A game of strategy, as currently conceived in game theory, is a situation in which

two or more players make choices among available alternatives (moves). The
totality of choices determines the outcomes of the game, and it is assumed that
the rank order of preferences for the outcomes is different for different players.
Thus the interests of the players are generally in conflict. Whether these interests
are diametrically opposed or only partially opposed depends on the type of
game.
Psychologically, most interesting situations arise when the interests of the
players are partly coincident and partly opposed, because then one can postulate
not only a conflict among the players but also inner conflicts within the players.
Each is tom between a tendency to cooperate, so as to promote the common
interests, and a tendency to compete, so as to enhance his own individual
interests.
Internal conflicts are always psychologically interesting. What we vaguely call
interesting psychology is in very great measure the psychology of inner conflict.
Inner conflict is also held to be an important component of serious literature as
distinguished from less serious genres. The classical tragedy, as well as the
serious novel, reveals the inner conflict of central figures. The superficial
adventure story, on the other hand, depicts only external conflict; that is, the
threats to the person with whom the reader (or viewer) identifies stem in these
stories exclusively from external obstacles and from the adversaries who create
them. On the most primitive level this sort of external conflict is psychologically
empty. In the fisticuffs between the protagonists of good and evil, no
psychological problems are involved or, at any rate, none are depicted in juvenile
representations of conflict.
The detective story, the adult analogue of a juvenile adventure tale, has at times
been described as a glorification of intellectualized conflict. However, a great deal
of the interest in the plots of these stories is sustained by withholding the
unraveling of a solution to a problem. The effort of solving the problem is in itself
not a conflict if the adversary (the unknown criminal) remains passive, like
Nature, whose secrets the scientist supposedly unravels by deduction. If the
adversary actively puts obstacles in the detectives path toward the solution,
there is genuine conflict. But the conflict is psychologically interesting only to the
extent that it contains irrational components such as a tactical error on the
criminals part or the detectives insight into some psychological quirk of the
criminal or something of this sort. Conflict conducted in a perfectly rational
manner is psychologically no more interesting than a standard Western. For
example, Tic-tac-toe, played perfectly by both players, is completely devoid of
psychological interest. Chess may be psychologically interesting but only to the
extent that it is played not quite rationally. Played completely rationally, chess

would not be different from Tic-tac-toe.

In short, a pure conflict of interest (what is called a zero-sum game) although it
offers a wealth of interesting conceptual problems, is not interesting
psychologically, except to the extent that its conduct departs from rational norms.

According to the passage, which of the following options about the application of game
theory to a conflict-of-interest situation is true?
Possible Answers

Not assuming that the interests are in complete disagreement.

Accepting that the interests of different players are often in conflict.
All are correct
Assuming that the rank order of preferences for options is different for different
players.

Question
The problem solving process of a scientist is different from that of a

detective because
Possible Answers

Scientists study known objects, while detectives have to deal with unknown crimina
or law offenders.
Scientists study psychologically interesting phenomena, while detectives deal with
adult analogues of juvenile adventure tales.
Scientists study inanimate objects, while detectives deal with living criminals or law
offenders.
Scientists study phenomena that are not actively altered, while detectives deal with
phenomena that have been deliberately influenced to mislead.

Question
According to the passage, internal conflicts are psychologically more

interesting than external conflicts because

Possible Answers

In situations of internal conflict, individuals experience a dilemma in resolving their

own preferences for different outcomes.
Internal conflicts, rather than external conflicts, form an important component of
serious literature as distinguished from less serious genres.
There are no threats to the reader (or viewer) in case of external conflicts.

Only juveniles or very few adults actually experience external conflict, while
internal conflict is more widely prevalent in society.

Question
Which, according to the author, would qualify as interesting psychology?

Possible Answers

A finance managers quandary over the best way of raising money from the market.
A chess players predicament over adopting a defensive strategy against an
aggressive opponent.
A mountaineers choice of the best path to Mt. Everest from the base camp.
A statisticians dilemma over choosing the best method to solve an optimisation
problem.

The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the best
answer to each question.
While complex in the extreme, Derridas work has proven to be a particularly

influential approach to the analysis of the ways in which language structures our
understanding of ourselves and the world we inhabit, an approach he termed
deconstruction. In its simplest formulation, deconstruction can be taken to refer to
a methodological strategy which seeks to uncover layers of hidden meaning in a
text that have been denied or suppressed. The term text, in this respect, does not
refer simply to a written form of communication, however. Rather, texts are
something we all produce and reproduce constantly in our everyday social
relations, be they spoken, written or embedded in the construction of material
artifacts. At the heart of Derridas deconstructive approach is his critique of what
he receives to be the totalitarian impulse of the Enlightenment pursuit to bring all
that exists in the world under the domain of a representative language, a pursuit
he refers to as logo centrism. Logo centrism is the search for a rational language
that is able to know and represent the world and all its aspects perfectly and
accurately. Its totalitarian dimension, for Derrida at least, lies primarily in its
tendency to marginalize or dismiss all that does not neatly comply with its
particular linguistic representations, a tendency that, throughout history, has all
too frequently been manifested in the form of authoritarian institutions. Thus logo
centrism has, in its search for the truth of absolute representation, subsumed
difference and oppressed that which it designates as its alien other. For Derrida,
western civilization has been built upon such aystematic assault on alien cultures
and ways of life, typically in the name of reason and progress.
In response to logo centrism, deconstruction posits the idea that the mechanism
by which this process of marginalization and the ordering of truth occurs is
through establishing systems of binary opposition. Oppositional linguistic
dualisms, such as rational/ irrational, culture/nature and good/bad are not,
however, construed as equal partners as they are in, say, the semi-logical
structuralism of Saussure. Rather, they exist, for Derrida, in a series of
hierarchical relationships with the first term normally occupying a superior
position. Derrida defines the relationship between such oppositional terms using
the neologism difference. This refers to the realization that in any statement,
oppositional terms differ from each other (for instance, the difference between
rationality and irrationality is constructed through oppositional usage), and at the
same time, a hierarchical relationship is maintained by the deference of one term
to the other (in the positing of rationality over irrationality, for instance). It is this
latter point which is perhaps the key to understanding Derridas approach to
deconstruction.
For the fact that at any given time one term must defer to its oppositional other,
means that the two terms are constantly in a state of interdependence. The
presence of one is dependent upon the absence or absent-presence of the other,
such as in the case of good and evil, whereby to understand the nature of one,
we must constantly relate it to the absent term in order to grasp its meaning. That

is, to do good, we must understand that our act is not evil for without that
comparison the term becomes meaningless. Put simply, deconstruction
represents an attempt to demonstrate the absent-presence of this oppositional
other, to show that what we say or write is in itself not expressive simply of what
is present, but also of what is absent. Thus, deconstruction seeks to reveal the
interdependence of apparently dichotomous terms and their meanings relative to
their textual context; that is, within the linguistic power relations which structure
dichotomous terms hierarchically. In Derridas awn wards, a deconstructive
reading must always aim at a certain relationship, unperceived by the writer,
between what he commands and what he does not command of the patterns of a
language that he uses. . . .It attempts to make the not-seen accessible to sight.
Meaning, then, is never fixed or stable, whatever the intention of the author of a
text. For Derrida, language is a system of relations that are dynamic, in that all
meanings we ascribe to the world are dependent not only an what we believe to
be present but also an what is absent. Thus, any act of interpretation must refer
not only to what the author of a text intends, but also to what is absent from his or
her intention. This insight leads, once again, Derridas further rejection of the idea
of the definitive authority of the intentional agent or subject. The subject is
decentred; it is conceived as the outcome of relations of difference. As author of
its awn biography, the subject thus becomes the ideological fiction of modernity
and its logo centric philosophy, one that depends upon the formation of
hierarchical dualisms, which repress and deny the presence of the absent other.
No meaning can, therefore, ever be definitive, but is merely an outcome of a
particular interpretation.
According to the passage, Derrida believes that the system of binary

opposition
Possible Answers
Selected Possible Answer
Weakens the process of marginalization and ordering of truth.
Deconstructs reality.
represents a prioritization or hierarchy
Reconciles contradictions and dualities.

uestion
Question
According to the passage, Derrida believes that :

Possible Answers
Selected Possible Answer
Language limits our construction of reality.
We need to uncover the hidden meaning in a system of relations expressed by
language.
Reality can be construed only through the use of rational analysis.
A universal language will facilitate a common understanding of reality.
uestion
Question
Derrida rejects the idea of definitive authority of the subject

because
Possible Answers
Selected Possible Answer
Any act of interpretation must refer to what the author intends.
Interpretation of the text may not make the unseen visible.

The implicit power relationship is often ignored.

The meaning of the text is based an binary opposites.
Question
Question
To Derrida, logo centrism does not imply:

Possible Answers
S
e
l
e
Possible Answer
c
t
e
d
Interdependence of the meanings of dichotomous terms.
A strategy that seeks to suppress hidden meanings in a text.
A totalitarian impulse.
A domain of representative language.

Although the schooling of fish is familiar form of animal social behaviour, how the
school is formed and maintained is only beginning to be understood in detail. It had
been thought that each fish maintains its position chiefly by means of vision. Our
work as shown that, as each fish maintains its position, the lateral line, an organ
sensitive to transitory changes in water displacement, is as important as vision. In
each species a fish has a preferred distance and dangle from its nearest neighbor.
The ideal separation and bearing, however, are not maintained rigidly. The result is a
probabilistic arrangement that appears like a random aggregation. The tendency of
the fish to remain at the preferred distance and angle, however, serves to maintain

the structure. Each fish, having established its position, uses its eyes and its lateral
lines simultaneously to measure the speed of all the other fish in the school. It then
adjusts its own speed to match a weighted average that emphasizes the contribution
of nearby fish.

Question 1
According to the passage, the structure of a fish school is dependant upon which of
the following.
I. Rigidly formed random aggregations
II. The tendency of each fish to remain at a preferred distance from neighboring
fish
III. Measurement of a weighed average by individual fish
A. II only
B. III only
C. I and II only
D. I and III only
E. II and III only
Question 2
Which of the following best describes the authors attitude toward the theory that the
structure of fish schools is maintained primarily through vision?
A. Heated opposition
B. Careful neutrality
C. Considered dissatisfaction
D. Cautious approval
E. Unqualified enthusiasm
Question 3
The passage suggests that, after establishing its position in the school formation, an
individual fish will subsequently
A. Maintain its preferred position primarily by visual and auditory means
B. Rigorously avoid changes that would interfere with the overall structure of the
school
C. Make conscious sensory readjustments to its position within the school
D. Make unexpected shifts in position only if threatened by external danger
E. Surrender its ability to make quick, instinctive judgments
Evolutionary psychology takes as its starting point the
uncontroversial assertion that the anatomical and
physiological features of the human brain have arisen
as a result of adaptations to the demands of the

environment over the millennia. However, from this

reasonable point of departure, these psychologists make
unreasonable extrapolations. They claim that the behavior
of contemporary man (in almost all its aspects) is a
reflection of features of the brain that acquired their
present characteristics during those earliest days of our
species when early man struggled to survive and multiply.
This unwarranted assumption leads, for example, to
suggestions that modern sexual behavior is dictated by
realities of Pleistocene life. These suggestions have a
ready audience, and the idea that Stone Age man is alive
in our genome and dictating aspects of our behavior has
gained ground in the popular imagination. The tabloids
repeatedly run articles about discoveries relating to
genes for aggression, depression, repression, and
anything for which we need a readymade excuse. Such
insistence on a genetic basis for behavior negates the
cultural influences and the social realities that
separate us from our ancestors.
The difficulty with pseudo science of this nature is just
this popular appeal. People are eager to accept what is
printed as incontrovertible, assuming quite without foundation,
that anything printed has bona fide antecedents. We would do
well to remember that the phrenologists of the nineteenth
century held sway for a considerable time in the absence of
any evidence that behavioral tendencies could be deduced from
the shape of the skull. The phrenologists are no more, but
their genes would seem to be thriving.
1. The authors primary purpose in the passage is to
A. argue for the superiority of a particular viewpoint
B. attack the popular press
C. ridicule a particular branch of science
D. highlight an apparently erroneous tendency in an area of social science

E. evaluate a particular theory of human behavior in all its ramifications

2. The author mentions phrenologists as

A. pseudo scientists who are the logical antecedents of evolutionary
psychologists
B. a group with inherent appeal to the followers of evolutionary psychologists
C. a warning against blind acceptance of ideas
D. scientists with whom evolutionary psychologists share common assumptions
E. behavioral scientists who have spawned a variety of wrong ideas

3. The author mentions phrenologists as

A. pseudo scientists who are the logical antecedents of evolutionary
psychologists
B. a group with inherent appeal to the followers of evolutionary psychologists
C. a warning against blind acceptance of ideas
D. scientists with whom evolutionary psychologists share common assumptions
E. behavioral scientists who have spawned a variety of wrong ideas

4. The author apparently believes that the journalists writing for the tabloids
A. are more concerned with popular appeal than with authenticity

B. believe that human behavior has a genetic basis

C. run the same articles over and over again
D. are victims of the human desire to excuse inexcusable behavior
E. are highly irresponsible in their efforts to pander to the public

The pioneers of the teaching of science imagined that its

introduction into education would remove the conventionality,
artificiality, and backward-lookingness which were characteristic;
of classical studies, but they were gravely disappointed. So, too, in their time had
the humanists thought that the study of the classical
authors in the original would banish at once the dull pedantry and
superstition of mediaeval scholasticism. The professional
schoolmaster was a match for both of them, and has almost
managed to make the understanding of chemical reactions as dull and as
dogmatic an affair as the reading of Virgil's Aeneid.
The chief claim for the use of science in education is that it
teaches a child something about the actual universe in which he is
living, in making him acquainted with the results of scientific
discovery, and at the same time teaches him how to think logically
and inductively by studying scientific method. A certain limited
success has been reached in the first of these aims, but practically
none at all in the second. Those privileged members of the
community who have been through a secondary or public school education may
be expected to know something about the
elementary physics and chemistry of a hundred years ago, but they
probably know hardly more than any bright boy can pick up from
an interest in wireless or scientific hobbies out of school hours.
As to the learning of scientific method, the whole thing is palpably

a farce. Actually, for the convenience of teachers and the

requirements of the examination system, it is necessary that the
pupils not only do not learn scientific method but learn precisely
the reverse, that is, to believe exactly what they are told and to
reproduce it when asked, whether it seems nonsense to them or
not. The way in which educated people respond to such quackeries
as spiritualism or astrology, not to say more dangerous ones such
as racial theories or currency myths, shows that fifty years of
education in the method of science in Britain or Germany has
produced no visible effect whatever. The only way of learning the
method of science is the long and bitter way of personal
experience, and, until the educational or social systems are altered
to make this possible, the best we can expect is the production of a
minority of people who are able to acquire some of the techniques
of science and a still smaller minority who are able to use and
develop them.

1. The author implies that the professional schoolmaster (line 7) has

A. no interest in teaching science
B. thwarted attempts to enliven education
C. aided true learning
D. supported the humanists
E. been a pioneer in both science and humanities.

2. The authors apparently believes that secondary and public school education in
the sciences is
A. severely limited in its benefits

B. worse than that in the classics

C. grossly incompetent
D. a stimulus to critical thinking
E. deliberately obscurantist

3. If the author were to study current education in science to see how things have
changed since he wrote the piece, he would probably be most interested in the
answer to which of the following questions?
A. Do students know more about the world about them?
B. Do students spend more time in laboratories?
C. Can students apply their knowledge logically?
D. Have textbooks improved?
E. Do they respect their teachers?

4. All of the following can be inferred from the text except

A. at the time of writing, not all children received a secondary school education
B. the author finds chemical reactions interesting
C. science teaching has imparted some knowledge of facts to some children
D. the author believes that many teachers are authoritarian

E. it is relatively easy to learn scientific method