Direction for Reading Comprehension: The passages given here are followed by some questions that have four answer choices; read the passage carefully and pick the option whose answer best aligns with the passage
I’ve been following the economic crisis for more than two years now. I began working on the subject as part of the background to a novel, and soon realized that I had stumbled across the most interesting story I’ve ever found. While I was beginning to work on it, the British bank Northern Rock blew up, and it became clear that, as I wrote at the time, “If our laws are not extended to control the new kinds of super-powerful, super-complex, and potentially superrisky investment vehicles, they will one day cause a financial disaster of global-systemic proportions.”... I was both right and too late, because all the groundwork for the crisis had already been done—though the sluggishness of the world’s governments, in not preparing for the great unraveling of autumn 2008, was then and still is stupefying. But this is the first reason why I wrote this book: because what’s happened is extraordinarily interesting. It is an absolutely amazing story, full of human interest and drama, one whose byways of mathematics, economics, and psychology are both central to the story of the last decades and mysteriously unknown to the general public. We have heard a lot about “the two cultures” of science and the arts—we heard a particularly large amount about it in 2009, because it was the fiftieth anniversary of the speech during which C. P. Snow first used the phrase. But I’m not sure the idea of a huge gap between science and the arts is as true as it was half a century ago—it’s certainly true, for instance, that a general reader who wants to pick up an education in the fundamentals of science will find it easier than ever before. It seems to me that there is a much bigger gap between the world of finance and that of the general public and that there is a need to narrow that gap, if the financial industry is not to be a kind of priesthood, administering to its own mysteries and feared and resented by the rest of us. Many bright, literate people have no idea about all sorts of economic basics, of a type that financial insiders take as elementary facts of how the world works. I am an outsider to finance and economics, and my hope is that I can talk across that gulf. My need to understand is the same as yours, whoever you are. That’s one of the strangest ironies of this story: after decades in which the ideology of the Western world was personally and economically individualistic, we’ve suddenly been hit by a crisis which shows in the starkest terms that whether we like it or not—and there are large parts of it that you would have to be crazy to like—we’re all in this together. The aftermath of the crisis is going to dominate the economics and politics of our societies for at least a decade to come and perhaps longer.
Which one of the following, if true, would be an accurate inference from the first sentence of the passage?
Correct Answer :
The author’s preoccupation with the economic crisis is not less than two years old.
Solution :
Correct Answer: The author’s preoccupation with the economic crisis is not less than two years old.
Let us analyze the logical connection between the first sentence of the passage and the correct option step-by-step.
Step 1: Analyze the Premise (The first sentence of the passage)
The first sentence of the passage states: "I’ve been following the economic crisis for more than two years now."
This statement indicates two key details:
1. The author has been actively tracking or engaged with ("following") the economic crisis.
2. The duration of this activity is "more than two years".
Step 2: Evaluate the Meaning of the Correct Option
The correct option states: "The author’s preoccupation with the economic crisis is not less than two years old."
"Preoccupation" in this context refers to the author's state of being engrossed in or paying close attention to the crisis (which matches "following the economic crisis").
"Not less than two years old" mathematically and logically translates to a duration of years (two years or more). Since the author specifies "more than two years" (which is strictly years), it is logically and factually true to say that this period is "not less than two years" (not ). Therefore, this is a direct and accurate inference.
Step 3: Dismiss the Incorrect Options
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.