The key to solving this tricky question is understanding the double negative structure. From passage: "The Epicureans... believed that people should enjoy simple pleasures, such as good conversation, friendship, food, and wine, but not be indulgent in these pursuits" The question asks: which statement, if false, would contradict the passage? This means we need to find a statement that, when true, actually supports what the passage says. Think of it this way: Statement supports passage -> If statement becomes false -> Now it contradicts passage.

Let's walk through confusing options: 🟢 Option 1 is correct -> When TRUE, it aligns with the passage (Epicureans avoid indulgence). When FALSE, it would mean "indulging in simple pleasures IS desirable" -> This directly contradicts the passage's clear statement about not being indulgent. 🔴 Option 2 -> factual-error -> The passage clearly states that second movements (not first) are under our control. First movements are involuntary reactions. This option gets basic Stoic theory wrong, regardless of true/false. 🔴 Option 3 -> misreading -> The passage says Stoicism survived until AD 300, not that Zeno himself lived that long. This is about the philosophy's duration, not the founder's lifespan. 🟠 Option 4 -> partial-truth -> The passage suggests emotions can be observed and managed through meditation, even if not completely prevented. If false, this wouldn't clearly contradict the passage since the text acknowledges emotions "happen" but can be handled wisely. The elimination process: Options 2 and 3 have clear factual problems. Option 4 is murky. Option 1 creates the clearest contradiction when flipped to false, directly opposing the Epicurean philosophy described in the passage.

CAT (VARC) PYQs

Keyboard Shortcuts