Master RC Comparative Passages
Track two viewpoints simultaneously. Learn to identify agreement, disagreement, and how authors would respond to each other. The paired passage skills that separate 90+ percentilers from the rest.
📚 Comparative Passages Flashcards
Master paired passage skills with spaced repetition
Loading…
Loading…
🎯 Test Your Comparative Passage Skills
5 paired passage questions with detailed explanations
🎯 Test Complete!
Passage A:
Minimum wage increases demonstrably improve worker welfare. When wages rise, low-income households gain purchasing power, reducing financial stress and stimulating local economies. Critics warn of job losses, but recent empirical studies from Seattle and New York show employment effects are minimal—far smaller than standard economic models predicted. The modest job displacement that occurs is outweighed by income gains for workers who remain employed. Furthermore, higher wages reduce turnover costs for employers, partially offsetting increased labor expenses. The evidence clearly supports raising the wage floor as effective anti-poverty policy.
Passage B:
Minimum wage policy involves trade-offs that simplistic advocacy ignores. While some workers benefit from mandated raises, others—particularly teenagers, immigrants, and workers in low-margin industries—face reduced hours or job losses. The Seattle studies that advocates cite actually show significant hour reductions alongside employment stability; workers earned higher hourly rates but took home less total pay. Policy should acknowledge these trade-offs rather than pretending free lunches exist. Whether the trade-off is worthwhile depends on values: prioritizing employed workers’ wages versus maximizing employment opportunities for marginal workers. The question isn’t whether minimum wage increases help—it’s whom they help and whom they hurt.
Both authors would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
✓ Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: Both passages acknowledge that minimum wage policy affects employment—A says job displacement is “minimal” but acknowledges it exists, while B emphasizes employment trade-offs. This is common ground at the factual level despite their different conclusions about policy.
Option A only represents Passage A’s view. Option D also only represents A’s position—B explicitly highlights job losses as significant trade-offs. Finding “both would agree” requires identifying premise-level overlap, not conclusion agreement.
Passage A:
The mass extinction at the end of the Permian period—the largest in Earth’s history—resulted primarily from volcanic activity in what is now Siberia. The Siberian Traps eruptions released massive quantities of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide over thousands of years, triggering rapid climate change. Oceans warmed and acidified, while atmospheric oxygen levels dropped. This environmental catastrophe explains why over 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species disappeared. The volcanic explanation is supported by precise dating that links eruption phases to extinction pulses in the fossil record.
Passage B:
While Siberian volcanism undoubtedly stressed Permian ecosystems, attributing the extinction solely to eruptions oversimplifies a complex event. Multiple factors converged: sea level changes, continental positioning that reduced coastal habitats, and possible contributions from a comet or asteroid impact (though evidence for the latter remains debated). The extinction unfolded over roughly 60,000 years—a “geologically brief” but biologically extended period that suggests cascading failures rather than a single trigger. Understanding the Permian extinction requires appreciating how multiple stressors interacted to push ecosystems past tipping points.
Unlike Passage A, Passage B emphasizes:
✓ Correct! Option C is the answer.
Why C is correct: Passage A presents volcanic activity as the PRIMARY explanation (“resulted primarily from”), treating it as essentially the single cause. Passage B explicitly argues against this single-cause approach, stating that attributing the extinction “solely to eruptions oversimplifies” and listing multiple factors. This is the key structural difference.
Option A fails because BOTH passages discuss volcanic activity. Option B fails because both acknowledge severity. For “Unlike A, B…” questions, verify the characterization of BOTH passages—wrong answers often accurately describe one but mischaracterize the other.
Passage A:
Moral judgments should be based on consequences. An action is right if it produces more good than harm; wrong if it produces more harm than good. This utilitarian framework offers objective ground for ethical reasoning—we can measure and compare outcomes rather than relying on arbitrary rules. When rules conflict (should I lie to protect someone?), consequences provide guidance: evaluate the likely outcomes and choose what maximizes well-being. Critics complain that utilitarian reasoning could justify terrible acts if consequences were beneficial, but this objection misunderstands the framework. Properly calculated, respecting rights and maintaining trust produces better long-term consequences than violating them.
Passage B:
Reducing morality to consequences loses something essential about ethical life. Some actions are wrong regardless of outcomes—torturing innocents, betraying trust, using people merely as means. These constraints aren’t arbitrary rules but recognitions of human dignity. The utilitarian response—that respecting rights produces better consequences—proves the point: we care about rights independently of whether respecting them is useful. If consequences were all that mattered, we’d have no principled objection to secretly violating rights when doing so would maximize good. The fact that this seems monstrous reveals that something beyond consequences matters: the inherent wrongness of certain actions and the moral status of persons.
How would the author of Passage A most likely respond to Passage B’s claim that “some actions are wrong regardless of outcomes”?
✓ Correct! Option B is the answer.
Why B is correct: Passage A directly addresses this objection. A acknowledges critics worry utilitarianism “could justify terrible acts” but responds that “properly calculated, respecting rights and maintaining trust produces better long-term consequences.” A’s response to B’s claim would use this same reasoning: actions B considers absolutely wrong ARE wrong under consequentialism because violating them produces bad long-term consequences.
Option A contradicts A’s core position (consequences determine rightness). Option C is too hostile—A engages the objection substantively, not dismissively. For response questions, base predictions on what the author actually argues, not stereotyped positions.
Passage A:
The French Revolution’s descent into the Terror demonstrates the inevitable trajectory of utopian political projects. Revolutionaries who aimed to remake society according to abstract principles—liberty, equality, fraternity—inevitably encountered resistance from human reality. When citizens failed to embrace revolutionary virtue, radicals concluded the people themselves must be transformed. The Terror was not an accident or deviation but the logical culmination of revolutionary ideology: if the perfect society requires perfect citizens, those resistant to perfection must be eliminated. This pattern recurs whenever politics becomes redemptive—when regimes seek not merely to govern but to save humanity.
Passage B:
Explaining the Terror through “utopian ideology” obscures the contingent circumstances that actually produced political violence. Revolutionary leaders faced genuine emergencies: foreign invasion, civil war in the Vendée, food shortages, and factional conspiracies. The Terror emerged from crisis management, not philosophical consistency. Executions targeted specific perceived threats—counter-revolutionaries, hoarders, military failures—not abstract enemies of virtue. When external threats diminished after military victories in 1794, the Terror’s justification collapsed, and Robespierre himself fell. Ideology mattered, but as rhetoric mobilizing support for practical responses to genuine dangers rather than as a blueprint driving events.
The authors’ fundamental disagreement concerns:
✓ Correct! Option C is the answer.
Why C is correct: The core dispute is causal: A argues ideology explains the Terror (“logical culmination of revolutionary ideology”), while B argues circumstances explain it (“emerged from crisis management, not philosophical consistency”). This is their fundamental disagreement—what KIND of explanation accounts for the Terror.
Option B tempts because it sounds like a moral question, but neither author argues the Terror was justified. Option D mentions Robespierre but neither passage centers on personal responsibility. “Fundamental disagreement” questions test whether you can identify the root causal dispute.
Passage A:
Conformity in social groups reflects rational information processing, not mindless obedience. When individuals observe others’ choices, they gain information about the world—if many people choose option A, they likely know something favoring A. Following the crowd becomes rational when others’ information supplements your own. This “informational cascade” model explains why conformity increases with group size and perceived expertise of group members. We conform more when others seem knowledgeable because their choices carry more informational weight. The model also predicts when conformity breaks down: when personal information is strong enough to override social signals, or when observed choices clearly reflect imitation rather than independent judgment.
Passage B:
Conformity’s persistence in obviously wrong situations—as in Asch’s experiments where subjects denied clear visual evidence to match group responses—suggests mechanisms beyond information processing. Social conformity serves belonging needs: humans evolved in groups where exclusion meant death, creating powerful motivation to maintain standing by aligning with group norms. This “normative influence” model explains conformity even when individuals know the group is wrong. Subjects in Asch’s experiments often reported privately knowing the correct answer while publicly conforming—not because the group provided information but because disagreeing felt threatening. The model predicts conformity increases with group cohesion and identification strength, independent of informational content.
Based on both passages, which statement best captures the relationship between their explanations?
✓ Correct! Option C is the answer.
Why C is correct: The passages offer different models (informational vs. normative) that explain different conformity patterns. A explains conformity when we genuinely lack information and others seem knowledgeable. B explains conformity even when we know the group is wrong—driven by belonging needs. These aren’t contradictory; they address different situations and may both operate in different contexts.
Option A assumes the passages are competing for complete explanatory scope, but neither claims to “fully explain” all conformity. Option B is too strong—B complements rather than undermines A. Synthesis questions test whether you can recognize complementary rather than contradictory relationships.
💡 How to Master Comparative Passages
Strategic approaches to track multiple viewpoints and answer paired passage questions accurately
The Sequential Reading Method
Comparative passages require a different reading approach than single passages. Sequential reading with explicit mapping produces the best results for most students.
-
1Read Passage A Completely (2.5-3.5 min)
Form a complete mental model. Note the main claim, key evidence, and tone. Don’t compare yet—just understand A.
-
2Read Passage B Completely (2.5-3.5 min)
As you read, naturally note how B relates to A—agreements, disagreements, different emphasis. But focus primarily on understanding B’s argument.
-
3Map Relationships (60-90 sec)
Before questions, explicitly identify: Where do they agree? Disagree? What would each say about the other? This investment saves 3+ minutes during questions.
Trying to compare while reading creates cognitive interference—you’re tracking too many threads. Sequential reading allows complete pictures of each passage before comparison, reducing confusion about “which author said what.”
The Relationship Mapping Framework
After reading both passages, spend 60-90 seconds creating a mental or written map. This framework covers what questions will test:
The Two-Column Map
Passage A:
- Main Claim: [What’s A’s core position?]
- Key Evidence: [What supports A’s claim?]
- Underlying Assumption: [What does A take for granted?]
Passage B:
- Main Claim: [What’s B’s core position?]
- Key Evidence: [What supports B’s claim?]
- Underlying Assumption: [What does B take for granted?]
Relationship Summary
- AGREE on: [Shared premises, values, or facts]
- DISAGREE on: [Contradictory claims or conclusions]
- A would say to B: [Predicted response]
- B would say to A: [Predicted response]
Even brief notes like “A: regulation needed, B: markets self-correct” prevent the #1 error in comparative passages: confusing which author said what.
Avoiding the Two Major Traps
Comparative passages contain systematic traps that catch even strong readers. Recognizing these patterns prevents errors.
Trap 1: Assumed Disagreement
The Error: Assuming passages disagree because they emphasize different things.
- A discusses benefits of technology
- B discusses risks of technology
- Trap: Treating this as disagreement
- Reality: Both can be true—different focus ≠ disagreement
Detection: Ask “Could both claims be true simultaneously?” If yes, positions are compatible, not contradictory.
Trap 2: Assumed Agreement
The Error: Assuming passages agree because they share vocabulary or topic.
- Both passages discuss “democracy” positively
- Trap: Claiming they agree on democracy
- Reality: They may define “democracy” differently
Detection: Ask “Do they mean the same thing by key terms?” Definitional differences hide substantive conflicts.
For genuine disagreement, one author must DENY what the other AFFIRMS. “Technology increases productivity” (A) and “Technology creates unemployment” (B) are compatible—both can be true. They would disagree only if A denied unemployment or B denied productivity gains.
Question-Type Specific Approaches
Different comparative question types require different verification strategies. Match your approach to the question:
- “Both would agree”: Look for agreement at the PREMISE level (shared starting assumptions), VALUE level (what both consider important), or FACT level (background both accept). Agreement on conclusions is rare if passages differ.
- “Unlike A, B…”: Verify BOTH characterizations independently. Wrong answers often accurately describe one passage while mischaracterizing the other. All characterizations must be accurate.
- “How would A respond”: Identify B’s specific claim, check A’s position on that exact issue, then predict agreement/disagreement. Ground responses in what A actually argues—not stereotyped positions.
- Synthesis questions: Find conclusions consistent with BOTH passages. The synthesis should integrate rather than choose between perspectives, requiring both passages to support fully.
Answer individual passage questions first (simpler, reinforces understanding), comparative questions second (agreement/contrast), and response/synthesis questions last (most complex, require full understanding of both positions).
The Complete Guide: From Theory to Mastery
You’ve practiced the flashcards. You’ve tested yourself. Now understand why the strategies work—and how to handle any paired passage CAT throws at you.
Understanding RC Comparative Passages
RC comparative passages present two shorter passages (Passage A and Passage B) addressing related topics. Each passage is typically 150-250 words, but together they form a substantial reading block with 4-6 questions. This format appears in 40-50% of CAT RC sections, making it a significant portion of your VARC score.
Questions fall into three categories. Individual passage questions ask about one passage only: “According to Passage A…” These function like standard RC questions focused on one text. Comparative questions ask about relationships: “Both authors would agree…” or “Unlike Passage A, Passage B…” Response questions ask how one author would react to the other: “How would Author A likely respond to Author B’s claim?”
The Core Challenge: Comparative passages test whether you can hold multiple viewpoints simultaneously. You must understand what A says, what B says, where they agree, where they disagree, and how each would evaluate the other’s arguments. This cognitive load is higher than single passages.
Pause & Reflect
Think about the last comparative passage you attempted: Did you read both passages before trying to map their relationship, or did you try to compare while reading?
If you tried comparing while reading, you likely experienced cognitive interference—tracking too many threads simultaneously.
Sequential reading (A completely, then B completely, then map) works better for most students because it allows complete pictures of each passage before comparison. This prevents the #1 comparative passage error: confusing which author said what.
Read for understanding first, compare second. The 60-90 seconds spent mapping after reading saves 3+ minutes of confusion during questions.
Relationship Types Between Passages
Before tackling questions, identify how the passages relate. This relationship mapping is the foundation for answering comparative questions accurately.
Agreement
Both authors support the same position, possibly with different evidence or emphasis. Recognition signs: similar conclusions, complementary evidence, consistent underlying assumptions.
Disagreement
Authors take opposing positions on a shared issue. This is the most common comparative relationship in CAT because it generates the richest question possibilities. Recognition signs: contradictory conclusions, conflicting interpretations of the same evidence.
Complementary
Authors address different aspects of the same topic without directly contradicting each other. A might discuss causes while B discusses effects, or A might address theory while B addresses practice.
Partial Overlap
Authors agree on some points but disagree on others—the most nuanced and common relationship. They might share premises but reach different conclusions, or agree on facts but disagree on interpretation.
Relationship Identification Example:
Passage A: Argues remote work increases productivity by eliminating commute time.
Passage B: Argues remote work damages collaboration by reducing spontaneous interaction.
Relationship: Partial disagreement. Both discuss remote work’s effects but focus on different dimensions. These positions are compatible (remote work might increase individual productivity while harming collaboration) but each author would likely disagree with the other’s emphasis.
Test Your Understanding
Passage A says “Automation increases productivity.” Passage B says “Automation displaces workers.” Do these passages disagree?
No! This is the “assumed disagreement” trap. Both claims can be simultaneously true—automation might increase productivity AND displace workers.
For genuine disagreement, one author must deny what the other affirms. They would disagree if A claimed “Automation doesn’t displace workers” or B claimed “Automation decreases productivity.”
Ask: “Could both claims be true at the same time?” If yes, the positions are compatible, not contradictory. Different aspects ≠ disagreement.
Efficient Reading Strategy for Paired Passages
How you read comparative passages significantly affects comprehension and question performance. The recommended approach: read sequentially, then map.
Sequential Reading
Read Passage A completely first, forming a clear mental model of its main claim, key evidence, and underlying assumptions. Then read Passage B completely, noting how it relates to what you understood from A.
This approach works better for most readers because it allows complete pictures of each passage before comparison. Trying to compare while reading creates cognitive interference.
The 60-90 Second Map
After reading both passages, explicitly map the relationship:
- What’s A’s main claim? What’s B’s main claim?
- Where do they agree?
- Where do they disagree?
- What would A say about B’s argument?
- What would B say about A’s argument?
The Mapping Investment: The 60-90 seconds spent mapping saves more time during questions than it costs. Without a clear map, you’ll repeatedly return to passages to check details. With a solid map, these checks become instant.
Strategy in Action
You’ve just read two passages about education policy. A supports standardized testing; B opposes it. What should your map include before answering questions?
Your map should capture:
A’s Position: Testing = good (provides accountability, measures progress)
B’s Position: Testing = bad (narrows curriculum, teaches to test)
Agree on: Testing affects teaching (both acknowledge impact)
Disagree on: Whether the effect is positive or negative
A would say to B: “Accountability benefits outweigh narrowing”
B would say to A: “Narrowed curriculum undermines real learning”
With this map, you can instantly answer “Both would agree that…” (testing affects teaching) and “The fundamental disagreement concerns…” (whether effects are positive) without re-reading.
Common Comparative Question Types
“Both Authors Would Agree” Questions
These seek common ground—a claim both authors would accept despite differences. The trap is that both might DISCUSS a topic without both AGREEING on a claim about it.
Strategy: Look for agreement at the premise level (shared assumptions), value level (what both consider important), or fact level (background both accept). Agreement on conclusions is rarer if passages differ.
“Unlike Passage A, Passage B…” Questions
These highlight specific contrasts and test whether characterizations are accurate.
Strategy: Verify BOTH characterizations independently. Is the A description accurate? Is the B description accurate? Both must be right. Many wrong answers accurately describe one passage while mischaracterizing the other.
“How Would Author A Respond” Questions
These require predicting one author’s reaction to the other’s specific claim.
Strategy: Identify B’s specific claim. Check A’s position on that exact issue. Predict agreement/disagreement based on A’s stated reasoning—not on stereotyped positions.
Reality Check
For “Unlike A, B…” questions, what’s the most common error that catches strong readers?
The most common error: verifying only one characterization.
Wrong answers are often designed to accurately describe Passage A OR Passage B—but not both correctly. Students who only check “Is this true about B?” miss that the A characterization is wrong.
Example: “Unlike A’s focus on economic factors, B emphasizes cultural dynamics.”
If B does emphasize cultural dynamics but A ALSO emphasizes culture (not just economics), the answer is wrong despite being partially accurate.
For every contrast question, ask three questions: (1) Is the A characterization accurate? (2) Is the B characterization accurate? (3) Do they genuinely contrast? All three must be yes.
Two Traps That Catch Strong Readers
Trap 1: Assumed Disagreement
The most common trap is assuming passages disagree simply because they emphasize different things. Different focus doesn’t equal disagreement.
Detection: Ask “Could both claims be true at the same time?” If yes, positions are compatible, not contradictory.
Trap 2: Assumed Agreement
The opposite trap assumes passages agree because they share vocabulary or general topic. Surface similarity can mask substantive disagreement.
Detection: When both authors seem to agree, check whether they mean the same thing by key terms. Definitional differences often hide substantive conflicts.
Time-Efficient Strategy
Comparative passages require more time than single passages of equivalent total length. Budget 12-15 minutes total.
Reading Phase (6-8 minutes): 2.5-3.5 minutes per passage, plus 60-90 seconds for relationship mapping.
Question Phase (5-7 minutes): Handle individual passage questions first (simpler), comparative questions second (require both passages), response and synthesis questions last (most complex).
Final Self-Assessment
After reading this guide, can you explain the difference between the “assumed disagreement” trap and the “assumed agreement” trap?
If you can explain both clearly, you’ve internalized the key concepts:
Assumed Disagreement: Wrongly thinking passages disagree because they emphasize different aspects. “A discusses benefits, B discusses risks” doesn’t mean they disagree—both can be true.
Assumed Agreement: Wrongly thinking passages agree because they share vocabulary. Both might discuss “democracy” positively but define it completely differently.
For disagreement, one must DENY what the other AFFIRMS. For agreement, they must make the SAME claim, not just discuss the same topic. Surface similarity/difference ≠ substantive agreement/disagreement.
Ready to apply these strategies? The flashcards above reinforce every concept, and the practice questions let you test your paired passage skills against CAT-style comparative passages.
Related Resources
❓ Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about RC comparative passages answered
Comparative passages appear in approximately 40-50% of CAT RC sections, typically as one or two paired passage sets per exam. When they appear, they generate 4-6 questions each, making them a significant portion of your RC score.
The format has become increasingly common because it tests skills single passages cannot: tracking multiple viewpoints, identifying relationships between arguments, and predicting how one author would respond to another. These are higher-order comprehension skills that differentiate strong readers.
The most efficient strategy is sequential reading followed by explicit relationship mapping.
Sequential reading: Read Passage A completely, forming a clear mental model of its position. Then read Passage B completely, noting how it relates to A. This works better than trying to compare while reading because it prevents cognitive interference.
Relationship mapping: After reading both passages, spend 60-90 seconds identifying:
- What’s A’s main claim? What’s B’s main claim?
- Where do they agree? (shared premises, values, facts)
- Where do they disagree? (contradictory claims, different conclusions)
- What would A say about B’s argument? What would B say about A’s?
The Compatibility Test: Ask “Could both authors’ main claims be true at the same time?”
- If YES: The passages are compatible, possibly complementary—not disagreeing
- If NO: The passages genuinely disagree
Surface similarity ≠ Agreement: Two passages might use the same vocabulary without actually agreeing. Both might discuss “democracy” positively but define it completely differently.
Different focus ≠ Disagreement: “Technology increases productivity” (A) and “Technology creates unemployment” (B) can BOTH be true. This isn’t disagreement—it’s different emphasis on the same topic.
• Do they address the same specific question? (not just the same general topic)
• Do they give incompatible answers to that question?
• Would one author deny what the other affirms?
All three should be “yes” for genuine disagreement.
Budget 12-15 minutes total for a comparative passage set with 4-6 questions.
Reading phase: 6-8 minutes
- Passage A: 2.5-3.5 minutes
- Passage B: 2.5-3.5 minutes
- Relationship mapping: 1-2 minutes
Question phase: 5-7 minutes
- Individual passage questions: 45-60 seconds each
- Comparative questions: 60-90 seconds each
“Both authors discuss X” means X appears in both passages. This is a fact about topic coverage. Both passages might discuss “economic growth” without agreeing on anything about it.
“Both authors would agree that X” means both would endorse X as true or valid. This requires substantive alignment, not just shared vocabulary.
Both passages discuss minimum wage policy.
A argues increases help workers; B argues increases harm workers.
✓ “Both authors discuss minimum wage” — TRUE
✓ “Both authors would agree that minimum wage affects employment” — TRUE (common premise)
✗ “Both authors would agree that minimum wage increases are beneficial” — FALSE (only A agrees)
For “both would agree” questions, look for agreement at the premise level (shared assumptions), value level (what both consider important), or fact level (background both accept).
The Four-Step Response Prediction:
- Step 1: Identify the specific claim from B that A is responding to
- Step 2: Check A’s position on that exact issue
- Step 3: Determine if A would AGREE, DISAGREE, or QUALIFY
- Step 4: If disagreeing, identify A’s likely objection based on A’s stated reasoning
Common errors to avoid:
- Don’t invent positions A doesn’t hold
- Don’t exaggerate A’s position to be more extreme
- Don’t base responses on what “someone like A” might say
Build explicit position tracking habits over 6-8 weeks:
Weeks 1-2: Build position tracking skills
For 10 comparative passage sets, practice explicit tracking. After each passage, write main claim, key evidence, and assumptions. Then map agreement/disagreement points.
Weeks 3-4: Practice relationship identification
Focus on classifying relationships: Agreement, Disagreement, Complementary, Partial Overlap. Check your classifications against how questions actually test the relationship.
Weeks 5-6: Focus on trap recognition
Identify when you’re falling for “assumed disagreement” (different focus ≠ disagreement) or “assumed agreement” (shared topic ≠ shared position). Practice the compatibility test.
Weeks 7-8: Timed practice
Set a 14-minute maximum for comparative sets. If you can’t finish in time, identify where you’re losing time—usually inadequate mapping forcing re-reading.
Connect with Prashant
Founder, WordPandit & EDGE | CAT VARC Expert
With 18+ years of teaching experience and thousands of successful CAT aspirants, I’m here to help you master VARC. Whether you’re stuck on RC passages, vocabulary building, or exam strategy—let’s connect and solve it together.
Stuck on RC or VARC? Let’s Solve It Together! 💡
Don’t let doubts slow you down. Whether it’s a tricky RC passage, vocabulary confusion, or exam strategy—I’m here to help. Choose your preferred way to connect and let’s tackle your challenges head-on.
🌟 Explore The Learning Inc. Network
8 specialized platforms. 1 mission: Your success in competitive exams.
Trusted by 50,000+ learners across India
Learn.WordPandit
Learn With Prashant Sir
Mentor-led courses for CAT, GMAT, GRE, GD/PI/WAT. Structured learning with expert guidance.
WordPandit
Master Words. Master Exams.
10,000+ words with roots methodology. Your vocabulary foundation for competitive exams.
Preplite
Smart Learning. Smaller Budgets.
Affordable self-prep micro-courses. Pay only for what you need. Learn at your pace.
Readlite
Read Smart. Comprehend Better.
Daily curated articles across 60+ subjects. Build reading comprehension for RC mastery.
Easy Hinglish
English Seekhna Ab Hua Aasan!
Learn English the Indian way. Vocabulary explained in Hindi and English for better retention.
GD PI WAT
Ace Your MBA Interviews.
1,000+ GD topics, PI questions, and WAT guidance. Complete MBA admission prep.
GK365
Stay Informed. Stay Ahead.
Daily GK updates and current affairs. Never miss what matters for competitive exams.
Ask English Pro
Your Personal English Mentor.
Get expert answers to all your English questions with detailed video explanations.