CAT 2019 Slot 2VARC Question 18

Mixed PracticeEasy
Passage / Data

Answer the following question based on the information given below.

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner’s eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density—1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai—and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.
Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where electricity is stolen and therefore free, people leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400 recycling units and 30,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, “Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi’s streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo’s main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes.” . . .
In his 1985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: “The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities.” “Green Manhattan” was the inflammatory title of a 2004 New Yorker article by David Owen. “By the most significant measures,” he wrote, “New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. . . . Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful.” He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world’s most energy-efficient apartment buildings. . . .
Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. . . . Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” . . .
[T]he nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil “answers the question” of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions. . . .
Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. . . . But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan . . .

From the passage it can be inferred that cities are good places to live in for all of the following reasons EXCEPT that they:

Answer & solution

  • A

    help prevent destruction of the environment.

  • B

    offer employment opportunities.

  • have suburban areas as well as office areas.

  • D

    contribute to the cultural transformation of residents.

Solution

Easy

Another EXCEPT question. Three options are benefits of city living that the passage supports; the answer is the one the passage does not offer as a reason cities are good to live in. The relevant material is the Manaus example (jobs, preventing deforestation) and the closing paragraph (cities are “transformative”). Watch for an option that merely describes what a city contains rather than giving a reason it is good to live in.

A

Help prevent destruction of the environment. — Supported, so not the answer. The Manaus passage shows that giving people jobs stops them “deforesting the jungle”; cities are also repeatedly called “green” and “environmentally benign.” A valid reason.

B

Offer employment opportunities. — Supported, so not the answer. Manaus “answers the question” by giving “decent jobs”; the closing paragraph notes cities offer “business, innovation, education” and “more than just jobs.” Employment is clearly a stated benefit.

C

Have suburban areas as well as office areas. — CORRECT (not a stated reason). The phrase “office towers and leafy suburbs” appears only as an example of settings where transformation happens — it is a description, not a reason cities are good to live in. The passage never argues that the mere presence of suburbs and offices makes a city a good place to live. Hence this is the EXCEPT answer.

D

Contribute to the cultural transformation of residents. — Supported, so not the answer. The final lines call cities “transformative”: “the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan.” A valid reason.

A, B and D are all genuine reasons drawn from the text. Option C only restates a descriptive phrase and is never advanced as a reason cities are good to live in. The answer is Option C — have suburban areas as well as office areas.

CAT 2019 Slot 2 VARC Q18: From the passage it can be inferred that cities are good places to live in for all of the following reasons EX — Solution | TheCATExam