CAT 2021 Slot 2 — VARC Question 23
Five jumbled up sentences, related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd one out and key in the number of the sentence as your answer:
- The care with which philosophers examine arguments for and against forms of biotechnology makes this an excellent primer on formulating and assessing moral arguments.
- Although most people find at least some forms of genetic engineering disquieting, it is not easy to articulate why: what is wrong with re-engineering our nature?
- Breakthroughs in genetics present us with the promise that we will soon be able to prevent a host of debilitating diseases, and the predicament that our newfound genetic knowledge may enable us to enhance our genetic traits.
- To grapple with the ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions that verge on theology, which is why modern philosophers and political theorists tend to shrink from them.
- One argument is that the drive for human perfection through genetics is objectionable as it represents a bid for mastery that fails to appreciate the gifts of human powers and achievements.
Answer & solution
Answer: 1
Easy
This is a sentence-exclusion (odd one out). Identify the common theme the four "fitting" sentences build, then spot the sentence that sits at a different level or topic. Here, four sentences debate the ethics of genetic engineering / enhancement; one talks about something broader.
Find the theme. Sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5 all concern genetic engineering / enhancement and its ethics: 3 introduces genetic breakthroughs and the predicament of enhancement; 2 asks what is wrong with re-engineering our nature; 4 says grappling with the ethics of enhancement verges on theology; 5 gives a specific argument against the genetic drive for perfection. They cohere tightly around genetics and its moral arguments.
Spot the misfit: 1. Sentence 1 says philosophers' care in examining arguments makes "this an excellent primer on formulating and assessing moral arguments" about biotechnology broadly. It reads like a book-review comment on a general subject (biotechnology / how to assess moral arguments), not part of the specific genetic-enhancement debate the other four construct. It introduces a "this" (a book/text) with no anchor among the others.
Confirm the paragraph without 1. 3 (the promise and predicament) → 2 (why enhancement disquiets us) → 4 (the ethics verge on theology) → 5 (one concrete argument against it) forms a complete, coherent paragraph. Sentence 1 has no role in it.
The odd one out is sentence 1.