CLASS-1: Logical Reasoning
Logical Reasoning: 1. Earth and Outer Space
Given the age of the universe and the apparent high probability of
life evolving on other planets orbiting other stars, where are all the aliens?
A 2015 study based on data from the Hubble Space Telescope and Kepler Space
Telescope might offer an answer: Earth was an early bloomer. The study focused
on the likelihood of the evolution of habitable worlds, finds that when our
planet was born from our young sun's protoplanetary disk some 4.6 billion years
ago, it was born into an era when only " 8 percent of the potentially
habitable planets that will ever form in the universe existed." Most of
the material available to form habitable planets is still around giving lots of
time for alien civilizations to form and get in touch with us.
1. Which of the following forms the premise
for the author's argument about alien life?
1. Alien civilizations have not yet evolved on other planets orbiting
other stars in the universe
2. There is a high probability of alien life evolving, given the age
of the
universe 3. The universe is still young enough for alien life to
evolve in it
4. Though alien life has not yet evolved in the universe, it is highly
likely to do SO
[Correct 2: The premise is stated in the
very first line of the paragraph: "Given the age of the universe and the
apparent high probability of life evolving on other planets orbiting other
stars, ..."]
2. Which of the following statements is
consistent with the findings of the 2015 study?
1. There is a 92% chance of us encountering life from other habitable
planets
2. 92% of the planets in the universe have not yet formed
3. Earth became habitable as it was born early in the history of the
universe
4. There is at most an 8% chance of Earth being the only planet
inhabited by life in the universe
[Correct 4: The study found that when Earth
was formed, only 8% of the potentially habitable planets that will ever form in
the universe existed. In other words, there is at most an 8% chance that Earth
is the only planet inhabited by life in the universe. Option (a) is incorrect,
as there is no mention of us encountering alien life in the study. Option (b)
is incorrect too, as the study only talks about potentially inhabitable
planets, not the total number of planets in the universe. Option (c) is
incorrect, as the study does not attribute life on earth to it evolving early
in the history of the universe]
3. With regard to aliens, it is the
author's assumption that:
1. They are likely to evolve to be similar to humans
2. They will be able to travel in space
3. They will be eager to get in touch with us
4. They may not be aware of our existence
[Correct 3: In the last line, the author
talks about there being enough time for the aliens to get in touch with us. It
is his assumption that they will want to do so.]
4. It is the author's contention that we haven't yet heard from aliens
because:
1. The universe hasn't had the time to spawn many more habitable
worlds
2. The Earth is likely to be the first planet to evolve life
3. Alien civilizations are yet to form in the universe
4. All the above
[Correct 1: The author answers the
question, "Where are all the aliens?" with the argument that 92% of
potentially habitable planets are yet to form in the universe and that given
time, these alien life will form and get in touch with us. The author does not
say that the Earth was the first planet to evolve life or that all alien
civilizations are still to form.]
5. Suppose it is known that of all the
planets currently in existence, Earth is in the last batch formed only after
80% of the others in the batch. This information:
1. Strengthens the author's argument
2. Weakens the author's argument
3. Completely invalidates the author's argument
4. Does not affect the author's argument
Correct 1: The author's argument is that if
we have not encountered aliens till now, it is because we have not given the
exercise enough time the universe is still churning out potentially habitable
planets. If its is known that the Earth's formation was a comparatively recent
event, that is, the Earth was formed only after 80% of the planets in the last
batch were formed, then given. that Earth is an early bloomer (one of the
earliest planets to evolve life), it stands to reason that it is because we haven't
given it enough time that we haven't met aliens.]
Logical Reasoning: 2. Covid Crisis
"Never waste a crisis" is an old adage. The Covid crisis is
a good time to enact painful reforms. Some reforms like the suspension of
labour laws for three years by CLAT some states have caught the
headlines, and been criticised, rightly, as half-baked. No investor will come
if the change is limited to three years. More rational and politically
courageous is the abolition of once-sacred subsidies plus higher taxation of
petroleum products. The central government raised the excise duty on diesel and
petrol in March and May and increased the road cess to Rs 8/litre. State
governments have raised their taxes too. Higher taxes could yield up to 1% of
GDP, a fiscal godsend since the Covid-induced recession looks like cutting
government revenue by 2-3% of GDP.
Economist Ajit Ranade says 70% of today's consumer price of petrol and
diesel is taxation, representing a prematurely high carbon tax. I disagree.
Indian petrol at Rs 80/litre is still far cheaper than in Europe or Japan,
though more expensive than in low-taxed USA. India is far more polluted than
all of them. For breathable air we should raise fuel taxes to curb consumption
and incentivise a switch to electric two-wheelers, and eventually electric
cars. That will take time and technological change, but electric rickshaws are
already spreading fast.
1. Which of the following is the author
most likely to believe in?
1. Removal of subsidies is more crucial than increase in fuel
taxation.
2. Raising fuel taxes should be the preferred strategy to bridge
fiscal deficit
3. Countries that have more pollution should have higher carbon tax
4. India should keep increasing its fuel prices even if it negatively
impacts the economy.
[Correct 3:Let us go choice by choice.
A The author does not make any distinction
on which of these two- fuel taxation or fuel subsidies - is more important
B-The author says "Higher taxes could
yield up to 1% of GDP, a fiscal godsend" but does not say this is better
or worse than any other method for bridging deficit.
C-The author disagrees with Ajit Ranade's
contention that taxes are already high and says "Indian petrol at Rs
80/litre is still far cheaper than in Europe or Japan, though more expensive
than in low-taxed USA. India is far more polluted than all of them." The
implication is that a Country that has higher pollution should have higher
carbon tax
D-There is no comment made on fuel increase
and its impact on economy.]
2. Which of the following is not true?
1. Thanks to this fuel tax, the government could have higher revenue
than it had predicted pre-Covid
2. Ajit Ranade believes that India's fuel tax is already high
3. The author believes that fuel tax should spur the uptake of
electric vehicles
4. States have used the suspension of labour laws as a tool to attract
investors
[Correct 1: This one is interesting. Once
again, let us go choice-by-choice.
A "State governments have raised their taxes too. Higher taxes
could yield up to 1% of GDP, a fiscal godsend since the Covid-induced recession
looks like cutting government revenue by 2-3% of GDP." Revenues down by
2-3% and then this fuel tax hike gives you 1%. So, on an overall basis the
revenue is still likely to be lower than what was originally predicted. This is
a very interesting choice. This statement is not true. This is the right
answer. Let us see the other choices also.
B- "Economist Ajit Ranade says 70% of today's consumer price
of petrol and diesel is taxation, representing a prematurely high carbon
tax." Clearly true..
C-"For breathable air we should raise fuel taxes to curb
consumption and incentivise a switch to electric two-wheelers, and eventually
electric cars.". Stated in passage.
D- "Some reforms like the suspension of labour laws for three
years by some states have caught the headlines, and been criticised, rightly,
as half-baked. No investor will come if the change is limited to three
years." - This one is trickier as it is not explicitly stated. The passage
says that states have used the idea of suspending labour laws for three years.
The author then says that a 3-year suspension might not be sufficient. We do
not know if the move is successful, but it is clear that the labour law
suspension was used to try to attract investors.]