(1) Incorrect. If it was education that the students were after, knowledge would be an integral part of the same. (2) Incorrect. College education would give only limited exposure. Also, the option has to fit with the succeeding clause- a diploma that signals employability and basic work discipline. (3) Correct. The option ties in neatly with the requirements for job eligibility mentioned in the succeeding clause. (4) Incorrect; the option has to fit with the succeeding clause- a diploma that signals employability and basic work discipline. (5) Incorrect; does not fit with the flow of the sentence.

(1) Correct; because the Left, from which Camus was estranged, was deeply anti-Zionist, it makes sense that Camus was pro-Zionist. Also, the use of 'bond' in describing his relationship with Zionism further strengthens this option. (2) Incorrect but very close; because the Left, from which Camus was estranged, was deeply anti-Zionist, it makes sense that Camus was pro-Zionist. Also, the use of 'bond' in describing his relationship with Zionism further strengthens this option. (3) Incorrect; the use of 'bond' belies this option. (4) Incorrect; although the use of 'absurd predicament' seems to support this option, the overall tone of the passage is serious and somber. Hence, 'laughing at' does not fit the blank. (5) Incorrect; because the Left was anti-Zionist and Camus was estranged from it, it would make no sense for him to feel vindicated at the predicament that the young Jewish state found itself in.

(1) Incorrect. The option is irrelevant to the argument. Foreign tourists would fly in on international carriers, not domestic airlines. (2) Incorrect. Alstonians taking vacations could be traveling by train. (3) Incorrect. An increase in population would increase the rush both on rail and air routes. (4) Correct. If trains have been running on full capacity for the past few years, it would mean that the overflow of passengers had to travel by air. (5) Only top managers traveling by air would not be able to keep the aircrafts full.

(1) Incorrect. Major exports might or might not be consumed in high enough quantities in the native country to cause a spike in inflation. (2) Incorrect. Falling prices would rather drive away the speculators. (3) Incorrect. The drought happened last year. Its impact might not be felt this year or increase inflation further. (4) Correct. Because the speculators feel that agricultural commodity prices will rise further, they have borrowed money to buy future contracts in the anticipation of the prices going higher still. Both the premises get connected in this option. (5) Incorrect. Holiday demand would go down after the holidays are over.

(1) Makes the argument logical. If BW= MG, then BW is more popular than RG since MG is more popular than RG. (2) Makes the argument logical. If MG=RC, it follows that BW is more popular than RG since RC is equally popular to MG who is more popular than RG. (3) Correct answer as it does not supply the information that is needed to reach the conclusion. If BW< MG, and RG< MG, it cannot be said with certainty that BW> RG. (4) Makes the argument logical. If RC> MG> RG and BW> RC, it follows that   BW is more popular than RG. (5) Makes the argument logical. If RG<RC, and BW> RC, it follows that RG is less popular than BW.

(1) Incorrect. The reasoning presented in the original argument is that how can one be serious about something that will adversely impact his personal interests. Here, the apprehension is that the doctor will bring in legislation that will benefit people from his profession. (2) Incorrect. The reasoning in the option is that because someone did an action under certain circumstances, he will do it again in similar circumstances. The original reasoning hinges on someone doing something that will entail a huge cost from him. (3) Incorrect. The reasoning in the option is that since A (C. Clay) did not do B (enroll in the army), he will be a poor candidate to ask (C) to do (B). The original reasoning is: How can A (senator) do B (impose penalties on pollution) when A will be hit by doing B? (4) Correct. The reasoning in the option is that how can A (witness) be trusted when B (her damning testimony) would harm her interests. (5) Incorrect. The reasoning in the option is that A (the General) will not be hard on B (the deserters) because he is friendly with them. It does not prove how it will be detrimental to his interests to do so.

(1) Incorrect. The simile is a reference to an author getting too attached to his idea. (2) Correct. The sentence is an oblique reference to the writer's obligation to cater to his readers. Writing what the readers would prefer to read is more important than writing to please self. (3) Incorrect. Cannot be inferred. (4) Incorrect. The comparison is only to highlight the fact that what works for one might not work for the other. (5) Incorrect. The comparison is implicit that a cow would not prefer to chew gum. A writer has to write what his readers want to read, not what he, the writer, wants to read.

(1) Can be inferred. If the Chinese are genetically stronger and faster than Indians, it would weaken the conclusion that the impact of the state run academies is responsible for the rise of China as a sporting super power. (2) Correct. The argument does not get weakened by the assertion that the Chinese government can issue draconian edicts. At best, it is irrelevant to the argument. (3) Can be inferred. If Indians choose to pursue studies instead of sports, it stands to reason that opening up of sporting academies would not yield desired results. (4) Can be inferred. If corruption is rampant in sports in India, it can be inferred that many Indians will make it to the teams without deserving to, and also, many Indians with talent but without the inclination to pursue a sporting career, will be able to bribe their way out of the academies. (5) Can be inferred. Since no Indians have been winning Gold medals, it means that they could not have been world champions in their sport. It means that Indian talent scouts might also not be able to spot talent.

(1) Incorrect. The comparison is with a fermentation process that produces wine. (2) Incorrect. The comparison of creative writing is with a fermentation process that produces wine. (3) Incorrect. An analogy between creative writing and fermentation to make drink is being used.(4) Correct. The analogy between creative writing and fermentation of something to produce a drink is being used. This is the best available option, though not the best option per se.(5) Incorrect. The right option will compare culture with a production facility/ an agricultural field where something is being grown.   

(1) Incorrect; the conclusion of the argument is that replicating living conditions of wolves would help reduce incidence of hip dysplasia in large breeds of dogs. Whether or not smaller dogs are genetically similar to wolves is beside the point. (2) Incorrect; wolves are hunters while these dogs are protectors. Hence, it cannot be said that they have similar lifestyles. Also, it is not mentioned whether these dogs are big dogs or not. (3) Correct; because the wolves living in zoos live in closed enclosures, it would imply that their lifestyle is very similar to those of big domesticated dogs. If they are getting hip dysplasia, it can be inferred that the similarity in lifestyle, to big dogs, is causing it. (4) Incorrect but very close; it is not mentioned whether the hunting dogs belong to large breeds or small breeds. (5) Incorrect; limits the argument about lifestyle to only food, which is but one component of lifestyle.

(1) Incorrect; the smoothness of the floors in human habitats, as against the wild terrain, would be just one of the factors contributing to the lifestyle of dogs and wolves. (2) Correct; if we negate this assumption, the conclusion of the argument is also negated. If the lifestyle of the wolves in the wild is not responsible for the low incidence of hip dysplasia in them, it would not make any sense to replicate the same living conditions for domesticated dogs. (3) Incorrect; the focus of the argument is not on making dogs stronger, but on making them less susceptible to hip dysplasia. (4) Incorrect; hunting for food would be only one of the components of the lifestyle of wolves in the wild. (5) Incorrect; the crux of the argument is on the comparison between large breeds of dogs and wolves.