The only way to master VARC during your CAT Preparation is by practicing actual CAT question paper. Practice RCs with detailed video and text solutions from Previous CAT Question Papers.
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose
the best answer for each question.
Imagine a world in which artificial intelligence
is entrusted with the highest moral responsibilities: sentencing criminals, allocating medical
resources, and even mediating conflicts between nations. This might seem like the pinnacle of
human progress: an entity unburdened by emotion, prejudice or inconsistency, making ethical
decisions with impeccable precision. . . .
Yet beneath this vision of an idealised
moral arbiter lies a fundamental question: can a machine understand morality as humans do, or is
it confined to a simulacrum of ethical reasoning? AI might replicate human decisions without
improving on them, carrying forward the same biases, blind spots and cultural distortions from
human moral judgment. In trying to emulate us, it might only reproduce our limitations, not
transcend them. But there is a deeper concern. Moral judgment draws on intuition, historical
awareness and context – qualities that resist formalisation. Ethics may be so embedded in
lived experience that any attempt to encode it into formal structures risks flattening its most
essential features. If so, AI would not merely reflect human shortcomings; it would strip
morality of the very depth that makes ethical reflection possible in the first
place.
Still, many have tried to formalise ethics, by treating certain moral claims
not as conclusions, but as starting points. A classic example comes from utilitarianism, which
often takes as a foundational axiom the principle that one should act to maximise overall
wellbeing. From this, more specific principles can be derived, for example, that it is right to
benefit the greatest number, or that actions should be judged by their consequences for total
happiness. As computational resources increase, AI becomes increasingly well-suited to the task
of starting from fixed ethical assumptions and reasoning through their implications in complex
situations.
But what, exactly, does it mean to formalise something like ethics? The
question is easier to grasp by looking at fields in which formal systems have long played a
central role. Physics, for instance, has relied on formalisation for centuries. There is no
single physical theory that explains everything. Instead, we have many physical theories, each
designed to describe specific aspects of the Universe: from the behaviour of quarks and
electrons to the motion of galaxies. These theories often diverge. Aristotelian physics, for
instance, explained falling objects in terms of natural motion toward Earth’s centre;
Newtonian mechanics replaced this with a universal force of gravity. These explanations are not
just different; they are incompatible. Yet both share a common structure: they begin with basic
postulates – assumptions about motion, force or mass – and derive increasingly
complex consequences. . . .
Ethical theories have a similar structure. Like physical
theories, they attempt to describe a domain – in this case, the moral landscape. They aim
to answer questions about which actions are right or wrong, and why. These theories also diverge
and, even when they recommend similar actions, such as giving to charity, they justify them in
different ways. Ethical theories also often begin with a small set of foundational principles or
claims, from which they reason about more complex moral problems.
Question 8 : Which one of the options below best summarises the passage?
The passage argues that as moral judgment resists formalisation, entrusting AI
with moral responsibilities would merely reflect human shortcomings, stripping morality of its
depth. It uses an analogy of Physics, which has relied on formalisation for centuries, to
explain how ethical theories describe the moral landscape. Option 1 touches upon all key ideas
of the passage.
Option 2 is easily ruled out. The passage does not reject all formal
methods.
Option 3 incorrectly states that codified schemes retain case nuance at scale. So,
this option too, is ruled out.
Option 4 contradicts the main idea if the passage.
The question is " Which one of the options below best summarises the passage? "
Choice 1 is the correct answer.
Copyrights © All Rights Reserved by 2IIM.com - A Fermat Education Initiative.
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
CAT® (Common Admission Test) is a registered trademark of the Indian
Institutes of Management. This website is not endorsed or approved by IIMs.
2IIM Online CAT Coaching
A Fermat Education Initiative,
19/43, MG Chakrapani St,
Sathya Garden, Saligramam, Chennai 600 093
Mobile: (91) 99626 48484 / 94459
38484
WhatsApp: WhatsApp Now
Email: info@2iim.com