Time Left - 12:00 mins

LIC AAO/SBI PO Pre Mini Mock-29

Attempt now to get your rank among 1858 students!

Question 1

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
Many UK universities are struggling financially, but there’s one option that is rarely discussed: replacing lecturers with artificial intelligence (AI) machines. This might sound like sci-fi – after all, the lists of occupations vulnerable to AI rarely include teaching, which is still seen as too creative for computers. But a growing database of information harvested from online courses – clickstreams, eye-tracking and even emotion-detection – could make AI lecturers a common feature in the near future.
Forget robo-lecturers whirring away in front of whiteboards: AI teaching will mostly happen online, in 24/7 virtual classrooms. AI machines will learn to teach by ferreting out complex patterns in student behaviour – what you click, how long you watch, what mistakes you make, even what time of day you work best. This will then be linked to students’ “success”, which might be measured by exam marks, student satisfaction or employability.
The AI tutor will design personalised learning plans that optimise each student’s outcome. Should one student watch their lecture at breakfast time, or in the evening? Where should their first test pop up in a busy schedule? How much preparation will they need to understand a certain concept? While a skeleton crew of humans would be needed initially to design curriculums (the creative bit) and film lectures (CGI is still too expensive), AI tutors could do the rest.
For cash-challenged UK universities, facing slashed tuition income and eye-watering mortgages for shiny new teaching buildings, swapping expensive lecturers for cheap, versatile machines that don’t go on strike, don’t need sleep, and respond to students within nanoseconds will be hard to resist.
But why replace creative teachers with machines? I’m on the side of the humans. I still believe, after 15 years’ lecturing, that teaching is a creative, insightful, collaborative, soul-enriching human activity. This is why I worry that many universities and academics, myself included, may be unintentionally colluding in our own downfall.
Too many university students already hardly see a human. There’s probably a lecturer somewhere down there at the front of the enormous auditorium, but chances are they’re almost inaudible and spend the lecture pointing vaguely at Powerpoint slides.
Replacing all lecturers with AI is probably still some years off. The ethical and educational challenges, which include AI’s inbuilt biases, the importance of lecturers’ pastoral role amid increasing mental health concerns, and the idea that “consuming content” is equivalent to learning, are so unsettling I’d like to think we wouldn’t let it happen. But I worry that the combined pressures of technology and economics frequently proof irresistible. If machines can replace doctors, why not academics too?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/06/will-ai-replace-university-lecturers-not-if-we-make-it-clear-why-humans-matter
Out of the five words given below (highlighted in the passage), the usage of which one is grammatically or contextually incorrect?

Question 2

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
Many UK universities are struggling financially, but there’s one option that is rarely discussed: replacing lecturers with artificial intelligence (AI) machines. This might sound like sci-fi – after all, the lists of occupations vulnerable to AI rarely include teaching, which is still seen as too creative for computers. But a growing database of information harvested from online courses – clickstreams, eye-tracking and even emotion-detection – could make AI lecturers a common feature in the near future.
Forget robo-lecturers whirring away in front of whiteboards: AI teaching will mostly happen online, in 24/7 virtual classrooms. AI machines will learn to teach by ferreting out complex patterns in student behaviour – what you click, how long you watch, what mistakes you make, even what time of day you work best. This will then be linked to students’ “success”, which might be measured by exam marks, student satisfaction or employability.
The AI tutor will design personalised learning plans that optimise each student’s outcome. Should one student watch their lecture at breakfast time, or in the evening? Where should their first test pop up in a busy schedule? How much preparation will they need to understand a certain concept? While a skeleton crew of humans would be needed initially to design curriculums (the creative bit) and film lectures (CGI is still too expensive), AI tutors could do the rest.
For cash-challenged UK universities, facing slashed tuition income and eye-watering mortgages for shiny new teaching buildings, swapping expensive lecturers for cheap, versatile machines that don’t go on strike, don’t need sleep, and respond to students within nanoseconds will be hard to resist.
But why replace creative teachers with machines? I’m on the side of the humans. I still believe, after 15 years’ lecturing, that teaching is a creative, insightful, collaborative, soul-enriching human activity. This is why I worry that many universities and academics, myself included, may be unintentionally colluding in our own downfall.
Too many university students already hardly see a human. There’s probably a lecturer somewhere down there at the front of the enormous auditorium, but chances are they’re almost inaudible and spend the lecture pointing vaguely at Powerpoint slides.
Replacing all lecturers with AI is probably still some years off. The ethical and educational challenges, which include AI’s inbuilt biases, the importance of lecturers’ pastoral role amid increasing mental health concerns, and the idea that “consuming content” is equivalent to learning, are so unsettling I’d like to think we wouldn’t let it happen. But I worry that the combined pressures of technology and economics frequently proof irresistible. If machines can replace doctors, why not academics too?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/06/will-ai-replace-university-lecturers-not-if-we-make-it-clear-why-humans-matter
What does the following sentence from the passage mean?

“…the lists of occupations vulnerable to AI rarely include teaching”

Question 3

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
Many UK universities are struggling financially, but there’s one option that is rarely discussed: replacing lecturers with artificial intelligence (AI) machines. This might sound like sci-fi – after all, the lists of occupations vulnerable to AI rarely include teaching, which is still seen as too creative for computers. But a growing database of information harvested from online courses – clickstreams, eye-tracking and even emotion-detection – could make AI lecturers a common feature in the near future.
Forget robo-lecturers whirring away in front of whiteboards: AI teaching will mostly happen online, in 24/7 virtual classrooms. AI machines will learn to teach by ferreting out complex patterns in student behaviour – what you click, how long you watch, what mistakes you make, even what time of day you work best. This will then be linked to students’ “success”, which might be measured by exam marks, student satisfaction or employability.
The AI tutor will design personalised learning plans that optimise each student’s outcome. Should one student watch their lecture at breakfast time, or in the evening? Where should their first test pop up in a busy schedule? How much preparation will they need to understand a certain concept? While a skeleton crew of humans would be needed initially to design curriculums (the creative bit) and film lectures (CGI is still too expensive), AI tutors could do the rest.
For cash-challenged UK universities, facing slashed tuition income and eye-watering mortgages for shiny new teaching buildings, swapping expensive lecturers for cheap, versatile machines that don’t go on strike, don’t need sleep, and respond to students within nanoseconds will be hard to resist.
But why replace creative teachers with machines? I’m on the side of the humans. I still believe, after 15 years’ lecturing, that teaching is a creative, insightful, collaborative, soul-enriching human activity. This is why I worry that many universities and academics, myself included, may be unintentionally colluding in our own downfall.
Too many university students already hardly see a human. There’s probably a lecturer somewhere down there at the front of the enormous auditorium, but chances are they’re almost inaudible and spend the lecture pointing vaguely at Powerpoint slides.
Replacing all lecturers with AI is probably still some years off. The ethical and educational challenges, which include AI’s inbuilt biases, the importance of lecturers’ pastoral role amid increasing mental health concerns, and the idea that “consuming content” is equivalent to learning, are so unsettling I’d like to think we wouldn’t let it happen. But I worry that the combined pressures of technology and economics frequently proof irresistible. If machines can replace doctors, why not academics too?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/06/will-ai-replace-university-lecturers-not-if-we-make-it-clear-why-humans-matter
With reference to the passage, which of the following is opposite in meaning to “rarely”?

Question 4

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
Many UK universities are struggling financially, but there’s one option that is rarely discussed: replacing lecturers with artificial intelligence (AI) machines. This might sound like sci-fi – after all, the lists of occupations vulnerable to AI rarely include teaching, which is still seen as too creative for computers. But a growing database of information harvested from online courses – clickstreams, eye-tracking and even emotion-detection – could make AI lecturers a common feature in the near future.
Forget robo-lecturers whirring away in front of whiteboards: AI teaching will mostly happen online, in 24/7 virtual classrooms. AI machines will learn to teach by ferreting out complex patterns in student behaviour – what you click, how long you watch, what mistakes you make, even what time of day you work best. This will then be linked to students’ “success”, which might be measured by exam marks, student satisfaction or employability.
The AI tutor will design personalised learning plans that optimise each student’s outcome. Should one student watch their lecture at breakfast time, or in the evening? Where should their first test pop up in a busy schedule? How much preparation will they need to understand a certain concept? While a skeleton crew of humans would be needed initially to design curriculums (the creative bit) and film lectures (CGI is still too expensive), AI tutors could do the rest.
For cash-challenged UK universities, facing slashed tuition income and eye-watering mortgages for shiny new teaching buildings, swapping expensive lecturers for cheap, versatile machines that don’t go on strike, don’t need sleep, and respond to students within nanoseconds will be hard to resist.
But why replace creative teachers with machines? I’m on the side of the humans. I still believe, after 15 years’ lecturing, that teaching is a creative, insightful, collaborative, soul-enriching human activity. This is why I worry that many universities and academics, myself included, may be unintentionally colluding in our own downfall.
Too many university students already hardly see a human. There’s probably a lecturer somewhere down there at the front of the enormous auditorium, but chances are they’re almost inaudible and spend the lecture pointing vaguely at Powerpoint slides.
Replacing all lecturers with AI is probably still some years off. The ethical and educational challenges, which include AI’s inbuilt biases, the importance of lecturers’ pastoral role amid increasing mental health concerns, and the idea that “consuming content” is equivalent to learning, are so unsettling I’d like to think we wouldn’t let it happen. But I worry that the combined pressures of technology and economics frequently proof irresistible. If machines can replace doctors, why not academics too?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/06/will-ai-replace-university-lecturers-not-if-we-make-it-clear-why-humans-matter
Which of the following is/ are true with reference to the passage?
a. Artificial Intelligence could be an answer to the financially struggling universities of UK.
b. Traditional teaching methods pose physical constraints in an enormous classroom.
c. AI machines will learn to teach by unearthing complex patterns in student behaviour.

Question 5

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of these.
Many UK universities are struggling financially, but there’s one option that is rarely discussed: replacing lecturers with artificial intelligence (AI) machines. This might sound like sci-fi – after all, the lists of occupations vulnerable to AI rarely include teaching, which is still seen as too creative for computers. But a growing database of information harvested from online courses – clickstreams, eye-tracking and even emotion-detection – could make AI lecturers a common feature in the near future.
Forget robo-lecturers whirring away in front of whiteboards: AI teaching will mostly happen online, in 24/7 virtual classrooms. AI machines will learn to teach by ferreting out complex patterns in student behaviour – what you click, how long you watch, what mistakes you make, even what time of day you work best. This will then be linked to students’ “success”, which might be measured by exam marks, student satisfaction or employability.
The AI tutor will design personalised learning plans that optimise each student’s outcome. Should one student watch their lecture at breakfast time, or in the evening? Where should their first test pop up in a busy schedule? How much preparation will they need to understand a certain concept? While a skeleton crew of humans would be needed initially to design curriculums (the creative bit) and film lectures (CGI is still too expensive), AI tutors could do the rest.
For cash-challenged UK universities, facing slashed tuition income and eye-watering mortgages for shiny new teaching buildings, swapping expensive lecturers for cheap, versatile machines that don’t go on strike, don’t need sleep, and respond to students within nanoseconds will be hard to resist.
But why replace creative teachers with machines? I’m on the side of the humans. I still believe, after 15 years’ lecturing, that teaching is a creative, insightful, collaborative, soul-enriching human activity. This is why I worry that many universities and academics, myself included, may be unintentionally colluding in our own downfall.
Too many university students already hardly see a human. There’s probably a lecturer somewhere down there at the front of the enormous auditorium, but chances are they’re almost inaudible and spend the lecture pointing vaguely at Powerpoint slides.
Replacing all lecturers with AI is probably still some years off. The ethical and educational challenges, which include AI’s inbuilt biases, the importance of lecturers’ pastoral role amid increasing mental health concerns, and the idea that “consuming content” is equivalent to learning, are so unsettling I’d like to think we wouldn’t let it happen. But I worry that the combined pressures of technology and economics frequently proof irresistible. If machines can replace doctors, why not academics too?
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/06/will-ai-replace-university-lecturers-not-if-we-make-it-clear-why-humans-matter

With which of the following given alternatives, the author of the passage is likely to agree?

Question 6

Certain public auto-taxi drivers have decided to start charging a rate of ‘a’ Rs per person per Km. How much, in rupees, would it cost 3 people to travel x Kms if he decides to give them a discount of 50 %?

Question 7

Average of a player in 10 matches is 36. How many runs he should score in next one match to increase his average by 6 runs.

Question 8

A boat takes half time in moving a certain distance downstream than upstream. The ratio of the speed of the boat to that of the current is

Question 9

If 80 litres mixture containing Milk and water in the ratio 5:3, if 10 litres of mixture replaced by 10 litres of water, then find out the ratio of milk and water in new mixture.

Question 10

Two pipes A and B can fill a tank in 36 min. and 45 min. respectively. A water pipe C can empty the tank in 30 min. First A and B are opened. after 7 min, C is also opened. In how much time, the tank is filled 2/3 part of its capacity ?

Question 11

Direction: In each of the questions below are given few statements followed by three conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follow from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:
Only few Queens are king.
Only few kings are kind.
Conclusions:
I. All kind being queen is a possibility.
II. All queens being king is a possibility.
III. Some king is queen.

Question 12

Direction: In each of the questions below are given few statements followed by three conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follow from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:
All mothers are fathers.
All children are fathers.
A few mothers are not children.
Conclusions:
I. All fathers are children, is a possibility.
II. Some fathers are not children.
III. All children being mother is a possibility.

Question 13

Direction: In each of the questions below are given few statements followed by three conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follow from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:
Only a few engineers are boys.
A few boys are girls.
No girl is dumb.
Conclusions:
I. All engineers being boy is a possibility.
II. All engineers being girl is a possibility.
III. All engineers being dumb is a possibility.

Question 14

Direction: In each of the questions below are given few statements followed by three conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follow from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:
Only a few Amanda is Marcel.
All Marcel is Leonardo.
Only Leonardo is Gretchen.
No Amanda is Ron.
Conclusions:
I. Some Leonardo is Amanda.
II. Some Gretchen is Marcel is a possibility.
III. Some Ron is not Marcel.

Question 15

Direction: In each of the questions below are given few statements followed by three conclusions. You have to take the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts. Read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusions logically follow from the given statements disregarding commonly known facts.

Statements:
Only a few toys are elephants.
Only a few elephants are peacocks.
All peacocks are snakes.

Conclusions:
I. All toys being elephant is a possibility.
II. No snake is a toy.
III. All elephants being snake is a possibility.

  • 1858 attempts
  • 7 upvotes
  • 11 comments
Jun 23PO, Clerk, SO, Insurance