Step 1: Find the author's main critiques of meritocracy - Complex problems need many different skills -> no single "best person" - Tests and rankings create sameness, not diversity - Even within expert fields, you can't rank people properly Step 2: Look for what the author actually supports The author clearly supports building diverse teams, but critiques how meritocracy tries to do this. From passage: "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." Thought Process: Author supports diversity -> but critiques picking "best" from each field -> even this approach has problems -> so author wants diversity but not meritocratic selection

🟠 Option 1 -> partial-truth -> Author definitely critiques meritocracy for this - says complex problems need varied skills, no one person can handle them 🟠 Option 2 -> partial-truth -> Author clearly critiques meritocracy for ignoring diversity and context - mentions random forests need diversity, not best trees 🟠 Option 3 -> partial-truth -> Author directly critiques this - says tests can't capture expertise in complex fields like neuroscience with 50,000+ papers 🟢 Option 4 -> correct -> Author actually supports diverse team building itself, just not the meritocratic way of selecting "best" individuals. The concept of building teams from diverse fields is what the author advocates for, even though the execution method is critiqued. The key insight: Author loves diversity in teams but hates meritocratic selection methods. Option 4 focuses on the team composition concept the author supports, not the selection method the author critiques.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts