CAT 2026 Slot 1 Question PaperExpected Paper, PDF & Analysis

Many people believe that democracy flourishes when decisions are made by those who possess the most knowledge. After all, if experts understand the consequences of public policies better than ordinary citizens do, allowing them greater influence should lead to better outcomes. Unfortunately, this is not quite so simple. Expertise and political legitimacy have a more complicated relationship, because governing a society involves two distinct challenges: understanding what is likely to work and persuading people to accept collective decisions.

On the one hand, expertise is indispensable when decisions depend on technical knowledge. An engineer's understanding of structural forces matters when designing a bridge, just as a physician's knowledge matters when treating an illness. In such cases, the truth of a claim does not depend on how many people believe it. On the other hand, political decisions require more than technical correctness. Governments must persuade diverse populations to cooperate, sometimes asking people to accept costs or sacrifices for benefits that may emerge only in the future. A policy can therefore be scientifically sound and yet politically unsuccessful if the people expected to follow it regard the decision as illegitimate. Unlike a technical problem, a political problem cannot always be solved simply by presenting the correct answer.

When experts attempt to persuade the public, they often assume that better information will naturally produce agreement. Yet information does not operate independently of social identity and prior beliefs. People may distrust an expert not because they have carefully evaluated the evidence, but because the expert appears to represent a group whose interests they oppose. In such circumstances, a confident appeal to scientific authority can sometimes deepen resistance rather than resolve it. Political actors who acknowledge public concerns, by contrast, may gain trust even when their explanations are less technically sophisticated. This creates an apparent advantage for political persuasion over expertise, although the advantage may come at a cost: a message that secures agreement by simplifying evidence can conceal important uncertainties or encourage unjustified confidence.

It would nevertheless be mistaken to conclude that political legitimacy requires governments to follow public opinion regardless of the evidence. Popular preferences can be shaped by incomplete information, immediate fears or expectations that cannot realistically be fulfilled. A government that consistently avoids unpopular but necessary decisions may preserve approval in the short term while weakening its capacity to address long-term problems. Conversely, experts who disregard public concerns may find that technically sound policies are poorly implemented or abandoned. The challenge is not simply to choose between expert judgment and popular consent, but to establish a relationship in which technical knowledge informs decisions without making citizens feel that their participation is irrelevant.

The dilemma facing democratic societies is therefore not whether expertise or public opinion should prevail in every situation. It is how to preserve the authority of evidence while maintaining the trust required for collective action. Experts must communicate uncertainty honestly, while political leaders must resist the temptation to replace inconvenient findings with reassuring claims. Democratic decision-making is most effective when public participation does not become a substitute for evidence and expertise does not become an excuse for excluding the public.

PairUp, a dating app, divides six users — Anaya, Raghav, Mehul, Tara, Ishaan and Zoya — into two groups of three: Priority Matches, managed by Cupid, and Discovery Matches, managed by Matchmaker.

At the end of each month, each user receives a compatibility rating. Within each group, the three users receive distinct ratings of 1, 2 and 3.

A user's score at the end of a month is the cumulative sum of their ratings from the beginning of the year. At the end of each month, the Discovery Matches user with the highest score is promoted to Priority Matches, while the Priority Matches user with the lowest score moves to Discovery Matches. In case of a tie, the user with the higher rating in the latest month ranks higher.

The following information is known:

1. Anaya, Raghav and Mehul were in Priority Matches at the beginning of Month 1. All three were in Discovery Matches at the beginning of Month 4.
2. Tara and Zoya were the only users who received the same rating in all four months.
3. Raghav received a rating of 1 in Month 2.
4. Anaya and Tara received ratings of 1 and 2, respectively, in Month 3.