LIC AAO/SBI PO Pre Mini Mock-29

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.