CAT — Odd One Out
16 questions, free to view. Click any question to see the answer and explanation.
Five jumbled sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. About half of all the oxygen we breathe is made near the surface of the ocean by phytoplankton that photosynthesize just like land-dwelling plants.
2. A team of scientists that includes Boston University experts has discovered they also produce oxygen on the seafloor.
3. The research team used deep-sea chambers that land on the seafloor and enclose the seawater, sediment, polymetallic nodules, and living organisms.
4. The discovery is a surprise considering oxygen is typically created by plants and organisms with help from the sun—not by rocks on the ocean floor.
5. The deep-sea rocks, called polymetallic nodules, don't only host a surprising number of sea critters.
Sentences 1, 2, 4 and 5 form a coherent flow describing phytoplankton's known role in oxygen production, the surprising discovery that oxygen is also made on the seafloor, the unexpectedness of this given oxygen normally needs sunlight, and the introduction of the deep-sea rocks called polymetallic nodules. Sentence 3 jumps into a methodological detail about deep-sea chambers used by the research team, which belongs later in a fuller passage but breaks the introductory narrative these four sentences are building before the actual research method would logically be explained.
Key Takeaway: When the four sentences build a narrative of discovery and surprise, a sentence introducing a procedural or methodological detail too early is usually the one that disrupts the flow.
Five jumbled sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Developments both technological and sociocultural have afforded us far greater freedom over death than we had in the past, and while we are still adapting ourselves to that freedom, we now appreciate the moral importance of this freedom.
2. But I believe that a type of freedom we can call freedom over death — that is, a freedom in which we shape the timing and circumstances of how we die — should be central to this conversation.
3. Legalising assisted dying is but a further step in realising this freedom over death.
4. Many people endorse, through their opinions or their choices, our freedom over death, encompassing a right to medical assistance in hastening our deaths.
5. Freedom is a notoriously complex and contested philosophical notion, and I won't pretend to settle any of the big controversies it raises.
Sentences 1, 2, 3 and 5 build a coherent argument about freedom over death, starting with the philosophical complexity of freedom, introducing the specific concept of freedom over death, explaining how developments have expanded this freedom, and concluding that legalising assisted dying is a further step in realising it. Sentence 4 makes a separate empirical claim about what many people already endorse, which duplicates the general thrust without adding a distinct logical step in the argument's progression, and introduces "medical assistance in hastening deaths" as a specific phrase that sits awkwardly between the philosophical framing and the legal conclusion.
Key Takeaway: When four sentences build a logical argument from definition to application, a sentence making a redundant empirical claim about public opinion without advancing the argument is usually the odd one out.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. No known real researcher of human behaviour would say that gender is all nature or all nurture.
2. The evidence for a biological basis for gender certainly doesn't mean we should be complacent in the face of sexism.
3. Many people are uncomfortable with the idea that gender is not purely a social construct.
4. Despite this empirical truth, researchers who study the biological basis of gender often face political pushback.
5. There's a political preference for gender to be only a reflection of social factors and so entirely malleable.
Sentences 1, 3, 4 and 5 form a coherent argument, starting with the empirical fact that no serious researcher considers gender purely nature or nurture, then noting that many people are uncomfortable with the idea that it is not purely social, explaining that researchers face political pushback despite this empirical truth, and finally stating the political preference for gender to be entirely socially malleable as the source of that resistance. Sentence 2 shifts to a normative ethical point about not being complacent in the face of sexism, which is a separate argument about social consequence rather than a continuation of the empirical and political thread the other four sentences build.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. The banning of Northern Lights could be considered a precursor to censoring books for "moral", world view or religious reasons.
2. Attempts to ban books are attempts to silence authors who have summoned immense courage in telling their stories.
3. Now the banning and challenging of books in the US has escalated to an unprecedented level.
4. The widely acclaimed fantasy novel Northern Lights was banned in some parts of the US, and was the second most challenged book in the US.
5. The American Library Association documented an unparalleled number of reported book challenges in 2022, about 2,500 unique titles.
Sentences 1, 3, 4 and 5 build a coherent argument about the escalating banning of books in the US, starting with the example of Northern Lights being banned and positioned as a precursor, moving to the current unprecedented level of book banning, and quantifying this with the American Library Association's 2022 data about 2,500 unique title challenges. Sentence 2 makes a general normative statement about book banning being an attempt to silence courageous authors, which is a separate moral point that does not fit the specific factual and historical narrative the other four sentences build about the Northern Lights case and current book banning trends.
Key Takeaway: A normative or moral statement about what book banning represents is usually the odd one out when the other four sentences are building a specific factual and historical narrative about escalating book challenges.
Five jumbled-up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Part of the appeal of forecasting is not just that it seems to work, but that you don't seem to need specialized expertise to succeed at it.
2. The tight connection between forecasting and building a model of the world helps explain why so much of the early interest in the idea came from the intelligence community.
3. This was true even though the latter had access to classified intelligence.
4. One frequently cited study found that accurate forecasters' predictions of geopolitical events, when aggregated using standard scientific methods, were more accurate than the forecasts of members of the US intelligence community who answered the same questions in a confidential prediction market.
5. The aggregated opinions of non-experts doing forecasting have proven to be a better guide to the future than the aggregated opinions of experts.
Sentences 1, 3, 4 and 5 form a coherent argument about forecasting, starting with the appeal of forecasting not requiring specialised expertise, then the study showing aggregated non-expert predictions were more accurate than US intelligence community forecasts, then the qualifier that this held even though intelligence members had access to classified information, and finally the general principle that aggregated non-expert opinions outperform expert ones. Sentence 2 introduces the connection between forecasting and building a model of the world, and explains early interest from the intelligence community, which is a separate historical observation about forecasting's origins rather than a continuation of the argument about non-expert accuracy.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Having an appreciation for the workings of another person's mind is considered a prerequisite for natural language acquisition, strategic social interaction, reflexive thought, and moral judgment.
2. It is a 'theory of mind' though some scholars prefer to call it 'mentalizing' or 'mindreading', which is important for the development of one's cognitive abilities.
3. Though we must speculate about its evolutionary origin, we do have indications that the capacity evolved sometime in the last few million years.
4. This capacity develops from early beginnings in the first year of life to the adult's fast and often effortless understanding of others' thoughts, feelings, and intentions.
5. One of the most fascinating human capacities is the ability to perceive and interpret other people's behaviour in terms of their mental states.
Sentences 1, 3, 4 and 5 build a coherent argument about the human capacity to understand others' mental states, starting with identifying it as one of the most fascinating human capacities, explaining how it develops from infancy to adulthood, discussing the speculation about its evolutionary origins, and describing its importance for language acquisition, social interaction and moral judgment. Sentence 2 introduces a definition and alternative names for this capacity, describing it as a theory of mind important for cognitive development. This definitional sentence does not fit the developmental and evolutionary narrative the other four sentences build, and the phrase "which is important for the development of one's cognitive abilities" is a weaker restatement of what sentence 1 already captures more specifically.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Self-care particularly links to loneliness, behavioural problems, and negative academic outcomes.
2. "Latchkey children" refers to children who routinely return home from school to empty homes and take care of themselves for extended periods of time.
3. Although self-care generally points to negative outcomes, it is important to consider that the bulk of research has yet to track long-term consequences.
4. In research and practice, the phrase "children in self-care" has come to replace "latchkey" in an effort to more accurately reflect the nature of their circumstances.
5. Although parents might believe that self-care would be beneficial for development, recent research has found quite the opposite.
Sentences 1, 2, 4 and 5 form a coherent argument about latchkey or self-care children, starting with defining latchkey children, explaining how the term self-care has replaced latchkey, noting that self-care links specifically to negative outcomes like loneliness and academic problems, and closing with the finding that parents may believe self-care is beneficial but research shows the opposite. Sentence 3 introduces a qualification about the bulk of research not yet tracking long-term consequences, which is a methodological caveat that interrupts the straightforward presentation of self-care's negative outcomes being built by the other sentences.
Key Takeaway: A sentence introducing a methodological caveat about the limits of existing research disrupts a paragraph that is otherwise making a clear argument about research findings and their implications.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. In English, there is no systematic rule for the naming of numbers; after ten, we have "eleven" and "twelve" and then the teens: "thirteen", "fourteen", "fifteen" and so on.
2. Even more confusingly, some English words invert the numbers they refer to: the word "fourteen" puts the four first, even though it appears last.
3. It can take children a while to learn all these words, and understand that "fourteen" is different from "forty".
4. For multiples of 10, English speakers switch to a different pattern: "twenty", "thirty", "forty" and so on.
5. If you didn't know the word for "eleven", you would be unable to just guess it - you might come up with something like "one-teen".
Sentences 1, 2, 4 and 5 build a coherent argument about the irregularity of English number naming, starting with the lack of a systematic rule after ten, describing how the pattern switches for multiples of ten, noting that some English words invert the numbers they name, and illustrating with the example of eleven being unguessable. Sentence 3 talks about children taking time to learn these words and distinguish fourteen from forty, which introduces a child developmental perspective that is separate from the linguistic analysis of the naming system that the other four sentences build.
Five jumbled sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. The profound emotional impact of music has inspired ongoing research into its relationship with emotions.
2. Music is a universal phenomenon that utilizes a myriad brain resources.
3. This inherent connection to musical expression is deeply intertwined with human identity and experience.
4. The proclivity to create and appreciate music is ubiquitous among humans, permeating daily life across diverse societies.
5. Engaging with music is among the most cognitively demanding tasks a human can undergo, and it is identified across cultures.
Sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5 build a coherent description of music as a universal, identity-linked, cognitively demanding human phenomenon. Sentence 1 shifts the focus to research being inspired by music's emotional impact, which introduces a new angle about research rather than continuing the direct description of music's universal nature being built by the other four sentences.
Key Takeaway: Watch for a sentence that shifts focus from describing a phenomenon to discussing research or study of that phenomenon, since this shift in subject is often the odd one out.
Five jumbled sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Sporting a copper-coloured pixie cut and a pair of pink feather antlers, Torres himself resembles a child's doodle.
2. His casual millennial delivery, peppered with "um"s and "ah"s, makes surreal concepts sound like items on a brunch menu.
3. Though he may have failed so far in his colour-scouting mission (he hasn't yet found a new one, he admits), this hour leaves you tickled pink.
4. Like his previous show, My Favourite Shapes, this is an hour of sit-down comedy aided by an overhead camera which relays Torres's theories — illustrated with crayon squiggles — on to a screen behind him.
5. His inquisitive mind produces interconnected ideas about Catholicism, the blandness of Pixar and what orange sounds like, while his insights train us to spot "highly purple behaviour".
Sentences 1, 2, 4 and 5 together describe Torres's appearance, his delivery style, the show's format with the overhead camera and crayon squiggles, and the content of his ideas. Sentence 3 introduces a conclusion about the show leaving the viewer "tickled pink" despite his failed colour-scouting mission, which is a closing judgment that does not fit with the descriptive sequence the other four sentences build.
Key Takeaway: In odd-one-out sentence sets, identify the common descriptive or narrative thread running through four sentences, and find the one sentence that introduces a conclusion or shift instead of continuing that thread.
Five jumbled sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Pfas are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant.
2. New research suggests exposure to some common perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas) cause changes to gene activity and that these changes are linked to health problems including multiple cancers, neurological disorders and autoimmune disease.
3. These Pfas compounds are dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not naturally break down in the environment.
4. The research may also point toward other diseases potentially caused by Pfas that have not yet been identified.
5. The findings are a major step toward determining the mechanism by which the chemicals cause disease and could help doctors identify, detect and treat health problems for those exposed to Pfas before the issues advance.
Sentences 1, 2, 4 and 5 form a coherent flow about Pfas being linked to gene activity changes and disease, what Pfas are used for, and the implications of the research for future disease detection. Sentence 3, while factually about Pfas, introduces the "forever chemicals" nickname and their non-biodegradability, which is a separate point not part of the main thread connecting the research findings to gene activity and disease detection.
Key Takeaway: Even a factually relevant sentence about the same topic can be the odd one out if it introduces a different angle that does not connect to the specific narrative thread the other sentences build.
Five jumbled sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence out and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. The Bayeux tapestry was, therefore, an obvious way to tell people about the downfall of the English and the rise of the Normans.
2. So if we take expert in Anglo-Saxon culture Gale Owen-Crocker's idea that the tapestry was originally hung in a square with certain scenes facing each other, people would have stood in the centre.
3. Art historian Linda Neagley has argued that pre-Renaissance people interacted with art visually, kinaesthetically (sensory perception through bodily movement) and physically.
4. That would make it an 11th-century immersive space with scenes corresponding and echoing each other, drawing the viewer's attention, playing on their senses and understanding of the story they thought they knew.
5. The Bayeux tapestry would have been hung at eye level to enable this.
Sentences 3, 5, 2 and 4 build a coherent argument about how people physically interacted with the Bayeux tapestry, through art historian Linda Neagley's argument about visual and kinaesthetic interaction, the idea that it was hung at eye level to enable this, Gale Owen-Crocker's theory about the original square hanging arrangement, and the resulting immersive experience this would have created. Sentence 1 makes a separate historical point about the tapestry being used as a vehicle for the Norman conquest narrative, which does not fit the thread about spatial and sensory interaction with the tapestry.
Key Takeaway: When four sentences describe how a specific object was physically or sensorially experienced, a sentence making a separate historical or propagandistic point about that object's message is usually the odd one out.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Urbanites also have more and better options for getting around: Uber is ubiquitous; easy-to-rent dockless bicycles are spreading; battery-powered scooters will be next.
2. When more people use buses or trains the service usually improves because public-transport agencies run more buses and trains.
3. Worsening services on public transport, terrorist attacks in some urban metros and a rise in fares have been blamed for this trend.
4. It seems more likely that public transport is being squeezed structurally as people's need to travel is diminishing as a result of smartphones, videoconferencing, online shopping and so on.
5. There has been a puzzling decline in the use of urban public transport in many countries in the west, despite the growth in urban populations and rising employment.
Sentences 5, 3, 4 and 1 form a coherent argument, the puzzling decline in public transport use, possible causes blamed for it, an alternative structural explanation involving smartphones and remote alternatives, and other transportation options that have emerged. Sentence 2, which states that more public transport use generally leads to improved service, introduces a general principle about transit systems that doesn't fit the specific narrative about why public transport usage is declining despite urban growth.
Key Takeaway: Watch for a sentence stating a general principle that, while topically related, does not engage with the specific puzzle or narrative being built by the other sentences.
Five jumbled-up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) related to a topic are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. To create a synapse, the neuron has specialized structures, often seen as tiny swellings, at its terminal end of the axon where it stores the chemicals that are emitted to transmit a signal to the next neuron.
2. This fetal warm-up act—the soldering of neural connections before the eyes actually function—is crucial to the performance of the visual system.
3. The reasons for this paring back of synapses is a mystery, but synaptic pruning is thought to sharpen and reinforce the "correct" synapses, while removing the weak and unnecessary ones.
4. Neural connections between the eyes and the brain are formed long before birth, establishing the wiring and the circuitry that allow a child to begin visualizing the world the minute she emerges from the womb.
5. During this rehearsal period, synapses—points of chemical connection—between nerve cells are generated in great excess, only to be pruned back during later development.
Sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5 build a coherent argument about how neural connections between the eyes and brain form before birth, how synapses are generated in excess during this period and then pruned back, how the reason for pruning is unknown but thought to sharpen correct connections, and why this prenatal rehearsal is crucial to the visual system's eventual functioning. Sentence 1 describes the general structure of a synapse, explaining the physical specialisation of the neuron at the axon's terminal end, which is background information about synaptic structure rather than a continuation of the specific developmental narrative about prenatal visual system wiring.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. The UK is a world leader in developing cultivated meat and the approval of a cultivated pet food is an important milestone.
2. If we're to realise the full potential benefits of cultivated meat the government must invest in research and infrastructure.
3. The first UK applications for cultivated meat produced for humans remain under assessment with the Food Standards Agency.
4. The previous UK government had been looking at fast-tracking the approval of cultivated meat for human consumption.
5. It underscores the potential for new innovation to help reduce the negative impacts of intensive animal agriculture.
Sentences 1, 2, 3 and 5 form a coherent argument about cultivated meat in the UK, beginning with the UK being a world leader and the pet food approval being a milestone, explaining that the UK still has human consumption applications under assessment, noting the potential for innovation to reduce harm from intensive animal agriculture, and calling for government investment to realise that potential. Sentence 4, about the previous UK government fast-tracking cultivated meat approval for human consumption, introduces a separate historical policy point about a prior government's approach that does not logically continue or complete the forward-looking argument about current milestones, ongoing assessment, and future investment.
Five jumbled up sentences (labelled 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), related to a topic, are given below. Four of them can be put together to form a coherent paragraph. Identify the odd sentence and key in the number of that sentence as your answer.
1. Animals have an interest in fulfilling their basic needs, but also in avoiding suffering, and thus we ought to extend moral consideration.
2. Singer viewed himself as a utilitarian, and presents a direct moral theory concerning animal rights, in contrast to indirect positions, such as welfarist views.
3. He argued for extending moral consideration to animals because, similar to humans, animals have certain significant interests.
4. The event that publicly announced animal rights as a legitimate issue within contemporary philosophy was Peter Singer's Animal Liberation text in 1975.
5. As such, we ought to view their interests alongside and equal to human interests, which results in humans having direct moral duties towards animals.
Sentences 4, 2, 3 and 5 build a coherent narrative, Singer's 1975 work establishing animal rights as a philosophical issue, his utilitarian and direct moral approach, his argument for extending moral consideration based on shared significant interests, and the resulting conclusion about equal interest consideration leading to direct moral duties. Sentence 1 makes a similar point about extending moral consideration due to animals' interest in avoiding suffering, but it duplicates the argument made more specifically in sentences 3 and 5, without contributing a distinct, sequential step to the paragraph's logical buildup.
Key Takeaway: When a sentence repeats an idea already covered more specifically by other sentences in the set, it is often the odd one out, even if it is topically consistent with the rest.
Want this as a timed attempt?
Log in free to attempt this topic with a real timer, analytics, streaks and bookmarks.