Passage 1
The complexity of modern problems often precludes any one person from fully understanding them. Factors
contributing to rising obesity levels, for example, include transportation systems and infrastructure, media,
convenience foods, changing social norms, human biology and psychological factors. . . . The
multidimensional or layered character of complex problems also undermines the principle of meritocracy:
the idea that the ‘best person’ should be hired. There is no best person. When putting together an oncological
research team, a biotech company such as Gilead or Genentech would not construct a multiple-choice test
and hire the top scorers, or hire people whose resumes score highest according to some performance criteria.
Instead, they would seek diversity. They would build a team of people who bring diverse knowledge bases,
tools and analytic skills. . . .
Believers in a meritocracy might grant that teams ought to be diverse but then argue that meritocratic
principles should apply within each category. Thus the team should consist of the ‘best’ mathematicians, the
‘best’ oncologists, and the ‘best’ biostatisticians from within the pool. That position suffers from a similar
flaw. Even with a knowledge domain, no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team.
Each of these domains possesses such depth and breadth, that no test can exist. Consider the field of neuroscience. Upwards of 50,000 papers were published last year covering various techniques, domains of enquiry and levels of analysis, ranging from molecules and synapses up through networks of neurons. Given that complexity, any attempt to rank a collection of neuroscientists from best to worst, as if they were competitors in the 50-metre butterfly, must fail. What could be true is that given a specific task and the
composition of a particular team, one scientist would be more likely to contribute than another. Optimal hiring depends on context. Optimal teams will be diverse.
Evidence for this claim can be seen in the way that papers and patents that combine diverse ideas tend to
rank as high-impact. It can also be found in the structure of the so-called random decision forest, a state-of￾the-art machine-learning algorithm. Random forests consist of ensembles of decision trees. If classifying
pictures, each tree makes a vote: is that a picture of a fox or a dog? A weighted majority rules. Random
forests can serve many ends. They can identify bank fraud and diseases, recommend ceiling fans and predict
online dating behaviour. When building a forest, you do not select the best trees as they tend to make similar
classifications. You want diversity. Programmers achieve that diversity by training each tree on different
data, a technique known as bagging. They also boost the forest ‘cognitively’ by training trees on the hardest
cases – those that the current forest gets wrong. This ensures even more diversity and accurate forests.
Yet the fallacy of meritocracy persists. Corporations, non-profits, governments, universities and even
preschools test, score and hire the ‘best’. This all but guarantees not creating the best team. Ranking people
by common criteria produces homogeneity. . . . That’s not likely to lead to breakthroughs.


Q. 1:Which of the following conditions, if true, would invalidate the passage’s main argument?
Options:

  1. If top-scorers possessed multidisciplinary knowledge that enabled them to look at a problem from
    several perspectives.
  2. If assessment tests were made more extensive and rigorous.
  3. If it were proven that teams characterised by diversity end up being conflicted about problems and
    take a long time to arrive at a solution.
  4. If a new machine-learning algorithm were developed that proved to be more effective than the
    random decision forest.
    OA:1
    If top-scorers possessed multidisciplinary knowledge that enabled them to look at a
    problem from several perspectives.

Approach: the main argument sticks to the principle of meritocracy: the idea that the ‘best person’
should be hired.
Q. 2:The author critiques meritocracy for all the following reasons EXCEPT that:
Options:

  1. an ideal team comprises of best individuals from diverse fields of knowledge.
  2. modern problems are multifaceted and require varied skill-sets to be solved.
  3. criteria designed to assess merit are insufficient to test expertise in any field of knowledge.
  4. diversity and context-specificity are important for making major advances in any field.
    OA:1
    An ideal team comprises of best individuals from diverse fields of knowledge.
    Approach: In the second paragraph it is stated that meritocratic principles should apply within each
    category and hence the team should consist of the ‘best’ mathematicians, the ‘best’ oncologists, and the
    ‘best’ biostatisticians from within the pool, which the author supports primarily.
    Q. 3:Which of the following conditions would weaken the efficacy of a random decision forest?
    Options:
  5. If a large number of decision trees in the ensemble were trained on data derived from easy cases.
  6. If the types of decision trees in each ensemble of the forest were doubled.
  7. If a large number of decision trees in the ensemble were trained on data derived from easy and hard
    cases.
  8. If the types of ensembles of decision trees in the forest were doubled.
    OA: 1
    If a large number of decision trees in the ensemble were trained on data derived from easy cases.
    Approach:
    Stated in the third paragraph that random forests which consist of ensembles of decision trees.
    Programmers train each tree on different data and also boost the forest ‘cognitively’ by training trees on
    the HARDEST cases – those that the current forest gets wrong
    Q. 4:On the basis of the passage, which of the following teams is likely to be most effective in solving
    the problem of rising obesity levels?
    Options:
  9. A team comprised of nutritionists, psychologists, urban planners and media personnel, who have each
    scored a distinction in their respective subject tests.
  10. A team comprised of nutritionists, psychologists, urban planners and media personnel, who have each
    performed well in their respective subject tests.
  11. A specialised team of nutritionists from various countries, who are also trained in the machine￾learning algorithm of random decision forest.
  12. A specialised team of top nutritionists from various countries, who also possess some knowledge of
    psychology.
    OA:2
    A team comprised of nutritionists, psychologists, urban planners and media personnel, who have each

Facebook Comments
+ posts

The mastermind behind IQuanta, Indrajeet Singh is an expert in Quant and has devised some ingenious formulae and shortcuts to significantly cut down on the time taken to solve a problem