AILET Mock Test-10 (New Pattern) - CLAT MCQ

Direction: Read the passage given below and answer the question that follows.

In an innovative departure from normal practice, the prime minister will preside over an open debate at the global high-table, namely the UN Security Council, when India holds the President’s chair for a month. This will mark a diplomatic first for an Indian PM: This role has been performed in the past by a minister or a senior diplomat.

The subject to be deliberated upon by the UNSC members is “Enhancing maritime security: A case for international cooperation” under the larger umbrella of the “Maintenance of international peace and security”. This would be an extension of Modi’s advocacy of SAGAR (security and growth for all in the region) that he had unveiled in 2015 in relation to the Indian Ocean region (IOR).

Currently, global maritime security is roiled and the most recent incident that has caused considerable unease about the safety of merchant shipping is the suspected drone attack on an Israeli-controlled tanker in the north Arabian Sea off Oman that killed two crew members. Piracy and non-traditional challenges at sea such as gun-running and smuggling are old chestnuts.

Concurrently, there is the simmering tension in the South China Sea over freedom of navigation (FON) rights in international waters and how China has laid claim to “territoriality” based on artificial structures. This formulation has not been accepted by the US that has exercised transit rights in these waters. Many ASEAN nations and Quad members such as Japan, Australia and India subscribe to the principle of FON and do not buy the Chinese interpretation of the “nine-dash-line” but have not rocked the boat with Beijing. The most recent example of maritime reticence and bilateral prudence apropos China was evident in the Royal Navy sending a carrier task group to the region but opting not to transit within the 12-mile line off the Chinese built structures.

Earlier in the year, accidents onboard large crude carriers and cargo vessels in the IOR have added to the anxiety about marine pollution and its downstream consequences for the health of the oceans. Over the last few decades, global warming and carbon emissions have altered the chemistry of the oceans and a UN report has come up with grim statistics.

Q. Which of the following is not the apropos of Freedom of navigation (FON) rights?

Direction: Read the passage given below and answer the question that follows.

In an innovative departure from normal practice, the prime minister will preside over an open debate at the global high-table, namely the UN Security Council, when India holds the President’s chair for a month. This will mark a diplomatic first for an Indian PM: This role has been performed in the past by a minister or a senior diplomat.

The subject to be deliberated upon by the UNSC members is “Enhancing maritime security: A case for international cooperation” under the larger umbrella of the “Maintenance of international peace and security”. This would be an extension of Modi’s advocacy of SAGAR (security and growth for all in the region) that he had unveiled in 2015 in relation to the Indian Ocean region (IOR).

Currently, global maritime security is roiled and the most recent incident that has caused considerable unease about the safety of merchant shipping is the suspected drone attack on an Israeli-controlled tanker in the north Arabian Sea off Oman that killed two crew members. Piracy and non-traditional challenges at sea such as gun-running and smuggling are old chestnuts.

Concurrently, there is the simmering tension in the South China Sea over freedom of navigation (FON) rights in international waters and how China has laid claim to “territoriality” based on artificial structures. This formulation has not been accepted by the US that has exercised transit rights in these waters. Many ASEAN nations and Quad members such as Japan, Australia and India subscribe to the principle of FON and do not buy the Chinese interpretation of the “nine-dash-line” but have not rocked the boat with Beijing. The most recent example of maritime reticence and bilateral prudence apropos China was evident in the Royal Navy sending a carrier task group to the region but opting not to transit within the 12-mile line off the Chinese built structures.

Earlier in the year, accidents onboard large crude carriers and cargo vessels in the IOR have added to the anxiety about marine pollution and its downstream consequences for the health of the oceans. Over the last few decades, global warming and carbon emissions have altered the chemistry of the oceans and a UN report has come up with grim statistics.

Q. What does ‘grim’ mean in the context of the passage?

Direction: Read the passage given below and answer the question that follows.

There was a time, even till the early 1980s, when Parliament, notwithstanding the odd aberration, distinguished itself as a chamber for both profound debate and high eloquence on matters of national concern and beneficial legislation. An MP knew his vote mattered and therefore there was an incentive to participate in making better laws for the country or even holding his own government to account if the need arose. The best example of that was Feroze Gandhi, who was the Nehru government’s greatest bete noire in the 1950s.

All that started changing with the passage of the Anti-Defection Law in 1985. The statement of objects and reasons of the said law eloquently avowed that “The evil of political defections has been a matter of political concern. If it is not combated it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles that sustain it.”

However, in the past 35 years of its existence, it has only ended up raising the bar of defection from retail to wholesale. Conceived as a legal fiat to enforce political morality, it has ended up completely sucking out the essence of democracy from our legislative institutions. It has turned them into halls of whip-driven tyranny where MPs and MLAs are precluded from exercising their wisdom in terms of their conscience, common sense and constituency interests.

Today the political party that gives any person a ticket to contest on its symbol exerts complete control over their mind and soul. The ordinary Indian who stood in the queue on a blistering midsummer morning to exercise her franchise and elect each and every Member of Parliament becomes just an apparition.

Surely the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, when they opted for universal adult suffrage, did not countenance a template whereby electoral preferences would be exercised by an individual elector but legislative power would reside in a political party? Beheld from this standpoint, the Tenth Schedule is an encroachment on the original canons of the Constitution if not the basic structure doctrine itself.

That is why at 2 pm in the afternoon when the House meets for government legislative business, on the days it is functioning, there is hardly any attendance, for every MP knows that legislation drafted by some joint secretary in the Government of India would be mechanically passed or opposed, depending on the whip issued. Hardly any bills get referred to the parliamentary standing committees.

Q. Which of the following is not a premise of author’s argument in favour of need for ‘universal adult suffrage’?

Direction: Read the passage given below and answer the question that follows.

There was a time, even till the early 1980s, when Parliament, notwithstanding the odd aberration, distinguished itself as a chamber for both profound debate and high eloquence on matters of national concern and beneficial legislation. An MP knew his vote mattered and therefore there was an incentive to participate in making better laws for the country or even holding his own government to account if the need arose. The best example of that was Feroze Gandhi, who was the Nehru government’s greatest bete noire in the 1950s.

All that started changing with the passage of the Anti-Defection Law in 1985. The statement of objects and reasons of the said law eloquently avowed that “The evil of political defections has been a matter of political concern. If it is not combated it is likely to undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles that sustain it.”

However, in the past 35 years of its existence, it has only ended up raising the bar of defection from retail to wholesale. Conceived as a legal fiat to enforce political morality, it has ended up completely sucking out the essence of democracy from our legislative institutions. It has turned them into halls of whip-driven tyranny where MPs and MLAs are precluded from exercising their wisdom in terms of their conscience, common sense and constituency interests.

Today the political party that gives any person a ticket to contest on its symbol exerts complete control over their mind and soul. The ordinary Indian who stood in the queue on a blistering midsummer morning to exercise her franchise and elect each and every Member of Parliament becomes just an apparition.

Surely the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution, when they opted for universal adult suffrage, did not countenance a template whereby electoral preferences would be exercised by an individual elector but legislative power would reside in a political party? Beheld from this standpoint, the Tenth Schedule is an encroachment on the original canons of the Constitution if not the basic structure doctrine itself.

That is why at 2 pm in the afternoon when the House meets for government legislative business, on the days it is functioning, there is hardly any attendance, for every MP knows that legislation drafted by some joint secretary in the Government of India would be mechanically passed or opposed, depending on the whip issued. Hardly any bills get referred to the parliamentary standing committees.

Q. Which of the following is not related to the Anti-Defection Law?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The Body Farm, known officially as the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility, is a gruesome place. It is a hectare of land near Knoxville, cut off from the rest of the world by razor wire, that has, for more than three decades, been at the forefront of forensic science. It is both a laboratory which examines how corpses decay in different circumstances, so that matters such as time of death can be established more accurately, and a training facility for those whose jobs require an understanding of such processes.

To study a body forensically, though, you first have to find it. For a corpse dumped in a city this is hard enough. If the burial site is a forest it can be near impossible. Searchers must cover huge amounts of ground, and may therefore not do so as thoroughly as might be desirable. Vegetation broken by people burying bodies is easy to overlook. And soil perturbed by digging tends not to remain perturbed for long once it has been exposed to wind and rain.

For homicide detectives, then, woodlands are a problem. At least, they have been until now. For Neal Stewart, co-director of the Tennessee Plant Research Centre, another part of the university, reckons that a bit of botanical thinking brought to bear on the matter may turn trees from being cover for the disposal of bodies to signposts showing just where they are hidden. To pursue this idea, he has organised a group of researchers from various departments of the university, one of whom is Dawnie Steadman, the head of the Body Farm. And, as they write this week in Trends in Plant Science, this group has come up with three ways in which vegetation might flag up illicit burials.

The most obvious is fertilisation—for bodies are good fertilisers. Calculations suggest that a decaying adult human body releases about 2.6kg of nitrogenous compounds (mostly ammonia) into the surrounding soil. Such an overdose would surely have consequences for nearby plant life. In particular, it would increase chlorophyll production, and thus cause a perceptible greening of plants near a buried body. In principle, this would be true of the decay of the body of any large animal. But the remains of wild creatures, left on the surface, are usually scavenged quickly. People with a human body to dispose of, generally prefer to inter it so that it cannot be seen.

A more subtle change in the foliage near a buried body would be brought about by any cadmium present within its flesh and bones. Cadmium is rare in nature, but not in some human bodies. Smokers, and also those who work in industries involving welding or electroplating, have high concentrations of this metal. Cadmium is easily taken in by plants through their roots and, once present in their leaves, affects the structure of a molecular complex called photosystem two, which houses chlorophyll. That changes the way this complex absorbs and reflects light. This, in turn, affects the colour of the leaves.

Q. Which of the these presents a contrast to the following sentence as mentioned in paragraph 3:

“a bit of botanical thinking brought to bear on the matter may turn trees from being cover for the disposal of bodies to signposts showing just where they are hidden.”

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The Body Farm, known officially as the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility, is a gruesome place. It is a hectare of land near Knoxville, cut off from the rest of the world by razor wire, that has, for more than three decades, been at the forefront of forensic science. It is both a laboratory which examines how corpses decay in different circumstances, so that matters such as time of death can be established more accurately, and a training facility for those whose jobs require an understanding of such processes.

To study a body forensically, though, you first have to find it. For a corpse dumped in a city this is hard enough. If the burial site is a forest it can be near impossible. Searchers must cover huge amounts of ground, and may therefore not do so as thoroughly as might be desirable. Vegetation broken by people burying bodies is easy to overlook. And soil perturbed by digging tends not to remain perturbed for long once it has been exposed to wind and rain.

For homicide detectives, then, woodlands are a problem. At least, they have been until now. For Neal Stewart, co-director of the Tennessee Plant Research Centre, another part of the university, reckons that a bit of botanical thinking brought to bear on the matter may turn trees from being cover for the disposal of bodies to signposts showing just where they are hidden. To pursue this idea, he has organised a group of researchers from various departments of the university, one of whom is Dawnie Steadman, the head of the Body Farm. And, as they write this week in Trends in Plant Science, this group has come up with three ways in which vegetation might flag up illicit burials.

The most obvious is fertilisation—for bodies are good fertilisers. Calculations suggest that a decaying adult human body releases about 2.6kg of nitrogenous compounds (mostly ammonia) into the surrounding soil. Such an overdose would surely have consequences for nearby plant life. In particular, it would increase chlorophyll production, and thus cause a perceptible greening of plants near a buried body. In principle, this would be true of the decay of the body of any large animal. But the remains of wild creatures, left on the surface, are usually scavenged quickly. People with a human body to dispose of, generally prefer to inter it so that it cannot be seen.

A more subtle change in the foliage near a buried body would be brought about by any cadmium present within its flesh and bones. Cadmium is rare in nature, but not in some human bodies. Smokers, and also those who work in industries involving welding or electroplating, have high concentrations of this metal. Cadmium is easily taken in by plants through their roots and, once present in their leaves, affects the structure of a molecular complex called photosystem two, which houses chlorophyll. That changes the way this complex absorbs and reflects light. This, in turn, affects the colour of the leaves.

Q. What processes does the author refer to when he/she says, “an understanding of such processes” in paragraph 1?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The Body Farm, known officially as the University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility, is a gruesome place. It is a hectare of land near Knoxville, cut off from the rest of the world by razor wire, that has, for more than three decades, been at the forefront of forensic science. It is both a laboratory which examines how corpses decay in different circumstances, so that matters such as time of death can be established more accurately, and a training facility for those whose jobs require an understanding of such processes.

To study a body forensically, though, you first have to find it. For a corpse dumped in a city this is hard enough. If the burial site is a forest it can be near impossible. Searchers must cover huge amounts of ground, and may therefore not do so as thoroughly as might be desirable. Vegetation broken by people burying bodies is easy to overlook. And soil perturbed by digging tends not to remain perturbed for long once it has been exposed to wind and rain.

For homicide detectives, then, woodlands are a problem. At least, they have been until now. For Neal Stewart, co-director of the Tennessee Plant Research Centre, another part of the university, reckons that a bit of botanical thinking brought to bear on the matter may turn trees from being cover for the disposal of bodies to signposts showing just where they are hidden. To pursue this idea, he has organised a group of researchers from various departments of the university, one of whom is Dawnie Steadman, the head of the Body Farm. And, as they write this week in Trends in Plant Science, this group has come up with three ways in which vegetation might flag up illicit burials.

The most obvious is fertilisation—for bodies are good fertilisers. Calculations suggest that a decaying adult human body releases about 2.6kg of nitrogenous compounds (mostly ammonia) into the surrounding soil. Such an overdose would surely have consequences for nearby plant life. In particular, it would increase chlorophyll production, and thus cause a perceptible greening of plants near a buried body. In principle, this would be true of the decay of the body of any large animal. But the remains of wild creatures, left on the surface, are usually scavenged quickly. People with a human body to dispose of, generally prefer to inter it so that it cannot be seen.

A more subtle change in the foliage near a buried body would be brought about by any cadmium present within its flesh and bones. Cadmium is rare in nature, but not in some human bodies. Smokers, and also those who work in industries involving welding or electroplating, have high concentrations of this metal. Cadmium is easily taken in by plants through their roots and, once present in their leaves, affects the structure of a molecular complex called photosystem two, which houses chlorophyll. That changes the way this complex absorbs and reflects light. This, in turn, affects the colour of the leaves.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following statements would the author most agree with?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The education sector—especially K-12 public school systems—aren’t usually the earliest adopters of new technology. Despite the fact that they’re equipping our children for the future, they don’t always move the fastest to get there. For that reason, digital transformation trends in education typically move a bit slower than some other industries. Still, that doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

There is growing interest in using AR and VR to help students “experience” things like history, travel, and even STEM program development. Products like Google Expeditions are aiming to make classroom AR more attainable, with a wide range of experiences available via simple phone apps. One of the cool things about technology today is that it allows for more personalized learning experiences to help kids who have dyslexia or other conditions that cause them to learn differently. For instance, tech like Dragon Speak helps dyslexic students “write” their papers by voice, ensuring that their answers are not limited by their ability to spell or write.

The IoT can allow a student’s teacher to share his or her test results with other teachers and parents in real-time. It can automatically track when homework has been completed and even collect data about how long it takes the student to finish the assignment. With that information, teachers can gain a better understanding of whether their methods are working, whether assignments may be too cumbersome, or if students seem to be working too late into the night. The teachers can then make necessary changes in their methods.

The more common tech access becomes, the more we need to focus on keeping students safe from cyber dangers. We need a stronger focus on role-based access and endpoint security. And with the help of AI and machine learning, manning the many potential threats will be far easier. There are so many digital transformation trends in education that are taking off in pockets throughout the country. Clearly, there will be differences in the type of technology being used in wealthier public school districts and private schools than in disadvantaged ones. However, the changes we’re going to see in 2019 will pave a way for making many of these advancements more universally acceptable.

Q. One of the following sentences mentioned in the passage is grammatically incorrect. Find the incorrect sentence.

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The education sector—especially K-12 public school systems—aren’t usually the earliest adopters of new technology. Despite the fact that they’re equipping our children for the future, they don’t always move the fastest to get there. For that reason, digital transformation trends in education typically move a bit slower than some other industries. Still, that doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.

There is growing interest in using AR and VR to help students “experience” things like history, travel, and even STEM program development. Products like Google Expeditions are aiming to make classroom AR more attainable, with a wide range of experiences available via simple phone apps. One of the cool things about technology today is that it allows for more personalized learning experiences to help kids who have dyslexia or other conditions that cause them to learn differently. For instance, tech like Dragon Speak helps dyslexic students “write” their papers by voice, ensuring that their answers are not limited by their ability to spell or write.

The IoT can allow a student’s teacher to share his or her test results with other teachers and parents in real-time. It can automatically track when homework has been completed and even collect data about how long it takes the student to finish the assignment. With that information, teachers can gain a better understanding of whether their methods are working, whether assignments may be too cumbersome, or if students seem to be working too late into the night. The teachers can then make necessary changes in their methods.

The more common tech access becomes, the more we need to focus on keeping students safe from cyber dangers. We need a stronger focus on role-based access and endpoint security. And with the help of AI and machine learning, manning the many potential threats will be far easier. There are so many digital transformation trends in education that are taking off in pockets throughout the country. Clearly, there will be differences in the type of technology being used in wealthier public school districts and private schools than in disadvantaged ones. However, the changes we’re going to see in 2019 will pave a way for making many of these advancements more universally acceptable.

Q. Which of the following words is neither a synonym nor an antonym to “attainable” as used in the passage?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. China is making promising progress with testing its digital yuan currency. It has announced the success of a pilot in Suzhou City, near Shanghai in eastern China, where 181,000 consumers were given ¥55 of free money in digital wallets to spend.

This was part of a bigger test by the People’s Bank of China targeting 500,000 consumers in 11 Chinese regions since April. For those eligible, there is a straightforward app to download which gives them a wallet.

The digital yuan is a version of the normal Chinese currency deployed on a blockchain, which is the tamper-proof online ledger technology similar to digital coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, this blockchain needs permission, meaning the People’s Bank of China decides who can use it.

Payments using it are fundamentally different from those on payments platforms like Alipay or WeChat (or indeed PayPal in the west). Such services may settle transactions very quickly for customers, but behind the scenes are ledgers of large numbers of transactions between the banks of the buyers and sellers and often also intermediary banks that settle hours or even days later.

The digital yuan bypasses the need for these banks. There is no service fee, unlike these payment alternatives, and in theory, the speed of payments can be even faster.

Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, the currency is also backed by a government. This means that the issuance of digital yuan is the same as the issuance of cash in circulation, making it just as secure. It gives the government better control over the money supply since, unlike with cash, officials can see all the transactions taking place at any given time.

The latest round of tests is ten times the size of the original round that took place in autumn 2020. China has also been trialing the digital yuan cross-border between Hong Kong and neighboring Shenzhen and is developing a platform for making the currency internationally viable that involves Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and the Bank of International Settlements.

Every step forward increases the prospect of China _____(A)_____ to put its currency fully on a legally allowed blockchain. No date has been announced, but a national rollout seems foreseeable within the next 12 months, most likely in staggered stages.

In contrast, western central banks like the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, and to a lesser extent the European Central Bank have all been moving more slowly on so-called central bank digital currencies. They worry about things like getting privacy right when all transactions will be publicly visible on the blockchain, and about the effect on retail banks.

Yet a digital yuan raises profound questions about global financial stability. The question for the world’s other major economies is how to respond.

Q. Which of the following makes the digital yuan fundamentally different from other digital payments?

I. It is backed and control by the Chinese government.

II. It bypasses the ‘behind the scenes’ ledgers between banks and seller.

III. It is ten time powerful than the normal currency.

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

China is making promising progress with testing its digital yuan currency. It has announced the success of a pilot in Suzhou City, near Shanghai in eastern China, where 181,000 consumers were given ¥55 of free money in digital wallets to spend.

This was part of a bigger test by the People’s Bank of China targeting 500,000 consumers in 11 Chinese regions since April. For those eligible, there is a straightforward app to download which gives them a wallet.

The digital yuan is a version of the normal Chinese currency deployed on a blockchain, which is the tamper-proof online ledger technology similar to digital coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, this blockchain needs permission, meaning the People’s Bank of China decides who can use it.

Payments using it are fundamentally different from those on payments platforms like Alipay or WeChat (or indeed PayPal in the west). Such services may settle transactions very quickly for customers, but behind the scenes are ledgers of large numbers of transactions between the banks of the buyers and sellers and often also intermediary banks that settle hours or even days later.

The digital yuan bypasses the need for these banks. There is no service fee, unlike these payment alternatives, and in theory, the speed of payments can be even faster.

Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, the currency is also backed by a government. This means that the issuance of digital yuan is the same as the issuance of cash in circulation, making it just as secure. It gives the government better control over the money supply since, unlike with cash, officials can see all the transactions taking place at any given time.

The latest round of tests is ten times the size of the original round that took place in autumn 2020. China has also been trialing the digital yuan cross-border between Hong Kong and neighboring Shenzhen and is developing a platform for making the currency internationally viable that involves Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and the Bank of International Settlements.

Every step forward increases the prospect of China _____(A)_____ to put its currency fully on a legally allowed blockchain. No date has been announced, but a national rollout seems foreseeable within the next 12 months, most likely in staggered stages.

In contrast, western central banks like the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, and to a lesser extent the European Central Bank have all been moving more slowly on so-called central bank digital currencies. They worry about things like getting privacy right when all transactions will be publicly visible on the blockchain, and about the effect on retail banks.

Yet a digital yuan raises profound questions about global financial stability. The question for the world’s other major economies is how to respond.

Q. Which of the following statement (s) is TRUE as per the passage?

I. The value of digital yuan is equal to the cash circulated in China.

II. The government does not have any control on the digital yuan.

III. The payment with digital yuan is faster and without any service fee.

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

China is making promising progress with testing its digital yuan currency. It has announced the success of a pilot in Suzhou City, near Shanghai in eastern China, where 181,000 consumers were given ¥55 of free money in digital wallets to spend.

This was part of a bigger test by the People’s Bank of China targeting 500,000 consumers in 11 Chinese regions since April. For those eligible, there is a straightforward app to download which gives them a wallet.

The digital yuan is a version of the normal Chinese currency deployed on a blockchain, which is the tamper-proof online ledger technology similar to digital coins like Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, this blockchain needs permission, meaning the People’s Bank of China decides who can use it.

Payments using it are fundamentally different from those on payments platforms like Alipay or WeChat (or indeed PayPal in the west). Such services may settle transactions very quickly for customers, but behind the scenes are ledgers of large numbers of transactions between the banks of the buyers and sellers and often also intermediary banks that settle hours or even days later.

The digital yuan bypasses the need for these banks. There is no service fee, unlike these payment alternatives, and in theory, the speed of payments can be even faster.

Unlike cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, the currency is also backed by a government. This means that the issuance of digital yuan is the same as the issuance of cash in circulation, making it just as secure. It gives the government better control over the money supply since, unlike with cash, officials can see all the transactions taking place at any given time.

The latest round of tests is ten times the size of the original round that took place in autumn 2020. China has also been trialing the digital yuan cross-border between Hong Kong and neighboring Shenzhen and is developing a platform for making the currency internationally viable that involves Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and the Bank of International Settlements.

Every step forward increases the prospect of China _____(A)_____ to put its currency fully on a legally allowed blockchain. No date has been announced, but a national rollout seems foreseeable within the next 12 months, most likely in staggered stages.

In contrast, western central banks like the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, and to a lesser extent the European Central Bank have all been moving more slowly on so-called central bank digital currencies. They worry about things like getting privacy right when all transactions will be publicly visible on the blockchain, and about the effect on retail banks.

Yet a digital yuan raises profound questions about global financial stability. The question for the world’s other major economies is how to respond.

Q. Which of the following is the most SIMILAR to the given word as it has been used in the passage?

Profound

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The story of Catherine of Braganza is quite compelling. She was born on November 25, St Catherine’s Day, to João, Duke of Braganza, and the formidable Dona Luisa de Gusmão. When Catherine was two, João restored the Portuguese crown from Spanish rule, becoming João IV of Portugal. She was married to Charles II of England.

Catherine had a sheltered upbringing, moulding her into the archetypal devout Roman Catholic “convent-educated” maiden, unwise to the ways of the world. Although you wouldn’t guess it from her royal portraits, she was petite, plain and buck-toothed. In contrast, Charles was tall, dashing and a cad. Marriage vows meant little to him. Catherine’s shock, when confronted with his philandering soon after arriving in England in 1662, can only be imagined. She was far from home, in a cold unwelcoming clime where no-one understood her native tongue and she knew no English. She had no family of her own in a land that was Protestant, a faith she considered heretical.

Her life could have been very different. She had received proposals from Louis XIV of France and others. She could have been a Catholic queen in France, but her mother had chosen this match above others for political gain. England shared Portugal’s enmity with Spain, and a powerful enemy of an enemy is a formidable friend. The English rout of the mighty Spanish Armada in 1588 less than a century before was considered a strong deterrent, should Spain wished to recapture Portugal. Catherine had to make the best of her lot.

The fact that she suffered three miscarriages and produced no heirs for the king was held against her. Nevertheless, the marriage seemingly gravitated to an equilibrium: she forgave him his infidelities and instead worried about his soul, while he grew to admire her. Her fervent, unabashed Catholicism also made her the target of anti-Catholic sentiment. She was maliciously implicated in a conspiracy, the so-called ‘Popish plot’ (1678), at which her husband rose to her defence.

Catherine mellowed, and began to enjoy playing cards, dancing, organising courtly entertainments (masques), picnics, fishing and archery, and took to wearing men’s clothing and shorter dresses that “showed off her pretty, neat legs, ankles and feet”. Much is made of the typically shy queen going incognito into a country fair, only to be caught out and having to beat a hasty retreat.

In 1670, Charles commissioned a Royal pleasure yacht, HMY Saudadoes (a corruption of the Portuguese Saudades), for Catherine to sail on the Thames. The yacht also made two trips to Portugal. Although Catherine wouldn’t come to Charles’s deathbed, she instead asked “to beg his pardon if she had offended him all his life”, to which Charles gasped, “Alas poor woman! She asks for my pardon? I beg hers with all my heart; take her back that answer.”

Q. What does the author mean by the term ‘to beat a hasty retreat’ as used in Paragraph 5?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

The story of Catherine of Braganza is quite compelling. She was born on November 25, St Catherine’s Day, to João, Duke of Braganza, and the formidable Dona Luisa de Gusmão. When Catherine was two, João restored the Portuguese crown from Spanish rule, becoming João IV of Portugal. She was married to Charles II of England.

Catherine had a sheltered upbringing, moulding her into the archetypal devout Roman Catholic “convent-educated” maiden, unwise to the ways of the world. Although you wouldn’t guess it from her royal portraits, she was petite, plain and buck-toothed. In contrast, Charles was tall, dashing and a cad. Marriage vows meant little to him. Catherine’s shock, when confronted with his philandering soon after arriving in England in 1662, can only be imagined. She was far from home, in a cold unwelcoming clime where no-one understood her native tongue and she knew no English. She had no family of her own in a land that was Protestant, a faith she considered heretical.

Her life could have been very different. She had received proposals from Louis XIV of France and others. She could have been a Catholic queen in France, but her mother had chosen this match above others for political gain. England shared Portugal’s enmity with Spain, and a powerful enemy of an enemy is a formidable friend. The English rout of the mighty Spanish Armada in 1588 less than a century before was considered a strong deterrent, should Spain wished to recapture Portugal. Catherine had to make the best of her lot.

The fact that she suffered three miscarriages and produced no heirs for the king was held against her. Nevertheless, the marriage seemingly gravitated to an equilibrium: she forgave him his infidelities and instead worried about his soul, while he grew to admire her. Her fervent, unabashed Catholicism also made her the target of anti-Catholic sentiment. She was maliciously implicated in a conspiracy, the so-called ‘Popish plot’ (1678), at which her husband rose to her defence.

Catherine mellowed, and began to enjoy playing cards, dancing, organising courtly entertainments (masques), picnics, fishing and archery, and took to wearing men’s clothing and shorter dresses that “showed off her pretty, neat legs, ankles and feet”. Much is made of the typically shy queen going incognito into a country fair, only to be caught out and having to beat a hasty retreat.

In 1670, Charles commissioned a Royal pleasure yacht, HMY Saudadoes (a corruption of the Portuguese Saudades), for Catherine to sail on the Thames. The yacht also made two trips to Portugal. Although Catherine wouldn’t come to Charles’s deathbed, she instead asked “to beg his pardon if she had offended him all his life”, to which Charles gasped, “Alas poor woman! She asks for my pardon? I beg hers with all my heart; take her back that answer.”

Q. “Despite initial setbacks, Catherine eventually grew to like England and its people.”

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

NASA's Perseverance rover keeps making history. The six-wheeled robot has converted some carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere into oxygen, the first time this has happened on another planet, the space agency said Wednesday. "This is a critical first step at converting carbon dioxide to oxygen on Mars," said Jim Reuter, associate administrator for NASA's space technology mission directorate.

The technology demonstration took place on April 20, and it's hoped future versions of the experimental instrument that was used could pave the way for future human exploration. Not only can the process produce oxygen for future astronauts to breathe, but it could make hauling vast amounts of oxygen over from Earth to use as rocket propellant for the return journey unnecessary.

The Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment -- or MOXIE -- is a golden box the size of a car battery, and is located inside the front right side of the rover.

Dubbed a "mechanical tree," it uses electricity and chemistry to split carbon dioxide molecules, which are made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It also produces carbon monoxide as a byproduct. In its first run, MOXIE produced 5 grams of oxygen, equivalent to about 10 minutes of breathable oxygen for an astronaut carrying out normal activity.

MOXIE's engineers will now run more tests and try to step up its output. It is designed to be able to generate up to 10 grams of oxygen per hour.

Designed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MOXIE was built with heat-resistant materials like nickel alloy and designed to tolerate the searing temperatures of 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Celsius) required for it to run.

A thin gold coating ensures it doesn't radiate its heat and harm the rover.

MIT engineer Michael Hecht said a one ton version of MOXIE could produce the approximately 55,000 pounds (25 tons) of oxygen needed for a rocket to blast off from Mars.

Producing oxygen from Mars' 96 percent carbon dioxide atmosphere might be a more feasible option than extracting ice from under its surface then electrolyzing it to make oxygen.

Perseverance landed on the Red Planet on February 18 on a mission to search for signs for microbial life. Its mini helicopter Ingenuity made history this week by achieving the first powered flight on another planet. The rover itself has also directly recorded the sounds of Mars for the first time.

Q. Which of the following statements would the author agree with the most?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

NASA's Perseverance rover keeps making history. The six-wheeled robot has converted some carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere into oxygen, the first time this has happened on another planet, the space agency said Wednesday. "This is a critical first step at converting carbon dioxide to oxygen on Mars," said Jim Reuter, associate administrator for NASA's space technology mission directorate.

The technology demonstration took place on April 20, and it's hoped future versions of the experimental instrument that was used could pave the way for future human exploration. Not only can the process produce oxygen for future astronauts to breathe, but it could make hauling vast amounts of oxygen over from Earth to use as rocket propellant for the return journey unnecessary.

The Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment -- or MOXIE -- is a golden box the size of a car battery, and is located inside the front right side of the rover.

Dubbed a "mechanical tree," it uses electricity and chemistry to split carbon dioxide molecules, which are made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It also produces carbon monoxide as a byproduct. In its first run, MOXIE produced 5 grams of oxygen, equivalent to about 10 minutes of breathable oxygen for an astronaut carrying out normal activity.

MOXIE's engineers will now run more tests and try to step up its output. It is designed to be able to generate up to 10 grams of oxygen per hour.

Designed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MOXIE was built with heat-resistant materials like nickel alloy and designed to tolerate the searing temperatures of 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Celsius) required for it to run.

A thin gold coating ensures it doesn't radiate its heat and harm the rover.

MIT engineer Michael Hecht said a one ton version of MOXIE could produce the approximately 55,000 pounds (25 tons) of oxygen needed for a rocket to blast off from Mars.

Producing oxygen from Mars' 96 percent carbon dioxide atmosphere might be a more feasible option than extracting ice from under its surface then electrolyzing it to make oxygen.

Perseverance landed on the Red Planet on February 18 on a mission to search for signs for microbial life. Its mini helicopter Ingenuity made history this week by achieving the first powered flight on another planet. The rover itself has also directly recorded the sounds of Mars for the first time.

Q. What do the author mean by 'pave the way for future human exploration'?

Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.

NASA's Perseverance rover keeps making history. The six-wheeled robot has converted some carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere into oxygen, the first time this has happened on another planet, the space agency said Wednesday. "This is a critical first step at converting carbon dioxide to oxygen on Mars," said Jim Reuter, associate administrator for NASA's space technology mission directorate.

The technology demonstration took place on April 20, and it's hoped future versions of the experimental instrument that was used could pave the way for future human exploration. Not only can the process produce oxygen for future astronauts to breathe, but it could make hauling vast amounts of oxygen over from Earth to use as rocket propellant for the return journey unnecessary.

The Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment -- or MOXIE -- is a golden box the size of a car battery, and is located inside the front right side of the rover.

Dubbed a "mechanical tree," it uses electricity and chemistry to split carbon dioxide molecules, which are made up of one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. It also produces carbon monoxide as a byproduct. In its first run, MOXIE produced 5 grams of oxygen, equivalent to about 10 minutes of breathable oxygen for an astronaut carrying out normal activity.

MOXIE's engineers will now run more tests and try to step up its output. It is designed to be able to generate up to 10 grams of oxygen per hour.

Designed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MOXIE was built with heat-resistant materials like nickel alloy and designed to tolerate the searing temperatures of 1,470 degrees Fahrenheit (800 Celsius) required for it to run.

A thin gold coating ensures it doesn't radiate its heat and harm the rover.

MIT engineer Michael Hecht said a one ton version of MOXIE could produce the approximately 55,000 pounds (25 tons) of oxygen needed for a rocket to blast off from Mars.

Producing oxygen from Mars' 96 percent carbon dioxide atmosphere might be a more feasible option than extracting ice from under its surface then electrolyzing it to make oxygen.

Perseverance landed on the Red Planet on February 18 on a mission to search for signs for microbial life. Its mini helicopter Ingenuity made history this week by achieving the first powered flight on another planet. The rover itself has also directly recorded the sounds of Mars for the first time.

Q. Which of the following statement is/are false with reference to the passage?

I. MOXIE is located inside the front left side of the rover.

II. The process can make hauling vast amounts of oxygen over from Earth to use as rocket propellant for the return journey unnecessary.

III. MOXIE can tolerate the searing temperatures of 1,450 degrees Fahrenheit.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

After three years of Ms. Violeta Barrios de Chamorro's presidency, Nicaragua is still in a state of political crisis. The country is paralyzed by a struggle between her and a divided legislature and soured by the government's inability to meet the basic economic needs of the populace.

Ms. Chamorro was elected in February 1990 after a 12 year long civil war between the then ruling Sandinistas and the United States backed Contra guerrillas. The National Endowment for Democracy which was funded by the US Congress to support non–Sandinista opposition groups in Nicaragua played the most visible role in forming Ms. Chamorro's United Nicaraguan Opposition.

The UNO consists of 14 parties with widely differing ideologies – conservatives and Christian democrats to liberals and communists. During the election campaign the Sandinista National Liberation Front or FSLN was depicted as a party of "war, poverty, death and misery". UNO was identified as the party of peace and economic recovery. UNO's platform included plans to expand the market economy, abolish compulsory military service and radically reduce the size of the armed forces.

What truly united its diverse membership, however, was the common objective of defeating the FSLN. The FSLN had led a successful socialist revolution against the Somoza dictatorship and then fought a bitter, low intensity war unleashed by the US under the guise of restoring democracy in Central America. The objective of this US sponsored Contra "revolution" was to overthrow the leftwing Sandinistas. The war shattered the economy and the Sandinista revolution, opening the way for UNO's victory in 1990.

Under Ms. Chamorro, the UNO won an absolute majority. The Sandinistas remained the single largest party with 41 per cent of the votes. Ms Chamorro promised to make Nicaragua a full and peaceful democracy. The US also promised to usher in a new era of progress with an increased dose of aid.

Today, UNO is a house divided. The Sandinistas which brought the members together is ironically the source of disunity now. There is much criticism of Ms. Chamorro and her close advisers within the coalition for having made an "illegitimate and immoral marriage with the FSLN". Among other things, as part of her national reconciliation policy Ms. Chamorro allowed the Sandinistas to retain their hold over the army and police. At least six of the 14 UNO partners support the formation of a new opposition group. Bitterness has run so deep that the UNO has formally declared itself the opposition. Leaders refuse to meet Ms. Chamorro.

The present crisis was sparked off when the comptroller general, Mr. Guillermo Potoy, was dismissed allegedly to shield a colleague of Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Antonio Lacayo Oyanguren, from charges of corruption. Mr. Potoy made public a report accusing the former deputy minister, Mr. Antonio lbarra, of misappropriating $1,000,000 in foreign aid. Ms. Chamorro's chief advisor, Mr. Lacayo, was charged with responsibility for the actions of his former deputy.

The scandal surfaced just weeks after the president had dissolved the National Assembly directorate. Using executive powers Ms Chamorro named a new directorate that held new elections. UNO refused to participate leaving the legislative leadership to the Sandinistas and breakaway groups from the UNO.

The first move of the revised assembly was to fire the comptroller general on a written request from the president. The charges were dismissed as an attempt by rightwing elements in the ruling party to discredit Ms. Chamorro's government for collaborating with FSLN on security and economic matters.

In Nicaragua corruption can make or break a government. The Sandinista revolution was triggered by corruption surrounding relief aid to the 1972 Nicaraguan quake victims. It was this act that sparked off the long crusade of Pedro Joquin Chamorro, Ms. Chamorro's husband and the editor of La Prensa against the dynasty. The assassination of Joquin Chamarro was just the sort of tinder needed to ignite what the New York Times called a "national mutiny".

The 1972 scandal gave the FSLN the opportunity to enter Nicaraguan politics. Whether they will be able to repeat the feat in 1993 is doubtful. One of the contentious issues facing Ms. Chamorro's government concerns land and property expropriated during the Sandinista regime. The president issued three decrees and a presidential agreement in September last year in an attempt to quash the issue. This included 4,600 redressed claims from property owners. The agreement specified confiscated property be returned to the rightful owners or that they be compensated.

To avoid unrest in the rural areas she specified it would be impossible to return land confiscated and distributed among the peasants now holding legal title or those confiscated for public purposes. Property owned by the former dictator and the national guard was also not to be returned. Though Ms. Chamorro's decision was politically sensible it angered UNO's ultra right and external paymasters in Washington.

Prior to 1979 1.5 percent of Nicaraguan big landowners possessed 41.5 per cent of all cultivable land. The Somoza dynasty controlled a major chunk of the arable land, dominating 40 percent of the rice production.

As punishment for the failure to reverse land reform the US blocked $ 100,000,000 worth of aid. The Sandinista Chamorro link up antagonized US legislators like Senator Jesse Helms. The Bush administration held up $104 million assistance for months to register its dissatisfaction. Half the aid is still being withheld despite the desperate state of Nicaragua. Managua now awaits the response of the new reformist government in Washington.

Nicaragua's economy is in the doldrums. Fifty–three percent of the population is either unemployed or underemployed, inflation is astronomically high, more so after the devaluation of the currency by 20 percent.

In addition to this is the fear of civil war, which may erupt any time. The creation of an armed ultra left force comprising former Sandinista operatives is a warning shot. This group killed three prominent landlords or ranchers trying to reclaim land confiscated during Sandinista rule. The leftist punishment front also set off a number of small bomb blasts in schools and private enterprises. Former Contras and soldiers of the Sandinista army have also formed armed groups.

A series of assassinations and clashes in the north indicate the revival of the violence which wrecked the country in the last one decade. Mr. Alredo Caesar, one of Ms. Chamarro's critics and a former Contra, says. "I cannot say there is war, but what we have are the preparations for war. If institutional channels for change remain closed, I am afraid within 90 days we will see a reactivation of the war".

No one wants to return to the days of civil war. "It is a tragedy even to talk about returning to war," said Mr. Sergio Ramirez, leader of the Sandinista legislative delegation. "To stabilize the democratic process, Ms Chamorro needs to complete her term as president."

The Sandinista electoral defeat was projected by the Western media as another example of socialism's failure and how in free elections pro–Western forces always prevail over leftists. The reality was that it was US pressure and consequent economic deprivation and civil war that convinced a minority of voters to opt for the UNO. After the elections the US lifted its trade embargo.

Washington still has a stake in keeping UNO one party. The FSLN is the largest single party. Both the US and Ms. Chamorro have an interest in keeping UNO together and US aid is being used to cement the coalition. Even then the present government will find it difficult to consolidate power and resolve fundamental contradictions within its ranks.

Halfway through her tenure, Ms. Chamorro should now ask Nicaraguans the same question she asked in 1990: "Are you better off now than you were six years ago"? The answer then was no. One can presume what the answer will be now. It remains to be seen if Ms. Chamorro, once the darling of the West, will be able to lead "free Nicaragua" for another three years.

Q. The Somoza dynasty during their rule of dictatorship owned _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

After three years of Ms. Violeta Barrios de Chamorro's presidency, Nicaragua is still in a state of political crisis. The country is paralyzed by a struggle between her and a divided legislature and soured by the government's inability to meet the basic economic needs of the populace.

Ms. Chamorro was elected in February 1990 after a 12 year long civil war between the then ruling Sandinistas and the United States backed Contra guerrillas. The National Endowment for Democracy which was funded by the US Congress to support non–Sandinista opposition groups in Nicaragua played the most visible role in forming Ms. Chamorro's United Nicaraguan Opposition.

The UNO consists of 14 parties with widely differing ideologies – conservatives and Christian democrats to liberals and communists. During the election campaign the Sandinista National Liberation Front or FSLN was depicted as a party of "war, poverty, death and misery". UNO was identified as the party of peace and economic recovery. UNO's platform included plans to expand the market economy, abolish compulsory military service and radically reduce the size of the armed forces.

What truly united its diverse membership, however, was the common objective of defeating the FSLN. The FSLN had led a successful socialist revolution against the Somoza dictatorship and then fought a bitter, low intensity war unleashed by the US under the guise of restoring democracy in Central America. The objective of this US sponsored Contra "revolution" was to overthrow the leftwing Sandinistas. The war shattered the economy and the Sandinista revolution, opening the way for UNO's victory in 1990.

Under Ms. Chamorro, the UNO won an absolute majority. The Sandinistas remained the single largest party with 41 per cent of the votes. Ms Chamorro promised to make Nicaragua a full and peaceful democracy. The US also promised to usher in a new era of progress with an increased dose of aid.

Today, UNO is a house divided. The Sandinistas which brought the members together is ironically the source of disunity now. There is much criticism of Ms. Chamorro and her close advisers within the coalition for having made an "illegitimate and immoral marriage with the FSLN". Among other things, as part of her national reconciliation policy Ms. Chamorro allowed the Sandinistas to retain their hold over the army and police. At least six of the 14 UNO partners support the formation of a new opposition group. Bitterness has run so deep that the UNO has formally declared itself the opposition. Leaders refuse to meet Ms. Chamorro.

The present crisis was sparked off when the comptroller general, Mr. Guillermo Potoy, was dismissed allegedly to shield a colleague of Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Antonio Lacayo Oyanguren, from charges of corruption. Mr. Potoy made public a report accusing the former deputy minister, Mr. Antonio lbarra, of misappropriating $1,000,000 in foreign aid. Ms. Chamorro's chief advisor, Mr. Lacayo, was charged with responsibility for the actions of his former deputy.

The scandal surfaced just weeks after the president had dissolved the National Assembly directorate. Using executive powers Ms Chamorro named a new directorate that held new elections. UNO refused to participate leaving the legislative leadership to the Sandinistas and breakaway groups from the UNO.

The first move of the revised assembly was to fire the comptroller general on a written request from the president. The charges were dismissed as an attempt by rightwing elements in the ruling party to discredit Ms. Chamorro's government for collaborating with FSLN on security and economic matters.

In Nicaragua corruption can make or break a government. The Sandinista revolution was triggered by corruption surrounding relief aid to the 1972 Nicaraguan quake victims. It was this act that sparked off the long crusade of Pedro Joquin Chamorro, Ms. Chamorro's husband and the editor of La Prensa against the dynasty. The assassination of Joquin Chamarro was just the sort of tinder needed to ignite what the New York Times called a "national mutiny".

The 1972 scandal gave the FSLN the opportunity to enter Nicaraguan politics. Whether they will be able to repeat the feat in 1993 is doubtful. One of the contentious issues facing Ms. Chamorro's government concerns land and property expropriated during the Sandinista regime. The president issued three decrees and a presidential agreement in September last year in an attempt to quash the issue. This included 4,600 redressed claims from property owners. The agreement specified confiscated property be returned to the rightful owners or that they be compensated.

To avoid unrest in the rural areas she specified it would be impossible to return land confiscated and distributed among the peasants now holding legal title or those confiscated for public purposes. Property owned by the former dictator and the national guard was also not to be returned. Though Ms. Chamorro's decision was politically sensible it angered UNO's ultra right and external paymasters in Washington.

Prior to 1979 1.5 percent of Nicaraguan big landowners possessed 41.5 per cent of all cultivable land. The Somoza dynasty controlled a major chunk of the arable land, dominating 40 percent of the rice production.

As punishment for the failure to reverse land reform the US blocked $ 100,000,000 worth of aid. The Sandinista Chamorro link up antagonized US legislators like Senator Jesse Helms. The Bush administration held up $104 million assistance for months to register its dissatisfaction. Half the aid is still being withheld despite the desperate state of Nicaragua. Managua now awaits the response of the new reformist government in Washington.

Nicaragua's economy is in the doldrums. Fifty–three percent of the population is either unemployed or underemployed, inflation is astronomically high, more so after the devaluation of the currency by 20 percent.

In addition to this is the fear of civil war, which may erupt any time. The creation of an armed ultra left force comprising former Sandinista operatives is a warning shot. This group killed three prominent landlords or ranchers trying to reclaim land confiscated during Sandinista rule. The leftist punishment front also set off a number of small bomb blasts in schools and private enterprises. Former Contras and soldiers of the Sandinista army have also formed armed groups.

A series of assassinations and clashes in the north indicate the revival of the violence which wrecked the country in the last one decade. Mr. Alredo Caesar, one of Ms. Chamarro's critics and a former Contra, says. "I cannot say there is war, but what we have are the preparations for war. If institutional channels for change remain closed, I am afraid within 90 days we will see a reactivation of the war".

No one wants to return to the days of civil war. "It is a tragedy even to talk about returning to war," said Mr. Sergio Ramirez, leader of the Sandinista legislative delegation. "To stabilize the democratic process, Ms Chamorro needs to complete her term as president."

The Sandinista electoral defeat was projected by the Western media as another example of socialism's failure and how in free elections pro–Western forces always prevail over leftists. The reality was that it was US pressure and consequent economic deprivation and civil war that convinced a minority of voters to opt for the UNO. After the elections the US lifted its trade embargo.

Washington still has a stake in keeping UNO one party. The FSLN is the largest single party. Both the US and Ms. Chamorro have an interest in keeping UNO together and US aid is being used to cement the coalition. Even then the present government will find it difficult to consolidate power and resolve fundamental contradictions within its ranks.

Halfway through her tenure, Ms. Chamorro should now ask Nicaraguans the same question she asked in 1990: "Are you better off now than you were six years ago"? The answer then was no. One can presume what the answer will be now. It remains to be seen if Ms. Chamorro, once the darling of the West, will be able to lead "free Nicaragua" for another three years.

Q. The bone of contention between the president and the other members of the ruling party is _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

After three years of Ms. Violeta Barrios de Chamorro's presidency, Nicaragua is still in a state of political crisis. The country is paralyzed by a struggle between her and a divided legislature and soured by the government's inability to meet the basic economic needs of the populace.

Ms. Chamorro was elected in February 1990 after a 12 year long civil war between the then ruling Sandinistas and the United States backed Contra guerrillas. The National Endowment for Democracy which was funded by the US Congress to support non–Sandinista opposition groups in Nicaragua played the most visible role in forming Ms. Chamorro's United Nicaraguan Opposition.

The UNO consists of 14 parties with widely differing ideologies – conservatives and Christian democrats to liberals and communists. During the election campaign the Sandinista National Liberation Front or FSLN was depicted as a party of "war, poverty, death and misery". UNO was identified as the party of peace and economic recovery. UNO's platform included plans to expand the market economy, abolish compulsory military service and radically reduce the size of the armed forces.

What truly united its diverse membership, however, was the common objective of defeating the FSLN. The FSLN had led a successful socialist revolution against the Somoza dictatorship and then fought a bitter, low intensity war unleashed by the US under the guise of restoring democracy in Central America. The objective of this US sponsored Contra "revolution" was to overthrow the leftwing Sandinistas. The war shattered the economy and the Sandinista revolution, opening the way for UNO's victory in 1990.

Under Ms. Chamorro, the UNO won an absolute majority. The Sandinistas remained the single largest party with 41 per cent of the votes. Ms Chamorro promised to make Nicaragua a full and peaceful democracy. The US also promised to usher in a new era of progress with an increased dose of aid.

Today, UNO is a house divided. The Sandinistas which brought the members together is ironically the source of disunity now. There is much criticism of Ms. Chamorro and her close advisers within the coalition for having made an "illegitimate and immoral marriage with the FSLN". Among other things, as part of her national reconciliation policy Ms. Chamorro allowed the Sandinistas to retain their hold over the army and police. At least six of the 14 UNO partners support the formation of a new opposition group. Bitterness has run so deep that the UNO has formally declared itself the opposition. Leaders refuse to meet Ms. Chamorro.

The present crisis was sparked off when the comptroller general, Mr. Guillermo Potoy, was dismissed allegedly to shield a colleague of Ms. Chamorro, Mr. Antonio Lacayo Oyanguren, from charges of corruption. Mr. Potoy made public a report accusing the former deputy minister, Mr. Antonio lbarra, of misappropriating $1,000,000 in foreign aid. Ms. Chamorro's chief advisor, Mr. Lacayo, was charged with responsibility for the actions of his former deputy.

The scandal surfaced just weeks after the president had dissolved the National Assembly directorate. Using executive powers Ms Chamorro named a new directorate that held new elections. UNO refused to participate leaving the legislative leadership to the Sandinistas and breakaway groups from the UNO.

The first move of the revised assembly was to fire the comptroller general on a written request from the president. The charges were dismissed as an attempt by rightwing elements in the ruling party to discredit Ms. Chamorro's government for collaborating with FSLN on security and economic matters.

In Nicaragua corruption can make or break a government. The Sandinista revolution was triggered by corruption surrounding relief aid to the 1972 Nicaraguan quake victims. It was this act that sparked off the long crusade of Pedro Joquin Chamorro, Ms. Chamorro's husband and the editor of La Prensa against the dynasty. The assassination of Joquin Chamarro was just the sort of tinder needed to ignite what the New York Times called a "national mutiny".

The 1972 scandal gave the FSLN the opportunity to enter Nicaraguan politics. Whether they will be able to repeat the feat in 1993 is doubtful. One of the contentious issues facing Ms. Chamorro's government concerns land and property expropriated during the Sandinista regime. The president issued three decrees and a presidential agreement in September last year in an attempt to quash the issue. This included 4,600 redressed claims from property owners. The agreement specified confiscated property be returned to the rightful owners or that they be compensated.

To avoid unrest in the rural areas she specified it would be impossible to return land confiscated and distributed among the peasants now holding legal title or those confiscated for public purposes. Property owned by the former dictator and the national guard was also not to be returned. Though Ms. Chamorro's decision was politically sensible it angered UNO's ultra right and external paymasters in Washington.

Prior to 1979 1.5 percent of Nicaraguan big landowners possessed 41.5 per cent of all cultivable land. The Somoza dynasty controlled a major chunk of the arable land, dominating 40 percent of the rice production.

As punishment for the failure to reverse land reform the US blocked $ 100,000,000 worth of aid. The Sandinista Chamorro link up antagonized US legislators like Senator Jesse Helms. The Bush administration held up $104 million assistance for months to register its dissatisfaction. Half the aid is still being withheld despite the desperate state of Nicaragua. Managua now awaits the response of the new reformist government in Washington.

Nicaragua's economy is in the doldrums. Fifty–three percent of the population is either unemployed or underemployed, inflation is astronomically high, more so after the devaluation of the currency by 20 percent.

In addition to this is the fear of civil war, which may erupt any time. The creation of an armed ultra left force comprising former Sandinista operatives is a warning shot. This group killed three prominent landlords or ranchers trying to reclaim land confiscated during Sandinista rule. The leftist punishment front also set off a number of small bomb blasts in schools and private enterprises. Former Contras and soldiers of the Sandinista army have also formed armed groups.

A series of assassinations and clashes in the north indicate the revival of the violence which wrecked the country in the last one decade. Mr. Alredo Caesar, one of Ms. Chamarro's critics and a former Contra, says. "I cannot say there is war, but what we have are the preparations for war. If institutional channels for change remain closed, I am afraid within 90 days we will see a reactivation of the war".

No one wants to return to the days of civil war. "It is a tragedy even to talk about returning to war," said Mr. Sergio Ramirez, leader of the Sandinista legislative delegation. "To stabilize the democratic process, Ms Chamorro needs to complete her term as president."

The Sandinista electoral defeat was projected by the Western media as another example of socialism's failure and how in free elections pro–Western forces always prevail over leftists. The reality was that it was US pressure and consequent economic deprivation and civil war that convinced a minority of voters to opt for the UNO. After the elections the US lifted its trade embargo.

Washington still has a stake in keeping UNO one party. The FSLN is the largest single party. Both the US and Ms. Chamorro have an interest in keeping UNO together and US aid is being used to cement the coalition. Even then the present government will find it difficult to consolidate power and resolve fundamental contradictions within its ranks.

Halfway through her tenure, Ms. Chamorro should now ask Nicaraguans the same question she asked in 1990: "Are you better off now than you were six years ago"? The answer then was no. One can presume what the answer will be now. It remains to be seen if Ms. Chamorro, once the darling of the West, will be able to lead "free Nicaragua" for another three years.

Q. There is a fear of civil war in Nicaragua because _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Those of us who grew up in the fifties believed in the permanency of our American-history textbooks. To us as children, those texts were the truth; of things: they were American history. It was not just that we read them before we understood that not everything that is printed is the truth, or the whole truth. It was that they, much more than other books, had the demeanor and tracings of authority. They were weighty volumes. They spoke in measured cadences: imperturbable, humorless, and as distant as Chinese emperors. Our teachers treated them with respect, and we paid them abject homage by memorising a chapter a week. But now the textbook histories have changed, some of them to such an extent that an adult would find them unrecognisable.

One current junior-high-school American history begins with a story about a Negro cowboy called George McJunkin. It appears that when McJunkin was riding down a lonely trail in New Mexico one cold spring morning in 1925 he discovered a mound containing bones and stone implements, which scientists later proved belonged to an Indian civilisation ten thousand year old. The book goes on to say that scientists now believe there were people in the Americas at least twenty thousand years ago. It discusses the Aztec, Mayan and Incan civilisations and the meaning of the word culture before introducing the European explorers.

Another history text - this one for the fifth grade - begins with the story of how Henry B. Gonzalez, who is a member of Congress from Texas, learned about his own nationality. When he was ten years old, his teacher told him he was an American because he was born in the United States. His grandmother, however, said, The cat was born in the oven. Does that make him bread? After reporting that Mr. Gonzalez eventually went to college and law school, the book explains that the melting pot idea hasn't worked out as some thought it would, and that now some people say that the people of the United States are more like a salad bowl than a melting pot.

Poor Columbus! He is a minor character now, a walk-on in the middle of American history. Even those books that have not replaced his picture with a Mayan temple or an Iroquois mask do not credit him with discovering America- even for the Europeans. The Vikings, they say, preceded him to the New World, and after that the Europeans, having lost or forgotten their maps, simply neglected to cross the ocean again for five hundred years. Columbus is far from being the only personage to have suffered from time and revision. Captain John Smith, Daniel Boone, and Wild Bill Hickok - the great self-promoters of American history-have all but disappeared, taking with them a good deal of the romance of the American frontier. General Custer has given way to Chief Crazy Horse; General Eisenhower no longer liberates Europe single-handed: and, indeed, most generals, even to Washington, and Lee, have faded away, as old soldiers do, giving place to social reformers such as William Lloyd Garrison and Jacob Riis. A number of black Americans have risen to prominence: not only George Washington Carver but Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr., W. E. B. Du Bois now invariably accompany Booker T. Washington. In addition, there is a mystery man called Crispus Attucks, a fugitive slave about whom nothing seems to be known for certain except that he was a victim of the Boston Massacre and thus became one of the first casualties of the American Revolution. Thaddeus Stevens had been reconstructed - his character changed, as it were, from black to white, from cruel and vindictive to persistent and sincere. As for Teddy Roosevelt, he now champions the issue of conservation instead of charging up San Juan Hill. No single President really stands out as a hero, but all Presidents - except certain unmentionables in the second half of the nineteenth century- seem to have done as well as could be expected, given difficult circumstances.

Of course, when one thinks about it, it is hardly surprising that modem scholarship and modern perspectives have found their way into children's books. Yet the changes remain shocking. Those who in the sixties complained of the bland optimism, the chauvinism, and the materialism of their old civics texts did so in the belief that, for all their protests, the texts would never change. The thought must have had something reassuring about it. For that generation never notices when its complaints began to take effect and the songs about radioactive rainfall and houses made of ticky-tacky began to appear in the text books/But this is what happened.

The history texts now hint at a certain level of unpleasantness in American history. Several books, for instance, tell the story of Ishi, the last wild Indian in the continental United States, who, captured in 1911 after the massacre of his tribe, spent the final four and half years of his life in the University of California's museum of anthropology, in San Francisco. At least three books show the same stunning picture of the breaker boys, the child coal miners of Pennsylvania- ancient children with deformed bodies and blackened faces who stare stupidly out from the entrance to a mine. One book quotes a soldier on the use of torture in the American campaign to pacify the Philippines at the beginning of the century. A number of books say that during the American Revolution the patriots tarred and feathered those who did not support them, and drove many of the loyalists from the country. Almost all the present-day history books note that the United States-interned Japanese-Americans in detention camps during the Second World War.

Ideologically speaking, the histories of the fifties were implacable, seamless. Inside their covers, America was perfect: the greatest nation in the world, and the embodiment of democracy, freedom, and technological progress. For them, the country never changed in any important way: its values audits political institutions remained constant from the time of the American Revolution. To my generation - the children of the fifties - these texts appeared permanent just because they were so self-contained. Their orthodoxy, it seemed, left no hand-holds for attack, no lodging for decay. Who, after all, would dispute the wonders of technology or the superiority of the English colonists over the Spanish? Who would find fault with the pastorals of the West or the Old South? Who would question the anti-Communist crusade? There was, it seemed, no point in comparing these visions with reality, since they were the public truth and were thus quite irrelevant to what existed and to what anyone privately believed. They were- or so it seemed - the permanent expression of mass culture in America.

But now the texts have changed, and with them the country that American children are growing up into. The society that was once uniform is now a patchwork of rich and poor, old and young, men and women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Indians. The system that ran so smoothly by means of the Constitution under the guidance of benevolent conductor. President is now a rattletrap affair. The past is no highway to the present; it is a collection of issues and events that do not fit together and that lead in no single direction. The word progress has been replaced by the word change. Children, the modern texts insist, should learn history so that they can adapt to the rapid changes taking place around them. History is proceeding in spite of us. The present, which was once portrayed in the concluding chapters as a peaceful haven of scientific advances and Presidential inaugurations, is now a tangle of problems: race problems, urban problems, foreign-policy problems, problems of pollution, poverty, energy depletion, youthful rebellion, assassination, and drugs. Some books illustrate these problems dramatically. One, for instance, contains a picture of a doll half buried in a mass of untreated sewage: the caption reads, Are we in danger of being overwhelmed by the products of our society and wastage created by their production?. Would you agree with this photographer's interpretation? Two books show the same picture of an old black woman sitting in a straight chair in a dingy room, her hands folded in graceful resignation: the surrounding text discusses the problems faced by the urban poor and by the aged who depend on Social Security. Other books present current problems less starkly. One of the texts concludes sagely: Such passages have a familiar ring. Amid all the problems, the deus ex machina of science still dodders around in the gloaming of pious hope.

Even more surprising than the emergence of problems is the discovery that the great unity of the text has broken. Whereas in the fifties all texts represented the same political view, current texts follow no pattern of orthodoxy. Some books, for instance, portray civil-rights legislation as a series of actions taken by a wise paternal government; others convey some suggestion of the social upheaval involved and make mention of such people as Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X. In some books, the Cold War has ended; in others, it continues with Communism threatening the free nations of the earth.

Q. The history books of the fifties _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Those of us who grew up in the fifties believed in the permanency of our American-history textbooks. To us as children, those texts were the truth; of things: they were American history. It was not just that we read them before we understood that not everything that is printed is the truth, or the whole truth. It was that they, much more than other books, had the demeanor and tracings of authority. They were weighty volumes. They spoke in measured cadences: imperturbable, humorless, and as distant as Chinese emperors. Our teachers treated them with respect, and we paid them abject homage by memorising a chapter a week. But now the textbook histories have changed, some of them to such an extent that an adult would find them unrecognisable.

One current junior-high-school American history begins with a story about a Negro cowboy called George McJunkin. It appears that when McJunkin was riding down a lonely trail in New Mexico one cold spring morning in 1925 he discovered a mound containing bones and stone implements, which scientists later proved belonged to an Indian civilisation ten thousand year old. The book goes on to say that scientists now believe there were people in the Americas at least twenty thousand years ago. It discusses the Aztec, Mayan and Incan civilisations and the meaning of the word culture before introducing the European explorers.

Another history text - this one for the fifth grade - begins with the story of how Henry B. Gonzalez, who is a member of Congress from Texas, learned about his own nationality. When he was ten years old, his teacher told him he was an American because he was born in the United States. His grandmother, however, said, The cat was born in the oven. Does that make him bread? After reporting that Mr. Gonzalez eventually went to college and law school, the book explains that the melting pot idea hasn't worked out as some thought it would, and that now some people say that the people of the United States are more like a salad bowl than a melting pot.

Poor Columbus! He is a minor character now, a walk-on in the middle of American history. Even those books that have not replaced his picture with a Mayan temple or an Iroquois mask do not credit him with discovering America- even for the Europeans. The Vikings, they say, preceded him to the New World, and after that the Europeans, having lost or forgotten their maps, simply neglected to cross the ocean again for five hundred years. Columbus is far from being the only personage to have suffered from time and revision. Captain John Smith, Daniel Boone, and Wild Bill Hickok - the great self-promoters of American history-have all but disappeared, taking with them a good deal of the romance of the American frontier. General Custer has given way to Chief Crazy Horse; General Eisenhower no longer liberates Europe single-handed: and, indeed, most generals, even to Washington, and Lee, have faded away, as old soldiers do, giving place to social reformers such as William Lloyd Garrison and Jacob Riis. A number of black Americans have risen to prominence: not only George Washington Carver but Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr., W. E. B. Du Bois now invariably accompany Booker T. Washington. In addition, there is a mystery man called Crispus Attucks, a fugitive slave about whom nothing seems to be known for certain except that he was a victim of the Boston Massacre and thus became one of the first casualties of the American Revolution. Thaddeus Stevens had been reconstructed - his character changed, as it were, from black to white, from cruel and vindictive to persistent and sincere. As for Teddy Roosevelt, he now champions the issue of conservation instead of charging up San Juan Hill. No single President really stands out as a hero, but all Presidents - except certain unmentionables in the second half of the nineteenth century- seem to have done as well as could be expected, given difficult circumstances.

Of course, when one thinks about it, it is hardly surprising that modem scholarship and modern perspectives have found their way into children's books. Yet the changes remain shocking. Those who in the sixties complained of the bland optimism, the chauvinism, and the materialism of their old civics texts did so in the belief that, for all their protests, the texts would never change. The thought must have had something reassuring about it. For that generation never notices when its complaints began to take effect and the songs about radioactive rainfall and houses made of ticky-tacky began to appear in the text books/But this is what happened.

The history texts now hint at a certain level of unpleasantness in American history. Several books, for instance, tell the story of Ishi, the last wild Indian in the continental United States, who, captured in 1911 after the massacre of his tribe, spent the final four and half years of his life in the University of California's museum of anthropology, in San Francisco. At least three books show the same stunning picture of the breaker boys, the child coal miners of Pennsylvania- ancient children with deformed bodies and blackened faces who stare stupidly out from the entrance to a mine. One book quotes a soldier on the use of torture in the American campaign to pacify the Philippines at the beginning of the century. A number of books say that during the American Revolution the patriots tarred and feathered those who did not support them, and drove many of the loyalists from the country. Almost all the present-day history books note that the United States-interned Japanese-Americans in detention camps during the Second World War.

Ideologically speaking, the histories of the fifties were implacable, seamless. Inside their covers, America was perfect: the greatest nation in the world, and the embodiment of democracy, freedom, and technological progress. For them, the country never changed in any important way: its values audits political institutions remained constant from the time of the American Revolution. To my generation - the children of the fifties - these texts appeared permanent just because they were so self-contained. Their orthodoxy, it seemed, left no hand-holds for attack, no lodging for decay. Who, after all, would dispute the wonders of technology or the superiority of the English colonists over the Spanish? Who would find fault with the pastorals of the West or the Old South? Who would question the anti-Communist crusade? There was, it seemed, no point in comparing these visions with reality, since they were the public truth and were thus quite irrelevant to what existed and to what anyone privately believed. They were- or so it seemed - the permanent expression of mass culture in America.

But now the texts have changed, and with them the country that American children are growing up into. The society that was once uniform is now a patchwork of rich and poor, old and young, men and women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Indians. The system that ran so smoothly by means of the Constitution under the guidance of benevolent conductor. President is now a rattletrap affair. The past is no highway to the present; it is a collection of issues and events that do not fit together and that lead in no single direction. The word progress has been replaced by the word change. Children, the modern texts insist, should learn history so that they can adapt to the rapid changes taking place around them. History is proceeding in spite of us. The present, which was once portrayed in the concluding chapters as a peaceful haven of scientific advances and Presidential inaugurations, is now a tangle of problems: race problems, urban problems, foreign-policy problems, problems of pollution, poverty, energy depletion, youthful rebellion, assassination, and drugs. Some books illustrate these problems dramatically. One, for instance, contains a picture of a doll half buried in a mass of untreated sewage: the caption reads, Are we in danger of being overwhelmed by the products of our society and wastage created by their production?. Would you agree with this photographer's interpretation? Two books show the same picture of an old black woman sitting in a straight chair in a dingy room, her hands folded in graceful resignation: the surrounding text discusses the problems faced by the urban poor and by the aged who depend on Social Security. Other books present current problems less starkly. One of the texts concludes sagely: Such passages have a familiar ring. Amid all the problems, the deus ex machina of science still dodders around in the gloaming of pious hope.

Even more surprising than the emergence of problems is the discovery that the great unity of the text has broken. Whereas in the fifties all texts represented the same political view, current texts follow no pattern of orthodoxy. Some books, for instance, portray civil-rights legislation as a series of actions taken by a wise paternal government; others convey some suggestion of the social upheaval involved and make mention of such people as Stokely Carmichael and Malcolm X. In some books, the Cold War has ended; in others, it continues with Communism threatening the free nations of the earth.

Q. The example of the ''salad bowl'' is used to highlight the fact that

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Bulldogs under the carpet is the famous description of past Russian power struggles. The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 began in earnest on September 21, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament, which was increasingly opposing his moves to consolidate power and embark on unpopular neo–liberal reforms. He was not allowed to do this under the then–functioning constitution; after the fact, he ordered a referendum on a new constitution.

The parliament refused to dissolve, declaring Yeltsin's presidency unconstitutional. In open rebellion against Yeltsin, it appointed its own acting president. On September 28, public protests against Yeltsin's government began in earnest in the streets of Moscow, and the first blood was shed. Yeltsin's supporters surrounded the parliament building (the "Russian White House"), where the representatives and their newly–appointed leaders were staying, with barricades. For the next week, protests in the street grew, until a mass uprising erupted in the city on October 2. Russia was on the brink of civil war. At this point the military threw their support behind Yeltsin, besieged the parliament building, and slowly forced the opposing faction out over the next six days. By October 8, the "second October Revolution" had been crushed. The ten–day conflict had seen the most deadly street fighting in Moscow since the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917: 187 had been killed and 437 wounded.

As the present round of grappling between Mr. Boris Yeltsin and the speaker of the Congress of Peoples' Deputies, Mr. Ruslan Khasbulatov, painfully shows democracy has changed nothing except to remove the carpet. The origins of the present no-holds-barred conflict between congress and president lies in the country's tatterdemalion constitution. Written by Joseph Stalin and amended to the point of illegibility it is a blueprint for chaos. The division of powers between the various arms of government is so ill defined, a crisis would have been possible even in the best of times. Today with Mr. Yeltsin attempting drastic economic changes that would undercut the influence of the new apparatchiki industrialists, conflict is all but written in the stars.

For months, congress has stymied Mr. Yeltsin's reforms. He reacted last: year by forcing a showdown that only revealed how much his own support had slipped. It was a defeat that cost him his prime ministership. Ever since, the balance of power has been tilting in Mr. Khasbulatov's favour. Hyperinflation and his subservience to the West have further eroded Mr. Yeltsin's support. The two rivals put together an agreement earlier this year by which Mr. Yeltsin handed over more authority to the legislature in return for a constitutional referendum in April. Canceling this referendum is the primary aim of Mr. Khasbulatov and the deputies because it would result in elections that would unseat most of them. Despite the resolutions stripping him of authority Mr. Yeltsin still has some irons in the fire. The military is not one of then. He has, however, three key sources of support that Mr. Khasbulatov cannot ignore. One is the West. Mr. Bill Clinton's recent statement is a blunt warning that the Russian president is the West's favoured man in the Kremlin. Throw him out and Russia's aid lifeline comes under risk. Another is the regional leadership. Mr. Yeltsin has gone out of his way to woo the various heads of the autonomous republics whose clout has increased as Moscow's grasp has grown feebler. Finally, and most important, is that Mr. Yeltsin is still miles ahead of Mr. Khasbulatov and his ilk in populate. The president has the legitimacy of an election behind him. His present political setbacks and his frustrations with the constitutional setup will tempt Mr. Yeltsin to take a leaf from August 1991 and return to the politics of the streets. The recent strike threat by Siberian miners in favour of the president is an indication of what path Mr. Yeltsin will take if pushed far enough. Until Russia straightens out its government, extra–constitutional means of wielding power will remain a perpetual temptation and administrative paralysis the norm rather than the exception.

Q. The Russian president forced a show down with the congress because _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Bulldogs under the carpet is the famous description of past Russian power struggles. The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 began in earnest on September 21, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament, which was increasingly opposing his moves to consolidate power and embark on unpopular neo–liberal reforms. He was not allowed to do this under the then–functioning constitution; after the fact, he ordered a referendum on a new constitution.

The parliament refused to dissolve, declaring Yeltsin's presidency unconstitutional. In open rebellion against Yeltsin, it appointed its own acting president. On September 28, public protests against Yeltsin's government began in earnest in the streets of Moscow, and the first blood was shed. Yeltsin's supporters surrounded the parliament building (the "Russian White House"), where the representatives and their newly–appointed leaders were staying, with barricades. For the next week, protests in the street grew, until a mass uprising erupted in the city on October 2. Russia was on the brink of civil war. At this point the military threw their support behind Yeltsin, besieged the parliament building, and slowly forced the opposing faction out over the next six days. By October 8, the "second October Revolution" had been crushed. The ten–day conflict had seen the most deadly street fighting in Moscow since the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917: 187 had been killed and 437 wounded.

As the present round of grappling between Mr. Boris Yeltsin and the speaker of the Congress of Peoples' Deputies, Mr. Ruslan Khasbulatov, painfully shows democracy has changed nothing except to remove the carpet. The origins of the present no-holds-barred conflict between congress and president lies in the country's tatterdemalion constitution. Written by Joseph Stalin and amended to the point of illegibility it is a blueprint for chaos. The division of powers between the various arms of government is so ill defined, a crisis would have been possible even in the best of times. Today with Mr. Yeltsin attempting drastic economic changes that would undercut the influence of the new apparatchiki industrialists, conflict is all but written in the stars.

For months, congress has stymied Mr. Yeltsin's reforms. He reacted last: year by forcing a showdown that only revealed how much his own support had slipped. It was a defeat that cost him his prime ministership. Ever since, the balance of power has been tilting in Mr. Khasbulatov's favour. Hyperinflation and his subservience to the West have further eroded Mr. Yeltsin's support. The two rivals put together an agreement earlier this year by which Mr. Yeltsin handed over more authority to the legislature in return for a constitutional referendum in April. Canceling this referendum is the primary aim of Mr. Khasbulatov and the deputies because it would result in elections that would unseat most of them. Despite the resolutions stripping him of authority Mr. Yeltsin still has some irons in the fire. The military is not one of then. He has, however, three key sources of support that Mr. Khasbulatov cannot ignore. One is the West. Mr. Bill Clinton's recent statement is a blunt warning that the Russian president is the West's favoured man in the Kremlin. Throw him out and Russia's aid lifeline comes under risk. Another is the regional leadership. Mr. Yeltsin has gone out of his way to woo the various heads of the autonomous republics whose clout has increased as Moscow's grasp has grown feebler. Finally, and most important, is that Mr. Yeltsin is still miles ahead of Mr. Khasbulatov and his ilk in populate. The president has the legitimacy of an election behind him. His present political setbacks and his frustrations with the constitutional setup will tempt Mr. Yeltsin to take a leaf from August 1991 and return to the politics of the streets. The recent strike threat by Siberian miners in favour of the president is an indication of what path Mr. Yeltsin will take if pushed far enough. Until Russia straightens out its government, extra–constitutional means of wielding power will remain a perpetual temptation and administrative paralysis the norm rather than the exception.

Q. Everything about the Russian constitution is true, except that

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Bulldogs under the carpet is the famous description of past Russian power struggles. The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 began in earnest on September 21, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament, which was increasingly opposing his moves to consolidate power and embark on unpopular neo–liberal reforms. He was not allowed to do this under the then–functioning constitution; after the fact, he ordered a referendum on a new constitution.

The parliament refused to dissolve, declaring Yeltsin's presidency unconstitutional. In open rebellion against Yeltsin, it appointed its own acting president. On September 28, public protests against Yeltsin's government began in earnest in the streets of Moscow, and the first blood was shed. Yeltsin's supporters surrounded the parliament building (the "Russian White House"), where the representatives and their newly–appointed leaders were staying, with barricades. For the next week, protests in the street grew, until a mass uprising erupted in the city on October 2. Russia was on the brink of civil war. At this point the military threw their support behind Yeltsin, besieged the parliament building, and slowly forced the opposing faction out over the next six days. By October 8, the "second October Revolution" had been crushed. The ten–day conflict had seen the most deadly street fighting in Moscow since the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917: 187 had been killed and 437 wounded.

As the present round of grappling between Mr. Boris Yeltsin and the speaker of the Congress of Peoples' Deputies, Mr. Ruslan Khasbulatov, painfully shows democracy has changed nothing except to remove the carpet. The origins of the present no-holds-barred conflict between congress and president lies in the country's tatterdemalion constitution. Written by Joseph Stalin and amended to the point of illegibility it is a blueprint for chaos. The division of powers between the various arms of government is so ill defined, a crisis would have been possible even in the best of times. Today with Mr. Yeltsin attempting drastic economic changes that would undercut the influence of the new apparatchiki industrialists, conflict is all but written in the stars.

For months, congress has stymied Mr. Yeltsin's reforms. He reacted last: year by forcing a showdown that only revealed how much his own support had slipped. It was a defeat that cost him his prime ministership. Ever since, the balance of power has been tilting in Mr. Khasbulatov's favour. Hyperinflation and his subservience to the West have further eroded Mr. Yeltsin's support. The two rivals put together an agreement earlier this year by which Mr. Yeltsin handed over more authority to the legislature in return for a constitutional referendum in April. Canceling this referendum is the primary aim of Mr. Khasbulatov and the deputies because it would result in elections that would unseat most of them. Despite the resolutions stripping him of authority Mr. Yeltsin still has some irons in the fire. The military is not one of then. He has, however, three key sources of support that Mr. Khasbulatov cannot ignore. One is the West. Mr. Bill Clinton's recent statement is a blunt warning that the Russian president is the West's favoured man in the Kremlin. Throw him out and Russia's aid lifeline comes under risk. Another is the regional leadership. Mr. Yeltsin has gone out of his way to woo the various heads of the autonomous republics whose clout has increased as Moscow's grasp has grown feebler. Finally, and most important, is that Mr. Yeltsin is still miles ahead of Mr. Khasbulatov and his ilk in populate. The president has the legitimacy of an election behind him. His present political setbacks and his frustrations with the constitutional setup will tempt Mr. Yeltsin to take a leaf from August 1991 and return to the politics of the streets. The recent strike threat by Siberian miners in favour of the president is an indication of what path Mr. Yeltsin will take if pushed far enough. Until Russia straightens out its government, extra–constitutional means of wielding power will remain a perpetual temptation and administrative paralysis the norm rather than the exception.

Q. By ''bulldogs under a carpet'', the author means that _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Bulldogs under the carpet is the famous description of past Russian power struggles. The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 began in earnest on September 21, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament, which was increasingly opposing his moves to consolidate power and embark on unpopular neo–liberal reforms. He was not allowed to do this under the then–functioning constitution; after the fact, he ordered a referendum on a new constitution.

The parliament refused to dissolve, declaring Yeltsin's presidency unconstitutional. In open rebellion against Yeltsin, it appointed its own acting president. On September 28, public protests against Yeltsin's government began in earnest in the streets of Moscow, and the first blood was shed. Yeltsin's supporters surrounded the parliament building (the "Russian White House"), where the representatives and their newly–appointed leaders were staying, with barricades. For the next week, protests in the street grew, until a mass uprising erupted in the city on October 2. Russia was on the brink of civil war. At this point the military threw their support behind Yeltsin, besieged the parliament building, and slowly forced the opposing faction out over the next six days. By October 8, the "second October Revolution" had been crushed. The ten–day conflict had seen the most deadly street fighting in Moscow since the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917: 187 had been killed and 437 wounded.

As the present round of grappling between Mr. Boris Yeltsin and the speaker of the Congress of Peoples' Deputies, Mr. Ruslan Khasbulatov, painfully shows democracy has changed nothing except to remove the carpet. The origins of the present no-holds-barred conflict between congress and president lies in the country's tatterdemalion constitution. Written by Joseph Stalin and amended to the point of illegibility it is a blueprint for chaos. The division of powers between the various arms of government is so ill defined, a crisis would have been possible even in the best of times. Today with Mr. Yeltsin attempting drastic economic changes that would undercut the influence of the new apparatchiki industrialists, conflict is all but written in the stars.

For months, congress has stymied Mr. Yeltsin's reforms. He reacted last: year by forcing a showdown that only revealed how much his own support had slipped. It was a defeat that cost him his prime ministership. Ever since, the balance of power has been tilting in Mr. Khasbulatov's favour. Hyperinflation and his subservience to the West have further eroded Mr. Yeltsin's support. The two rivals put together an agreement earlier this year by which Mr. Yeltsin handed over more authority to the legislature in return for a constitutional referendum in April. Canceling this referendum is the primary aim of Mr. Khasbulatov and the deputies because it would result in elections that would unseat most of them. Despite the resolutions stripping him of authority Mr. Yeltsin still has some irons in the fire. The military is not one of then. He has, however, three key sources of support that Mr. Khasbulatov cannot ignore. One is the West. Mr. Bill Clinton's recent statement is a blunt warning that the Russian president is the West's favoured man in the Kremlin. Throw him out and Russia's aid lifeline comes under risk. Another is the regional leadership. Mr. Yeltsin has gone out of his way to woo the various heads of the autonomous republics whose clout has increased as Moscow's grasp has grown feebler. Finally, and most important, is that Mr. Yeltsin is still miles ahead of Mr. Khasbulatov and his ilk in populate. The president has the legitimacy of an election behind him. His present political setbacks and his frustrations with the constitutional setup will tempt Mr. Yeltsin to take a leaf from August 1991 and return to the politics of the streets. The recent strike threat by Siberian miners in favour of the president is an indication of what path Mr. Yeltsin will take if pushed far enough. Until Russia straightens out its government, extra–constitutional means of wielding power will remain a perpetual temptation and administrative paralysis the norm rather than the exception.

Q. One of the reasons for the people to favor the President's rival is _______.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Bulldogs under the carpet is the famous description of past Russian power struggles. The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 began in earnest on September 21, when Russian President Boris Yeltsin dissolved the country's parliament, which was increasingly opposing his moves to consolidate power and embark on unpopular neo–liberal reforms. He was not allowed to do this under the then–functioning constitution; after the fact, he ordered a referendum on a new constitution.

The parliament refused to dissolve, declaring Yeltsin's presidency unconstitutional. In open rebellion against Yeltsin, it appointed its own acting president. On September 28, public protests against Yeltsin's government began in earnest in the streets of Moscow, and the first blood was shed. Yeltsin's supporters surrounded the parliament building (the "Russian White House"), where the representatives and their newly–appointed leaders were staying, with barricades. For the next week, protests in the street grew, until a mass uprising erupted in the city on October 2. Russia was on the brink of civil war. At this point the military threw their support behind Yeltsin, besieged the parliament building, and slowly forced the opposing faction out over the next six days. By October 8, the "second October Revolution" had been crushed. The ten–day conflict had seen the most deadly street fighting in Moscow since the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917: 187 had been killed and 437 wounded.

As the present round of grappling between Mr. Boris Yeltsin and the speaker of the Congress of Peoples' Deputies, Mr. Ruslan Khasbulatov, painfully shows democracy has changed nothing except to remove the carpet. The origins of the present no-holds-barred conflict between congress and president lies in the country's tatterdemalion constitution. Written by Joseph Stalin and amended to the point of illegibility it is a blueprint for chaos. The division of powers between the various arms of government is so ill defined, a crisis would have been possible even in the best of times. Today with Mr. Yeltsin attempting drastic economic changes that would undercut the influence of the new apparatchiki industrialists, conflict is all but written in the stars.

For months, congress has stymied Mr. Yeltsin's reforms. He reacted last: year by forcing a showdown that only revealed how much his own support had slipped. It was a defeat that cost him his prime ministership. Ever since, the balance of power has been tilting in Mr. Khasbulatov's favour. Hyperinflation and his subservience to the West have further eroded Mr. Yeltsin's support. The two rivals put together an agreement earlier this year by which Mr. Yeltsin handed over more authority to the legislature in return for a constitutional referendum in April. Canceling this referendum is the primary aim of Mr. Khasbulatov and the deputies because it would result in elections that would unseat most of them. Despite the resolutions stripping him of authority Mr. Yeltsin still has some irons in the fire. The military is not one of then. He has, however, three key sources of support that Mr. Khasbulatov cannot ignore. One is the West. Mr. Bill Clinton's recent statement is a blunt warning that the Russian president is the West's favoured man in the Kremlin. Throw him out and Russia's aid lifeline comes under risk. Another is the regional leadership. Mr. Yeltsin has gone out of his way to woo the various heads of the autonomous republics whose clout has increased as Moscow's grasp has grown feebler. Finally, and most important, is that Mr. Yeltsin is still miles ahead of Mr. Khasbulatov and his ilk in populate. The president has the legitimacy of an election behind him. His present political setbacks and his frustrations with the constitutional setup will tempt Mr. Yeltsin to take a leaf from August 1991 and return to the politics of the streets. The recent strike threat by Siberian miners in favour of the president is an indication of what path Mr. Yeltsin will take if pushed far enough. Until Russia straightens out its government, extra–constitutional means of wielding power will remain a perpetual temptation and administrative paralysis the norm rather than the exception.

Q. The author's period of origination and existence is