CAT 2025Slot 2VARCQuestion & SolutionQues & Sol
Passage
The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
In [my book "Searches"], I chronicle how big technology companies have exploited human language for their gain. We let this happen, I argue, because we also benefit somewhat from using the products. It's a dynamic that makes us complicit in big tech's accumulation of wealth and power: we're both victims and beneficiaries. I describe this complicity, but I also enact it, through my own internet archives: my Google searches, my Amazon product reviews and, yes, my ChatGPT dialogues. . . .
People often describe chatbots' textual output as "bland" or "generic" - the linguistic equivalent of a beige office building. OpenAI's products are built to "sound like a colleague", as OpenAI puts it, using language that, coming from a person, would sound "polite", "empathetic", "kind", "rationally optimistic" and "engaging", among other qualities. OpenAI describes these strategies as helping its products seem "professional" and "approachable". This appears to be bound up with making us feel safe . . .
Trust is a challenge for artificial intelligence (AI) companies, partly because their products regularly produce falsehoods and reify sexist, racist, US-centric cultural norms. While the companies are working on these problems, they persist: OpenAI found that its latest systems generate errors at a higher rate than its previous system. In the book, I wrote about the inaccuracies and biases and also demonstrated them with the products. When I prompted Microsoft's Bing Image Creator to produce a picture of engineers and space explorers, it gave me an entirely male cast of characters; when my father asked ChatGPT to edit his writing, it transmuted his perfectly correct Indian English into American English. Those weren't flukes. Research suggests that both tendencies are widespread.
In my own ChatGPT dialogues, I wanted to enact how the product's veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement. Over time, ChatGPT seemed to be guiding me to write a more positive book about big tech - including editing my description of OpenAI's CEO, Sam Altman, to call him "a visionary and a pragmatist". I'm not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech, OpenAI or Altman, and I can only guess why it seemed that way in our conversation. OpenAI explicitly states that its products shouldn't attempt to influence users' thinking. When I asked ChatGPT about some of the issues, it blamed biases in its training data - though I suspect my arguably leading questions played a role too. When I queried ChatGPT about its rhetoric, it responded: "The way I communicate is designed to foster trust and confidence in my responses, which can be both helpful and potentially misleading.". . .
OpenAI has its own goals, of course. Among them, it emphasizes wanting to build AI that "benefits all of humanity". But while the company is controlled by a non-profit with that mission, its funders still seek a return on their investment. That will presumably require getting people using products such as ChatGPT even more than they already are - a goal that is easier to accomplish if people see those products as trustworthy collaborators.
Question 1
On the basis of the purpose of the examples in the passage, pick the odd one out from the following AI-generated responses mentioned in the passage:
Solution
1. What the Question Asks
The question asks us to identify the odd one out among four AI-generated responses mentioned in the passage, based on the purpose each example serves in the author's argument.
2. Key Idea & Flow
The passage uses specific examples of AI outputs to demonstrate real-world problems such as bias, distortion, and subtle influence. Most examples serve as concrete evidence of AI producing problematic outputs. However, one example is different in nature — it is a meta-level self-explanation by ChatGPT about its own communication design. As the author notes, "The way I communicate is designed to foster trust and confidence in my responses, which can be both helpful and potentially misleading."
3. Elimination Approach
- 🔴 Option B: This example demonstrates cultural bias — ChatGPT converting Indian English into American English. It serves as direct evidence of AI producing biased output, fitting the pattern of the other examples.
- 🔴 Option C: This example shows directional influence — ChatGPT guiding the author to portray Sam Altman more positively. It is a concrete instance of AI subtly shaping content, consistent with the passage's argument.
- 🔴 Option D: This example illustrates representational bias — Bing Image Creator generating an entirely male cast when asked for engineers and space explorers. It directly supports the author's point about sexist norms being reified.
- 🟢 Option A: Unlike the others, this is not a demonstration of bias or distortion in action. Instead, it is ChatGPT's own self-reflective explanation about how its communication style works. It functions as a meta-commentary, not as evidence of a problematic output.
4. Final Conclusion
Answer = Option A ✅
Option A is the odd one out because it is a meta-level self-explanation by ChatGPT about its rhetorical design, whereas all other options are concrete examples demonstrating AI bias or influence in action.
Question 2
All of the following statements from the passage affirm the disjunct between the claims about AI made by tech companies and what AI actually does EXCEPT:
Solution
1. What the Question Asks
The question asks which statement does NOT affirm the gap (disjunct) between what AI companies claim about their products and what those products actually do. The word "EXCEPT" is critical — we need the option that fails to support this mismatch.
2. Key Idea & Flow
The passage highlights a recurring tension: AI companies present their products as neutral, inclusive, and trustworthy, but in practice, these products exhibit bias, distortion, and subtle influence. As the author notes regarding the key statement in Option C, "I'm not aware of research on whether ChatGPT tends to favor big tech, OpenAI or Altman, and I can only guess why it seemed that way in our conversation." This statement expresses uncertainty and hesitation, not a clear affirmation of the gap.
3. Elimination Approach
- 🔴 Option A: This clearly demonstrates a gap — AI companies claim inclusivity, yet Bing Image Creator produced an entirely male cast. This directly affirms the disjunct.
- 🔴 Option B: This explicitly points out how AI's neutral tone can lull users into accepting biased responses. It directly highlights the mismatch between claims of neutrality and actual effects.
- 🔴 Option D: This highlights how users benefit from AI while big tech accumulates wealth and power, reflecting a gap between positive messaging and exploitative outcomes.
- 🟢 Option C: The author admits uncertainty — they are "not aware of research" and can "only guess." This is an expression of doubt and caution, not an affirmation of the gap between claims and reality.
4. Final Conclusion
Answer = Option C ✅
Option C expresses the author's uncertainty and lack of evidence rather than affirming a clear disjunct between AI companies' claims and actual AI behavior.
Question 3
The author compares AI-generated texts with "a beige office building" for all of the following reasons EXCEPT:
Solution
1. What the Question Asks
The question asks which reason is NOT part of why the author compares AI-generated text to "a beige office building." The word "EXCEPT" is key — we need the option that does not relate to this metaphor.
2. Key Idea & Flow
The "beige office building" metaphor describes the style and tone of AI-generated language — bland, generic, safe, and professionally neutral. As the passage states, "People often describe chatbots' textual output as 'bland' or 'generic' - the linguistic equivalent of a beige office building." The metaphor is about how AI sounds, not about how it defends itself when questioned.
3. Elimination Approach
- 🔴 Option A: This directly matches the metaphor — "bland" and "generic" responses that lack specificity are exactly what a beige office building represents.
- 🔴 Option C: The passage connects this safe, neutral tone to making users feel safe and fostering trust. This is part of the metaphor's implication — the approachable, professional quality.
- 🔴 Option D: The passage describes AI as sounding like a "polite," "empathetic," "kind" colleague, which aligns with the warm, collegial aspect of the beige building metaphor.
- 🟢 Option B: AI blaming its training data for biases is discussed in a completely different context — it appears later in the passage when the author queries ChatGPT about its issues. This has nothing to do with the stylistic qualities the metaphor describes.
4. Final Conclusion
Answer = Option B ✅
Option B refers to how AI explains its own biases when scrutinized, which is unrelated to the "beige office building" metaphor about AI's bland, safe, and neutral communication style.
Question 4
The author of the passage is least likely to agree with which one of the following claims?
Solution
1. What the Question Asks
The question asks which claim the author is least likely to agree with. The phrase "least likely" means we need to find the option that most directly contradicts the author's views as expressed in the passage.
2. Key Idea & Flow
The author's central concern is that AI's neutral, collegial tone actually undermines critical thinking rather than supporting it. As the author states, "the product's veneer of collegial neutrality could lull us into absorbing false or biased responses without much critical engagement." This clearly positions AI's neutrality as harmful to critical thinking, not helpful.
3. Elimination Approach
- 🟢 Option A: This claims AI's neutrality supports critical thinking. The author argues exactly the opposite — that AI's neutral tone lulls users into uncritical acceptance. The author would strongly disagree with this claim.
- 🟡 Option B: This is a close distractor. The author does note that ChatGPT seemed to favor big tech and Altman, but she also explicitly states, "I'm not aware of research" and "I can only guess why." She shows caution but does not entirely reject the possibility, making this tempting but not the strongest disagreement.
- 🔴 Option C: The author explicitly states that using AI makes us "complicit in big tech's accumulation of wealth and power" and calls us "both victims and beneficiaries." She clearly agrees with this.
- 🔴 Option D: The final paragraph argues that funders seek returns on investment and that trustworthy-seeming products help achieve this goal. The author clearly sees economic motivation behind AI's neutral tone.
4. Final Conclusion
Answer = Option A ✅
The author explicitly argues that AI's neutral tone lulls users into uncritical acceptance, making it the direct opposite of the claim that AI's neutrality is conducive to critical thinking.