LIC AAO Mock Test - 7 - Insurance Exams MCQ

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. Choose an appropriate title for the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. Which of the following is not true according to the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. In the above passage, the author is not talking about?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. Which among the following describes the meaning of the phrase “shenanigans of North Korea”?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. Which of the following is true according to the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. Which of the following is the synonym of the word “disarmament”?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them.

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will take place in New York from  April 27 to   May 22  and the process is expected to be stormy and contentious. The event marks some significant anniversaries of conflict: the 100th —  of the use of chemical weapons in Ypres, Belgium; the 70th — of the  bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and the 20th — of the indefinite extension of the NPT. A new set of geopolitical drivers will work the agendas of nuclear and non-nuclear members of the Treaty.

Coming into force  in 1970, the Treaty has been subjected to numerous pulls and pressures which have left the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated. The last review, in 2010, followed the complete failure of the 2005 Review conference, as a consequence of serious disagreements which had emerged over a decade. The desire of non-nuclear states to see better progress on disarmament by the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) will figure as before. The discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has given a new shape to the NPT debate. 

The NWS have not been enthused by either of these two concepts. Relations among the NWS after Russian actions in Ukraine will have a substantial impact on the conference. Moscow’s rhetoric and responses have led to a rethink on the role and relevance of nuclear deterrence, even among the non-nuclear states of eastern Europe. As if this is not enough, the situation in  West Asia will loom large since it involves the uncertainties of Iran, Israel, Syria and the Islamic State (IS) in particular and the rest of the Arab world in general. In comparison, the nuclear shenanigans of North Korea which were once viewed as a major global danger, would remain a marginal issue.

The  NPT Review Conference in 2010 built a hard-fought consensus based on more than 60  action points spread over three broad areas. These three “pillars” were nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.  West Asia figured large, which primarily meant finding a way to a nuclear-free zone, which in turn meant addressing the issue of Israel’s nuclear weapons. This has now been much muddied  by Iran’s own nuclear programme which in turn could now be resolved if the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia, and China, facilitated by the European Union) and Iran comes to fruition.  Three preparatory committee (Prepcom) meetings have been held so far to prepare an agenda or work plan for the 2015 Review Conference next  week. Reconciling the wide range of views of 190-member states has never been easy. Consequently, various consensus drafts have been attempted and what emerges as the agreed agenda for the conference remains to be seen. The three pillars are in themselves complex and intractable as examined  hereon.

Nuclear disarmament is possibly the easiest issue on the table, more so because there is no solution possible or even conceivable. As a result, a formulaic approach is likely to get used in which non-nuclear weapon states deplore the NWS’s lack of progress on reducing their arsenals and making good on promises made in the past. On their part, the NWS will reaffirm their commitment to disarmament, but point to the strategic security scenario to justify the incremental and slow progress so far. This will be contested strongly at the conference. The discourse on the humanitarian dangers, from the use, deliberate or accidental, of nuclear weapons either by states or non-state actors, has gathered strength. This requires, from the NWS, greater transparency and tangible steps on nuclear security. U.S. President Barack Obama has led the initiative on nuclear security through international conferences, which have yielded more statements of intentions than specific actions. This will coalesce the non-nuclear states into a large bloc demanding tangible action from the NWS. They would seek time bound progress on the long promised consultative process among the NWS.

Q. Which of the following is not the synonym of the word “contentious”?

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

Directions: In the following passage, some of the words have been left out, each of which is indicated by a number. Find the suitable word from the options given against each number and fill up the blanks with appropriate words to make the paragraph meaningful.

A friend in need is a friend indeed. A man who stands (11) is friend in (12) is a true friend. Selfless love is the base of true friendship. True friends share each other’s joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure. They do not fall (13) in adversity. They have full confidence in each other. They never (14) each other. (15) makes friends, adversity tries them. A selfless friend is (16); a selfish friend is a curse. The first is an angel and the second is a devil. One makes your career while the other (17) it.
True friendship means great self-sacrifice on the part of both. A true friend (18) pleasure and convenience. He goes out of his way and faces difficulties in his way with joy and even with pride. Joy and sorrow, success and failure, good fortune and misfortune, are equally (19) by a pair of true friends. They (20) the burden of life equally for they feel that they sail in the same boat and that they have to sink and swim together.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

Your bonus will dependent the quality of your work.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

He did not ask for a raise since he had fear to lose his job.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

The organizers agreed to shift the conference at some place convenience to all participants.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

As compared to last year there has been a sharp rise in interest rates.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

In the 1970s banks required to submit their detailed plans of expansion to RBI.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

He advised his son not doing anything which is against his conscience.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

Even after talking the matter for hours we could not arrive at a decision.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

Every employee is entitled to those benefits from the late regulations.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

Recently there has been suddenly increased the price of oil.

DIRECTIONS : Which of the phrases (a), (b), (c) and (d) given below each sentence should replace the phrase printed in bold in the sentence to make it grammatically correct? If the sentence is correct as it is given and no correction is required, mark (e) as the answer.

That company is our rival since it provides similar services to ours in a lowest rate.