Comprehension

Recently, a team of social scientists launched an experiment to test that hypothesis. They recruited 1,500 entrepreneurs in West Africa—a mix of women and men in their 30s, 40s, and 50s—who were running small startups in manufacturing, service, and commerce. They randomly assigned the founders to one of three groups. One was a control group: they went about their business as usual. The other two were training groups: they spent a week learning new concepts, analyzing them in case studies of other entrepreneurs, and applying them to their own startups through role-play and re section exercises. What differed was whether the training focused on cognitive skills or character skills. In cognitive skills training, the founders took an accredited business course created by the International Finance Corporation. They studied nance, accounting, HR, marketing, and pricing,  and practiced using what they learned to solve challenges and seize opportunities. In character skills training, the founders attended a class designed by psychologists to teach personal initiative. They studied proactivity, discipline, and determination, and practiced putting those qualities into action. Character skills training had a dramatic impact. After founders had spent merely ve days working on these skills, their rms’ pro ts grew by an average of 30 percent over the next two years. That was nearly triple the bene t of training in cognitive skills. Finance and marketing knowledge might have equipped founders to capitalize on opportunities, but studying proactivity and discipline enabled them to generate opportunities. They learned to anticipate market changes rather than react to them. They developed more creative ideas and introduced more new products. When they encountered nancial obstacles, instead of giving up, they were more resilient and resourceful in seeking loans. Along with demonstrating that character skills can propel us to achieve greater things, this evidence reveals that it’s never too late to build them … Character doesn’t set like plaster—it retains its plasticity. Character is often confused with personality, but they’re not the same. Personality is your predisposition—your basic instincts for how to think, feel, and act. Character is your capacity to prioritize your values over your instincts. Knowing your principles doesn’t necessarily mean you know how to practice them, particularly under stress or pressure. It’s easy to be proactive and determined when things are going well. The true test of character is whether you manage to stand by those values when the deck is stacked against you. If personality is how you respond on a typical day, character is how you show up on a hard day. Personality is not your destiny—it’s your tendency. Character skills enable you to transcend that tendency to be true to your principles. It’s not about the traits you have—it’s what you decide to do with them. Wherever you are today, there’s no reason why you can’t grow your character skills starting now.

Question: 1

Which of the following views would the author BEST agree with?

Show Hint

Always note subtle contrasts (here, personality vs character). Character represents principles in action, especially under stress.
Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Character skills risk abandoning your personality along with your instincts.
  • Our values and principles are always put to test by our personality.
  • Putting our values and principles to practice requires transcending our personality.
  • Because principles clash with your personality, character is needed.
  • Our behavior is a function of our character not our personality.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall the passage’s distinction.
The passage defined personality as our innate predispositions (instincts, reactions) and character as our capacity to overcome these instincts and act based on values and principles.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Incorrect — character does not negate personality. - Option B: Misleading — values do not get “tested by” personality; they supersede it. - Option C: Correct. The author emphasizes character's ability to transcend personality by prioritizing values and principles. - Option D: Incorrect framing — principles do not “clash”; they require application beyond innate personality. - Option E: Too absolute — behavior is a product of both character and personality.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, Option C offers the most accurate interpretation.
Final Answer: \[\boxed{\text{C}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 2

Which of the following can be BEST inferred from the passage?

Show Hint

Look for “BEST inferred” by connecting experimental evidence (profit growth, resilience) to broader life success.
Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Character skills can compensate for poor cognitive skills.
  • Character skills can be built only if one believes in them.
  • Cognitive skills unlike character skills are always reactive.
  • Being aware of your character skills enable you to exercise them.
  • Sustainable success in life requires strong character skills.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall experimental findings.
The experiment indicated that entrepreneurs trained in character skills experienced nearly threefold profit growth compared to those trained in cognitive skills.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Not stated — character skills enhance opportunities rather than "compensating." - Option B: Incorrect — emphasis is on practice, not belief. - Option C: Wrong — cognitive skills are not presented as "always reactive." - Option D: Awareness is insufficient; deliberate practice is prioritized. - Option E: Correct. The passage demonstrates that character skills led to long-term business growth, confirming sustainability.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Therefore, the inferred conclusion is Option E.
Final Answer: \[\boxed{\text{E}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 3

Based on the passage, why would character skills help entrepreneurs more than cognitive skills?

Show Hint

When RC contrasts two skill types, note the distinction: cognitive = capitalize, character = generate. That’s the key differentiator.
Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • One can be poor in finance and quantitative skills but really good in character skills.
  • Character skills enable you to generate opportunities rather than capitalize on existing ones.
  • Character skills are industry agnostic in application.
  • Entrepreneurs are already aware of their business and are only missing character skills.
  • Character skills prepare you for an uncertain future.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Recall findings.
The passage indicated that cognitive skills, such as finance and marketing, enable founders to leverage existing opportunities. Conversely, character skills, including discipline, proactivity, and resilience, empower them to generate new opportunities and surmount challenges.
Step 2: Evaluate options.
- Option A: Oversimplified. The argument does not center on being "poor in finance." - Option B: Accurate. This option precisely aligns with the passage's assertion regarding opportunity generation. - Option C: Relevant but not primary. This is a true statement but not the principal reason provided. - Option D: Unsubstantiated. There is no evidence presented to suggest that entrepreneurs exclusively lack character skills. - Option E: Accurate but imprecise. The "uncertain future" is not identified as the primary contributing factor.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Consequently, Option B represents the correct answer.
Final Answer: \[\boxed{\text{B}}\]
Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

Questions Asked in XAT exam