iQuanta has launched a Mini Mock Series covering all the sections of the CLAT exam, these questions have been handpicked by our faculty based on the latest CLAT exam pattern.
Instructions:-
1. Attempt all the questions.
2. Once you have completed all the questions of a particular section click on the submit button for scores and explanations then move to the next sections.
3. For each correct answer, you receive 1 mark. For this mock, there is no negative marking.
English Language
Each set of questions in this section is based on a single passage. Please answer each question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the corresponding passage. In some instances, more than one option may be the answer to the question; in such a case, please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.
History, and not necessarily the sort that professional historians are doing, is widely popular these days, even in North America, where we have tended to look toward the future rather than the past. It can be partly explained by market forces. People are better educated and, particularly in the mature economies, have more leisure time and are retiring from work earlier. Not everyone wants to retire to a compound in the sun and ride adult tricycles for amusement. History can be helpful in making sense of the world we live in. It can also be fascinating, even fun. How can even the best novelist or playwright invent someone like Augustus Caesar or Catherine the Great, Galileo or Florence Nightingale? How can screenwriters create better action stories or human dramas than exist, thousand upon thousand, throughout the many centuries of recorded history? There is a thirst out there both for knowledge and to be entertained, and the market has responded with enthusiasm.
Museums and art galleries mount huge shows around historical characters like Peter the Great or on specific periods in history. Around the world, new museums open every year to commemorate moments, often grim ones, from the past. China has museums devoted to Japanese atrocities committed during World War II. Washington, Jerusalem, and Montreal have Holocaust museums. Television has channels devoted entirely to history (often, it must be said, showing a past that seems to be made up largely of battles and the biographies of generals); historic sites are wilting under the tramp of tourists; history movies–think of all the recent ones on Queen Elizabeth I alone–are making money; and the proliferation of popular histories shows that publishers have a good idea of where profits are to be made. Ken Burns’s documentaries, from the classic Civil War series to his one on World War II, are aired repeatedly. In Canada, Mark Starowicz’s People’s History drew millions of viewers. The Historica Minutes produced by the private foundation Historica, devoted to promoting Canadian history, are so popular among Canadian teenagers that they often do school projects where they make their own minutes. In the United Kingdom, David Starkey’s series on British monarchs have made him rich and as famous as the kings and queens themselves.
Quantitative Techniques
Logical Reasoning
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.
The science of consciousness is notably challenging due to its philosophical complexities and the lack of experimental data. When an experimental contest between the “integrated information theory” and the “global workspace theory” was conducted, the results were inconclusive, with some favoring one theory over the other. This field of science has its factions and disagreements, but the recent development is unparalleled and could cause lasting damage.
Central to this is the notion that consciousness equates to the amount of “integrated information” a system possesses, which essentially refers to the information the system as a whole contains beyond the information held by its individual parts. Unlike many theories that seek correlations between our minds and brains, integrated information theory starts with “phenomenological axioms,” which are presumed self-evident claims about consciousness. Notably, this theory suggests that consciousness is vastly prevalent in nature, extending even to simple systems like inactive computer circuit grids.
A survey conducted during 2018 and 2019 revealed that nearly half of the consciousness scientists found this theory to be “promising.” It was also one of the theories discussed in a keynote debate at the 2022 Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness meeting and featured in a review of consciousness science by Anil Seth and the author.
Integrated information theory is considered the third-most discussed theory of consciousness in scientific literature, only surpassed by global workspace theory and recurrent processing theory. It holds significant support within the scientific community, despite its potential implications on clinical practice, AI regulation, stem cell research, animal and organoid testing, and abortion, particularly concerning fetal consciousness. The theory’s critics label it as pseudoscientific due to its lack of empirical testability, especially highlighted by a head-to-head contest earlier. However, the author argues that the core tenets of any consciousness theory are hard to test, and what makes a theory scientific is its ability to generate testable predictions. The accusation of pseudoscience is seen as an attempt to undermine or silence integrated information theory, which is deemed unfair and a manifestation of a fundamental lack of faith in science.
Legal Reasoning
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.
Consideration is a cornerstone of contract law, serving as the essential element that distinguishes enforceable agreements from non-binding promises. In essence, consideration refers to something of value that is exchanged between the parties involved in a contract. However, not all forms of consideration are deemed valid under the law, particularly when it involves existing legal or contractual obligations.
Legal obligations, for instance, cannot constitute valid consideration. This principle is based on the idea that performing an act or refraining from an act that one is already legally bound to do (or not do) does not provide any new value and therefore cannot support a new contract. For example, if a police officer promises to investigate a case in exchange for a reward, this promise lacks valid consideration because the officer is already legally obliged to perform such duties as part of their official responsibilities.
In contrast, existing contractual obligations can constitute valid consideration, but this is subject to certain conditions. A pre-existing duty under a contract can be valid consideration if it confers a material benefit to the party who did not originally contemplate this benefit at the time the contract was made. This scenario often arises in contract modifications where one party agrees to perform an additional duty or to do something extra beyond what was originally agreed upon. For instance, if a contractor is already obligated to complete a building project but agrees to add extra features not specified in the original contract, this additional work can be valid consideration for an increased payment because it provides additional value beyond the initial terms.
Furthermore, consideration in the context of existing contractual obligations can also be valid when it involves third-party contracts. In such cases, a party’s commitment to fulfill their obligations under a third-party contract can serve as valid consideration for a new contract. For example, if Party A is contractually obligated to supply goods to Party B, and Party C agrees to pay Party A to expedite the delivery of those goods to Party B, Party A’s obligation to Party B serves as valid consideration for the new agreement with Party C. This creates a beneficial framework where third-party contracts can facilitate new agreements, allowing the involved parties to derive additional benefits through mutual obligations.
The validity of consideration is fundamental in maintaining the integrity and enforceability of contracts. It ensures that there is a genuine exchange of value, which underpins the mutuality and reciprocity that are essential to binding agreements. Without valid consideration, a contract lacks the essential element of an enforceable bargain, rendering it a mere promise without legal backing. This principle safeguards against empty or illusory promises, ensuring that all parties in a contractual arrangement are genuinely committing to an exchange that benefits each party.
Moreover, the requirement for valid consideration helps in distinguishing between genuine contractual commitments and mere social or moral obligations, which typically do not have the force of law. This demarcation is crucial for the legal system to determine which agreements are worthy of judicial enforcement. In summary, while legal obligations do not qualify as valid consideration, existing contractual obligations can serve as valid consideration under certain conditions, particularly when they confer an additional benefit or involve a third-party contract. This nuanced understanding of consideration helps to ensure that contracts are based on genuine exchanges of value, maintaining the robustness and reliability of contractual agreements in legal contexts.
Current Affairs & General Knowledge
The Supreme Court has quashed a [1] notification of the Bihar government by which it had deleted [2] caste from the Extremely Backward Classes (EBC) and merged it with ‘Pan/Sawasi’ caste in the Scheduled Castes list. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra said the state government had no competence or authority to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution. The Scheduled Castes list specified under the notification under Clause-1 can be amended or altered only by a law made by the Parliament, the bench said. It said as per Article 341 neither the central government, nor the President can make any amendments or changes in the notification issued under Clause-1 without a law made by the Parliament, specifying the castes in relation to the states or Union territory, as the case may be.
“We have no hesitation in holding that the resolution dated July 1, 2015 was patently illegal, erroneous as the state government had no competence/ authority/ power to tinker with the lists of Scheduled Castes published under Article 341 of the Constitution,” the bench said in its verdict pronounced on Monday. It added that the submission of the state government that resolution dated July 1, 2015 was only clarificatory is not worth considering for a moment and deserves outright rejection. The bench said the Bihar government knew very well that it had no authority and had accordingly forwarded its request to the Centre in 2011 for inclusion of [2] in the list of Scheduled Castes as a synonym of ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’. “The said request was not accepted and returned for further comments/ justification/review. Ignoring the same, the State proceeded to issue the circular dated July 1, 2015,” it said. The bench said the state government may be justified in deleting [2] from the Extremely Backward Classes list on the recommendation of the State Backward Commission, but beyond that to merge [2] with ‘Pan, Sawasi, Panr’ under Entry 20 of the list of Scheduled Castes was nothing short of “mala fide exercise for whatever good, bad or indifferent reasons, the State may have thought at that moment”. It said whether synonymous or not, any inclusion or exclusion of any caste, race or tribe or part of or group within the castes, races or tribes has to be done by law made by the Parliament, and not by any other mode or manner. “The submission that the recommendation of the Commission for Extremely Backward Classes was binding on the State, is not a question to be determined here, inasmuch as, even if we accept the submission, such recommendation could relate only to the EBC. Whether or not to include or exclude any caste in the list of EBC would be within the domain of the Commission,” it said. The bench further stated that the Commission would have no jurisdiction to make recommendation with respect to any caste being included in the Scheduled Castes lists and, even if it makes such a recommendation, right or wrong, the State has no authority to proceed to implement the same when it was fully aware that the Constitution does not permit it to do so.
Enroll for CLAT Online Coaching by iQuanta
