Which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred about the author’s understanding of bureaucracy?

. This is a core-thesis abstraction question. The passage repeatedly argues - cruelty becomes systematized, administration normalizes horror, efficiency disguises violence. Key line: “Bureaucracy does not erase cruelty. It industrializes it.” Now analyze carefully. Option 1 primarily discusses authoritarian wartime governments. Too narrow. The author’s concern is broader i.e. modern systems themselves can rationalize horror. This is scope reduction trap. Option 2 transforms violence into rational systems Perfectly captures impersonality, organization, normalization, procedural legitimacy. This is the exact structural argument. Option 3 distances ordinary citizens psychologically. Tempting but secondary. The passage focuses more on institutional transformation than public psychology. Misplaced emphasis trap. Option 4 states that efficiency and morality are incompatible. Too absolute. The author critiques bureaucratic dehumanization in this case, not bureaucracy universally. CAT loves absolutist traps.

Which one of the following, if true, would least weaken the author’s rejection of the claim that the women participated voluntarily?

. This is an advanced least weaken question. The passage’s core claim is "consent under coercive structures is not meaningful consent." The author’s framework includes colonial domination, poverty, military power, constrained agency. Now rank the options. Option 1 - initially accepted employment offers. This weakens the claim somewhat because initial participation appears voluntary. But deception still matters. Moderate weakening. Option 2 - civilian intermediaries. Weakens military-centralization slightly. Still damaging. Option 3 - emotional bonds formed later. This barely affects the argument. Why? Because adaptive emotional relationships within coercive systems do not retroactively create free consent, survival psychology does not erase structural domination. This is the LEAST damaging option. Extremely subtle. Option 4 - meaningful alternatives absent. This actually strengthens the author’s argument. Direct support.

Which one of the following best explains the role played by the statues of young girls discussed in the passage?

. This question targets symbolic interpretation. The passage says, “The statues feel small compared to the scale of the crime.” and “History often survives not through monuments to power, but through fragile symbols of interrupted lives.” This creates a contrast- fragile human memory, vs massive industrialized violence. Now the traps. Option 1- legal systems failed...Partly true historically, but not the symbolic function emphasized here. Peripheral-truth trap. Option 2- fragility vs impersonality. Perfect. Captures small statues, enormous violence, interrupted lives, human vulnerability against mechanized systems. Exactly the emotional-philosophical contrast the author constructs. Option 3 - nationalist identity. Possible in reality, but not central to THIS passage. External-context trap. Option 4- symbolic remembrance greater than archives Too absolute. The passage never claims symbols are superior to documentation. Overextension trap.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the passage’s argument regarding the significance of the term “comfort women”?

. This is a purpose-of-language question disguised as a factual one. The author argues that euphemistic language sanitizes brutality, empires rename horror to make coexistence psychologically tolerable, therefore the phrase itself is ideologically significant. The passage’s opening paragraph is not merely historical description. It is an argument about language as moral anesthesia. Now look carefully. Option 1 - administrative records existed... This strengthens the bureaucracy argument. Trap. Option 2 - survivors feared stigma... Supports the silence argument. Trap. Option 3 - other governments used euphemisms... Strengthens the broader claim about bureaucratic language. Trap. Option 4- phrase emerged later through translation... This is devastating. Why? Because the author’s interpretation depends on intentional euphemistic construction DURING the operation of the system. If the phrase was primarily retrospective translation rather than deliberate wartime masking, then, the language argument weakens, the “softness was deliberate” claim collapses, the moral critique of administrative euphemism loses force. This attacks the argument’s causal foundation.

GRADFLIX — Essays for Curious Minds

RC Passages for CAT, GMAT, GRE, XAT & IPMAT

GRADFLIX is India's premier reading comprehension library for competitive exam aspirants. We publish curated long-form essays across philosophy, psychology, science, history, economics, and culture — each paired with exam-level RC questions modelled after CAT, GMAT, GRE, XAT, and IPMAT patterns.

One Essay, Four Questions, Every Day

We release a fresh essay every day — spanning topics from quantum mechanics and evolutionary biology to political philosophy and literary theory. Each essay comes with four carefully crafted multiple-choice questions that test inference, tone, vocabulary in context, and logical structure. The practice is designed to sharpen not just your score, but your thinking.

Why GRADFLIX?

Most aspirants practise RC with stale, low-quality passages. GRADFLIX changes that. Every essay on our platform is handpicked for intellectual depth, original argument, and linguistic richness — the same qualities the best entrance exams test. Think of us as a reading alternative to Aeon, Smithsonian, Harvard Business Review, Scientific American, and Medium, but purpose-built for exam takers.

Who Is GRADFLIX For?

GRADFLIX is built for CAT VARC aspirants who want to read better, not just practise more. It is equally valuable for GMAT Verbal, GRE Reading Comprehension, XAT Decision Making, and IPMAT English candidates. If you are a serious reader who also happens to be preparing for an exam, GRADFLIX is your home.

Start Reading Today

Browse our library of essays, attempt today's RC set, and track your progress over time. Join thousands of aspirants who read with purpose every day.

Home
History & Civilization
World Wars
The Train to Silence: Inside the World of Comfort Women

The Train to Silence: Inside the World of Comfort Women

The tragic history of comfort women in World War II reveals how war, empire, and bureaucracy turned human suffering into a system of organized abuse.

A war does not only march on roads. It enters bedrooms, kitchens, train stations, and the hidden corners of the human body. During World War II, the Japanese Empire built one of the largest systems of organized sexual slavery in modern history. The women trapped inside it became known by a chilling euphemism: “comfort women.” The phrase sounds almost harmless, like something from a hotel brochure or a polite bureaucratic memo. That softness was deliberate. Empires often rename brutality so…

RC Questions

Each essay includes four exam-level RC questions for CAT, GMAT, GRE, XAT and IPMAT.

Which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred about the author’s understanding of bureaucracy?
This is a core-thesis abstraction question. The passage repeatedly argues - cruelty becomes systematized, administration normalizes horror, efficiency disguises violence. Key line: “Bureaucracy does not erase cruelty. It industrializes it.” Now analyze carefully. Option 1 primarily discusses authoritarian wartime governments. Too narrow. The author’s concern is broader i.e. modern systems themselves can rationalize horror. This is scope reduction trap. Option 2 transforms violence into rational systems Perfectly captures impersonality, organization, normalization, procedural legitimacy. This is the exact structural argument. Option 3 distances ordinary citizens psychologically. Tempting but secondary. The passage focuses more on institutional transformation than public psychology. Misplaced emphasis trap. Option 4 states that efficiency and morality are incompatible. Too absolute. The author critiques bureaucratic dehumanization in this case, not bureaucracy universally. CAT loves absolutist traps.
Which one of the following, if true, would least weaken the author’s rejection of the claim that the women participated voluntarily?
This is an advanced least weaken question. The passage’s core claim is "consent under coercive structures is not meaningful consent." The author’s framework includes colonial domination, poverty, military power, constrained agency. Now rank the options. Option 1 - initially accepted employment offers. This weakens the claim somewhat because initial participation appears voluntary. But deception still matters. Moderate weakening. Option 2 - civilian intermediaries. Weakens military-centralization slightly. Still damaging. Option 3 - emotional bonds formed later. This barely affects the argument. Why? Because adaptive emotional relationships within coercive systems do not retroactively create free consent, survival psychology does not erase structural domination. This is the LEAST damaging option. Extremely subtle. Option 4 - meaningful alternatives absent. This actually strengthens the author’s argument. Direct support.
Which one of the following best explains the role played by the statues of young girls discussed in the passage?
This question targets symbolic interpretation. The passage says, “The statues feel small compared to the scale of the crime.” and “History often survives not through monuments to power, but through fragile symbols of interrupted lives.” This creates a contrast- fragile human memory, vs massive industrialized violence. Now the traps. Option 1- legal systems failed...Partly true historically, but not the symbolic function emphasized here. Peripheral-truth trap. Option 2- fragility vs impersonality. Perfect. Captures small statues, enormous violence, interrupted lives, human vulnerability against mechanized systems. Exactly the emotional-philosophical contrast the author constructs. Option 3 - nationalist identity. Possible in reality, but not central to THIS passage. External-context trap. Option 4- symbolic remembrance greater than archives Too absolute. The passage never claims symbols are superior to documentation. Overextension trap.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the passage’s argument regarding the significance of the term “comfort women”?
This is a purpose-of-language question disguised as a factual one. The author argues that euphemistic language sanitizes brutality, empires rename horror to make coexistence psychologically tolerable, therefore the phrase itself is ideologically significant. The passage’s opening paragraph is not merely historical description. It is an argument about language as moral anesthesia. Now look carefully. Option 1 - administrative records existed... This strengthens the bureaucracy argument. Trap. Option 2 - survivors feared stigma... Supports the silence argument. Trap. Option 3 - other governments used euphemisms... Strengthens the broader claim about bureaucratic language. Trap. Option 4- phrase emerged later through translation... This is devastating. Why? Because the author’s interpretation depends on intentional euphemistic construction DURING the operation of the system. If the phrase was primarily retrospective translation rather than deliberate wartime masking, then, the language argument weakens, the “softness was deliberate” claim collapses, the moral critique of administrative euphemism loses force. This attacks the argument’s causal foundation.

More History & Civilization essays →

The Train to Silence: Inside the World of Comfort Women