.
b)
The author makes a reference to 'Aldous Huxley's Brave New World in
order to signify the importance of spiritual and ethical ideals.
c)
The tone of the author in the passage is scornful.
d)
The second paragraph of the passage is related to the first paragraph
in that it provides an example to prove a point made in the latter.

***************************


Operant conditioning is a form of learning in which responses that are
usually voluntary (and thus emitted) come to be controlled by their
consequences. It is also called Skinnerian conditioning after B. F.
Skinner, who worked out its fundamental principles. Another name is
instrumental conditioning, since the learned responses, which operate
on the environment, are instrumental in either attaining some
subsequent desirable reward or avoiding-escaping some subsequent
aversive/punishing event. Thorndike coined the name instrumental
conditioning as a result of his research with cats, which were placed
in puzzle boxes that they gradually learned to escape to obtain food.
His research preceded Skinner's work on operant conditioning using
rats and pigeons that were rewarded, respectively, for pressing bars
or pecking at visual stimuli while inside what came to be called a
"Skinner Box". Thorndike formulated the Law of Effect as a result of
his research: If a response in the presence of a stimulus leads to
satisfying effects, then the association between the stimulus and
response will be strengthened, and vice versa. This law was later
elaborated in Skinner's Principles of Reinforcement.

Classical conditioning, in contrast to operant conditioning, is where
responses that are usually reflexive (and thus elicited) are brought
under the control of stimulus events that precede the response. This
is also called Pavlovian conditioning after Ivan Pavlov, who worked
out its fundamental principles through his studies of salivation in
dogs, which he found could be elicited by neutral stimuli, such as a
tone, that had been repeatedly presented before the presentation of
food. Later, even sounds similar to the tone elicited the same
response. Another name for this form of learning is respondent
conditioning.

In classical conditioning you are trying to increase the probability
of a response (the conditioned response, CR) to some neutral stimulus
(the conditioned stimulus, CS) by pairing that stimulus with a
following stimulus (the unconditioned stimulus, US) that already
produces the response (the unconditioned response, UR): Initially US
leads to UR, then CS together with US leads to UR, and finally CS
leads to CR. In operant conditioning, you are trying to increase the
probability of a response (the conditioned response, CR) in the
presence of some stimulus (the discriminative stimulus, DS, which is
like a conditioned stimulus, CS) by following the desired response
with a reinforcing stimulus (R, which is like an unconditioned
stimulus). Alternatively, you might be trying to decrease the
probability of a response (CR) in the presence of some stimulus
(DS/CS) by following the undesired response with a punishing stimulus
(P): DS/CS leads to CR followed by R or P. Note that in operant
conditioning, unlike classical conditioning, there are response
consequences, i.e., there are reinforcement or punishment
contingencies--the reinforcement or punishment (R or P) being
dependent/contingent upon the response (CR) occurring. In contrast, in
classical conditioning the unconditioned stimulus (US, which is like a
reinforcement or punishment) follows the conditioned stimulus (CS)
during training regardless of whether or not the conditioned response
(CR) occurs. Here the CR, which is usually reflexive, is brought under
the control of a stimulus event (CS) that precedes the response,
rather than one that follows it. A reinforcer, it should be noted, is
anything that increases the probability of the response that it
follows. A punishment is anything that reduces the probability of the
response that it follows. Whether the reinforcement or punishment is
positive vs. negative depends on whether it involves, respectively,
the presentation vs. the removal of some stimulus.



31.Which of the following choices provides suitable example(s) of
Skinner's principle of reinforcement?
a)
Rewarding a child with a (pen/ pencil/ chocolate/ candy) before he
does a desired activity (finish his homework/ clean his room/ behave
during a dental procedure).
b)
In two cages, there is a designated area during a test, where you do
not want the rat to go. The rat in cage (i) is given a piece of cheese
halfway through finishing this puzzle correctly. The rat in cage (ii)
is given electrical shocks if it is not going to that area, after the
time of the treatment.
c)
In an experiment, a cat in a closed cage is given a task of pressing a
switch so that the door opens and a bowl with a piece of fish is
automatically placed before it. You decide to also place the piece of
fish in the center of the cage.
d)
The dentist rewards a small child with a pencil box if he sat through
a dental procedure but raises his voice and asks the parent to leave
the room if the child cried or obstructed the treatment.


32.Consider the statements given below as true:

In an experiment, a child afraid of loud sounds was presented with a
white rat. Initially the child showed no fear of the white rat, but
after the presentation of the rat was paired repeatedly with loud
scary sounds, the child would cry out of fear when the rat alone was
present. Later, interestingly, the child was also afraid of a white
rabbit in a similar fashion, though he had never seen the white rabbit
before.

Which of the following choices would concur with the statements above
and the theme of the main passage?
a)
The experiment demonstrates a case of Classical Conditioning.
b)
The experiment demonstrates a case of Operant Conditioning.
c)
The experiment demonstrates a combination of Classical and Operant
Conditionings.
d)
The experiment proves Classical Conditioning while at the same time
disproves Operant Conditioning.


33.In a hospital, Child A sees the doctor in a white coat holding a
syringe in his hand and begins to yell on the top of his voice. The
doctor quickly worked with the needle and the syringe and administered
the booster dose to the child without communicating with it. The next
time the kid visits the hospital, he knows that he will encounter a
bad situation and cries at the sight of a man in a white coat.


In another hospital, the doctor in a white coat makes Child B
comfortable by taking it to a play area. After a while, he administers
the booster dose. He even rewards the child with a box of chocolates
for not crying much through the procedure. The next time the child
visits the hospital, he associates a white coat with a happy thought.


Which of the following statements is true?
a)
The example of child A demonstrates a case of classical conditioning
while that of child B demonstrates a case of operant conditioning. In
the first case, the conditioned response is the fear (the child
crying), the neutral stimulus is the needle and syringe and the
unconditioned stimulus is the man in a white coat.
b)
Both the examples of the child A and the child B demonstrate cases of
classical conditioning. In the first case, the conditioned response is
the fear (the child crying), the neutral stimulus is the man in a
white coat and the unconditioned stimulus is the needle and syringe.
c)
The example of child A demonstrates a case of operant conditioning
while that of child B demonstrates a case of classical conditioning.
In the second case, the conditioned response is the happy child, the
neutral stimulus is the man in a white coat who presented it with a
box of chocolates and the unconditioned stimulus is the needle and
syringe.
d)
None of the above.


34.Consider the statements given below as true:

John B. Watson, a famous psychologist once said, "Give me a dozen
healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them
up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to
become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist,
merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his
talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his
ancestors."

Which of the following choices would concur with the statements above
and the theme of the main passage?
a)
Watson approaches learning as to a visible change in behaviour formed
by external stimuli and the learners' mind processes.
b)
Successful learning is not manifested in natural reflex reactions to
associated environmental stimuli alone.
c)
Watson assumes that environmental stimuli are critical for learning
with mind processes having little role to play.
d)
Watson assumes that instincts/ reflexes are present early in one's
life and can never be displaced by learned habits and that learning is
consequent to instincts/ reflexes one has early in one's life.