Languages: Mock Test - 6 - CUET MCQ

British filmmaker Richard Curtis has written iconic popcultural classics like Mr. Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and Bridget Jones's Diary. His directorial debut, Love Actually, remains a rare film that at once parodies, celebrates, and reclaims, storytelling's most bastardised genre. But Curtis' most accomplished movie has everything and nothing to do with his reputation as the King of (Romantic) Comedy.

About Time (2013), starring Irish actor Domhnall Gleeson in a breakthrough role, cleverly weaponises its maker's stature. It counts on the fact that we anticipate an innovative (buzzword: time travel) but typically breezy love story. But the girl-boy arc fades into the background, and the film subverts our expectations by instead morphing into a deeply contemplative and winning tragedy about human nature. Curtis virtually uses his own career as a smokescreen to transform About Time into an affecting ode to closure and its elastic relationship with time. Early in the film, a retired James (Bill Nighy) informs his son Tim, a boy on the verge of big-city adulthood, that the men of the family possess the power to travel back in time. Naturally, at first, Tim abuses this cosmic gift like any red-blooded, teething male hero would - to find, and refine, his pursuit of love. He meets Mary, an American girl, and manipulates time in a manner that compels her to fall for him. You'd imagine any writer at this point would be tempted to use time travel as the pivot to continue navigating the cross-cultural politics of companionship. But Curtis refrains from old-school gimmickry. He designs the narrative device as a trigger that forces Tim's conflict to be conceived in the personal chasm that separates selfishness from selflessness: The selfishness of love from the selflessness of family.

Tim's story gets us thinking: do some of us subconsciously fail to sustain romantic relationships because we're unwilling to snap that umbilical cord? Do we postpone marriage - a family, children, onwardness -to preserve the fading remnants of our family? To keep our history accessible? The film's lyrical circularity exposes an uncomfortable truth about life - that romance is inherently an act of self-preservation. That loving someone, often, is a mechanism aimed at leaving something - and some times - behind. We choose to get consumed by life so that its origins are exhumed no more. For every child Tim has, the more irrevocably he drifts away from his own childhood. Every birth is inextricably linked to his rebirth. For each milestone he crosses as a life partner, the rules of time travel - a cinematic allegory for the texture of remembrance - force him to live rather than relive. Love is, after all, the emotional manifestation of the precise moment the future decides to break up with the past.

Q. How did Curtis refrain from following the usual story arc?

British filmmaker Richard Curtis has written iconic popcultural classics like Mr. Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill and Bridget Jones's Diary. His directorial debut, Love Actually, remains a rare film that at once parodies, celebrates, and reclaims, storytelling's most bastardised genre. But Curtis' most accomplished movie has everything and nothing to do with his reputation as the King of (Romantic) Comedy.

About Time (2013), starring Irish actor Domhnall Gleeson in a breakthrough role, cleverly weaponises its maker's stature. It counts on the fact that we anticipate an innovative (buzzword: time travel) but typically breezy love story. But the girl-boy arc fades into the background, and the film subverts our expectations by instead morphing into a deeply contemplative and winning tragedy about human nature. Curtis virtually uses his own career as a smokescreen to transform About Time into an affecting ode to closure and its elastic relationship with time. Early in the film, a retired James (Bill Nighy) informs his son Tim, a boy on the verge of big-city adulthood, that the men of the family possess the power to travel back in time. Naturally, at first, Tim abuses this cosmic gift like any red-blooded, teething male hero would - to find, and refine, his pursuit of love. He meets Mary, an American girl, and manipulates time in a manner that compels her to fall for him. You'd imagine any writer at this point would be tempted to use time travel as the pivot to continue navigating the cross-cultural politics of companionship. But Curtis refrains from old-school gimmickry. He designs the narrative device as a trigger that forces Tim's conflict to be conceived in the personal chasm that separates selfishness from selflessness: The selfishness of love from the selflessness of family.

Tim's story gets us thinking: do some of us subconsciously fail to sustain romantic relationships because we're unwilling to snap that umbilical cord? Do we postpone marriage - a family, children, onwardness -to preserve the fading remnants of our family? To keep our history accessible? The film's lyrical circularity exposes an uncomfortable truth about life - that romance is inherently an act of self-preservation. That loving someone, often, is a mechanism aimed at leaving something - and some times - behind. We choose to get consumed by life so that its origins are exhumed no more. For every child Tim has, the more irrevocably he drifts away from his own childhood. Every birth is inextricably linked to his rebirth. For each milestone he crosses as a life partner, the rules of time travel - a cinematic allegory for the texture of remembrance - force him to live rather than relive. Love is, after all, the emotional manifestation of the precise moment the future decides to break up with the past.

Q. Which genre has been referred as to as the 'most bastardised genre' initially in the passage?

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.

The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.

Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.

Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial consideration.

Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.

Q. Why has the establishment of rural banks been decided despite the challenges involved in the process?

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.

The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.

Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.

Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial consideration.

Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.

Q. What is the main purpose for setting up rural banks?

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.

The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.

Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.

Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial consideration.

Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.

Q. How will the RRBs help in the economy of the country?

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.

The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.

Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.

Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial consideration.

Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.

Q. What is the main challenge with setting up Regional Rural Banks?

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.

The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.

Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.

Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial consideration.

Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.

Q. "This type of discrim i nation would have been dangerous". What is referred to as being dangerous?

Poetry is an art form that has survived for thousands and thousands of years. We study it in school, and we hear quotes from poems scattered throughout our life.

But do we ever truly make meaning of it? Does it even matter? My answer to you is yes it does. Reading poetry and or writing poetry can drastically improve your life.

Poetry is one of the most powerful forms of writing because it takes the English language, a language we believe we know, and transforms it. The pattern of the sentences sounds new and melodious. It is truly another language exclusively for the writer and the reader. No poem can be read in the same way, because the words mean something different to each of us. For this reason, many find poetry an elusive art form. However, the issue in understanding poetry lies in how you read poetry.

Anyone who writes poetry can attest, you have to write it with an open heart. So, as a reader, we must do the same. Opening your heart to poetry is the only way to get fulfillment from it.

From a writer's perspective, writing poetry can be equally elusive as reading poetry. When I first started writing poetry, the advice I always heard was practice, find your voice, keep a journal. I did all these things but still my poems were flat and inert. What was I missing? I poured over poems by Angelou, Shakespeare, Austen, and Wilde looking for a pattern, something I could emulate. This was the problem. I was unwilling to open my heart. I thought poetry could be a mask I could craft. But no matter how beautiful I made it; it would never come to life. It would never fit on another person's face. It did not ever fit on mine.

My first poem that came alive was written in the dark late at night. Vulnerability was the key. Poetry is about expressing those thoughts and feelings we keep the most suppressed. We must be honest with ourselves about what we feel in order to write anything worth reading. It's stopping and grabbing a thought by the tail and pulling it up into our conscious mind. It's trying to express the beauty, and wonder we see. It's about connecting our hearts and our minds to ourselves and our surroundings.

It's about finding peace.

So, reach for the pen, and let go of those things that have been burdening your freedom. Read poetry with your heart and let it affect you. The answer to our questions about the meaning of life, and the purpose of pain were written in poems. They have always been there.

Q. Which of the following best describes the writing style of the author?

Poetry is an art form that has survived for thousands and thousands of years. We study it in school, and we hear quotes from poems scattered throughout our life.

But do we ever truly make meaning of it? Does it even matter? My answer to you is yes it does. Reading poetry and or writing poetry can drastically improve your life.

Poetry is one of the most powerful forms of writing because it takes the English language, a language we believe we know, and transforms it. The pattern of the sentences sounds new and melodious. It is truly another language exclusively for the writer and the reader. No poem can be read in the same way, because the words mean something different to each of us. For this reason, many find poetry an elusive art form. However, the issue in understanding poetry lies in how you read poetry.

Anyone who writes poetry can attest, you have to write it with an open heart. So, as a reader, we must do the same. Opening your heart to poetry is the only way to get fulfillment from it.

From a writer's perspective, writing poetry can be equally elusive as reading poetry. When I first started writing poetry, the advice I always heard was practice, find your voice, keep a journal. I did all these things but still my poems were flat and inert. What was I missing? I poured over poems by Angelou, Shakespeare, Austen, and Wilde looking for a pattern, something I could emulate. This was the problem. I was unwilling to open my heart. I thought poetry could be a mask I could craft. But no matter how beautiful I made it; it would never come to life. It would never fit on another person's face. It did not ever fit on mine.

My first poem that came alive was written in the dark late at night. Vulnerability was the key. Poetry is about expressing those thoughts and feelings we keep the most suppressed. We must be honest with ourselves about what we feel in order to write anything worth reading. It's stopping and grabbing a thought by the tail and pulling it up into our conscious mind. It's trying to express the beauty, and wonder we see. It's about connecting our hearts and our minds to ourselves and our surroundings.

It's about finding peace.

So, reach for the pen, and let go of those things that have been burdening your freedom. Read poetry with your heart and let it affect you. The answer to our questions about the meaning of life, and the purpose of pain were written in poems. They have always been there.

Q. Which of the following is required to realize the true essence of poetry?

Poetry is an art form that has survived for thousands and thousands of years. We study it in school, and we hear quotes from poems scattered throughout our life.

But do we ever truly make meaning of it? Does it even matter? My answer to you is yes it does. Reading poetry and or writing poetry can drastically improve your life.

Poetry is one of the most powerful forms of writing because it takes the English language, a language we believe we know, and transforms it. The pattern of the sentences sounds new and melodious. It is truly another language exclusively for the writer and the reader. No poem can be read in the same way, because the words mean something different to each of us. For this reason, many find poetry an elusive art form. However, the issue in understanding poetry lies in how you read poetry.

Anyone who writes poetry can attest, you have to write it with an open heart. So, as a reader, we must do the same. Opening your heart to poetry is the only way to get fulfillment from it.

From a writer's perspective, writing poetry can be equally elusive as reading poetry. When I first started writing poetry, the advice I always heard was practice, find your voice, keep a journal. I did all these things but still my poems were flat and inert. What was I missing? I poured over poems by Angelou, Shakespeare, Austen, and Wilde looking for a pattern, something I could emulate. This was the problem. I was unwilling to open my heart. I thought poetry could be a mask I could craft. But no matter how beautiful I made it; it would never come to life. It would never fit on another person's face. It did not ever fit on mine.

My first poem that came alive was written in the dark late at night. Vulnerability was the key. Poetry is about expressing those thoughts and feelings we keep the most suppressed. We must be honest with ourselves about what we feel in order to write anything worth reading. It's stopping and grabbing a thought by the tail and pulling it up into our conscious mind. It's trying to express the beauty, and wonder we see. It's about connecting our hearts and our minds to ourselves and our surroundings.

It's about finding peace.

So, reach for the pen, and let go of those things that have been burdening your freedom. Read poetry with your heart and let it affect you. The answer to our questions about the meaning of life, and the purpose of pain were written in poems. They have always been there.

Q. According to the writer, what makes a poem worth reading?

Poetry is an art form that has survived for thousands and thousands of years. We study it in school, and we hear quotes from poems scattered throughout our life.

But do we ever truly make meaning of it? Does it even matter? My answer to you is yes it does. Reading poetry and or writing poetry can drastically improve your life.

Poetry is one of the most powerful forms of writing because it takes the English language, a language we believe we know, and transforms it. The pattern of the sentences sounds new and melodious. It is truly another language exclusively for the writer and the reader. No poem can be read in the same way, because the words mean something different to each of us. For this reason, many find poetry an elusive art form. However, the issue in understanding poetry lies in how you read poetry.

Anyone who writes poetry can attest, you have to write it with an open heart. So, as a reader, we must do the same. Opening your heart to poetry is the only way to get fulfillment from it.

From a writer's perspective, writing poetry can be equally elusive as reading poetry. When I first started writing poetry, the advice I always heard was practice, find your voice, keep a journal. I did all these things but still my poems were flat and inert. What was I missing? I poured over poems by Angelou, Shakespeare, Austen, and Wilde looking for a pattern, something I could emulate. This was the problem. I was unwilling to open my heart. I thought poetry could be a mask I could craft. But no matter how beautiful I made it; it would never come to life. It would never fit on another person's face. It did not ever fit on mine.

My first poem that came alive was written in the dark late at night. Vulnerability was the key. Poetry is about expressing those thoughts and feelings we keep the most suppressed. We must be honest with ourselves about what we feel in order to write anything worth reading. It's stopping and grabbing a thought by the tail and pulling it up into our conscious mind. It's trying to express the beauty, and wonder we see. It's about connecting our hearts and our minds to ourselves and our surroundings.

It's about finding peace.

So, reach for the pen, and let go of those things that have been burdening your freedom. Read poetry with your heart and let it affect you. The answer to our questions about the meaning of life, and the purpose of pain were written in poems. They have always been there.

Q. As mentioned in the passage, "nuances" most nearly means

Poetry is an art form that has survived for thousands and thousands of years. We study it in school, and we hear quotes from poems scattered throughout our life.

But do we ever truly make meaning of it? Does it even matter? My answer to you is yes it does. Reading poetry and or writing poetry can drastically improve your life.

Poetry is one of the most powerful forms of writing because it takes the English language, a language we believe we know, and transforms it. The pattern of the sentences sounds new and melodious. It is truly another language exclusively for the writer and the reader. No poem can be read in the same way, because the words mean something different to each of us. For this reason, many find poetry an elusive art form. However, the issue in understanding poetry lies in how you read poetry.

Anyone who writes poetry can attest, you have to write it with an open heart. So, as a reader, we must do the same. Opening your heart to poetry is the only way to get fulfillment from it.

From a writer's perspective, writing poetry can be equally elusive as reading poetry. When I first started writing poetry, the advice I always heard was practice, find your voice, keep a journal. I did all these things but still my poems were flat and inert. What was I missing? I poured over poems by Angelou, Shakespeare, Austen, and Wilde looking for a pattern, something I could emulate. This was the problem. I was unwilling to open my heart. I thought poetry could be a mask I could craft. But no matter how beautiful I made it; it would never come to life. It would never fit on another person's face. It did not ever fit on mine.

My first poem that came alive was written in the dark late at night. Vulnerability was the key. Poetry is about expressing those thoughts and feelings we keep the most suppressed. We must be honest with ourselves about what we feel in order to write anything worth reading. It's stopping and grabbing a thought by the tail and pulling it up into our conscious mind. It's trying to express the beauty, and wonder we see. It's about connecting our hearts and our minds to ourselves and our surroundings.

It's about finding peace.

So, reach for the pen, and let go of those things that have been burdening your freedom. Read poetry with your heart and let it affect you. The answer to our questions about the meaning of life, and the purpose of pain were written in poems. They have always been there.

Q. Which of the following correctly mentions the demerit of emulating others in writing poetry?

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,

Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.

This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.

This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?

Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.

The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.

Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.

Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?

Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.

For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.

Q. How can we honour relationships?

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,

Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.

This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.

This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?

Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.

The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.

Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.

Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?

Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.

For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.

Q. What are the processes involved in practicing 'self validation'?

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,

Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.

This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.

This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?

Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.

The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.

Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.

Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?

Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.

For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.

Q. How can we accomplish the goal of forging supportive relationships?

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,

Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.

This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.

This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?

Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.

The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.

Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.

Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?

Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.

For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.

Q. What is referred to as 'the desired goal' in the above paragraph?

Relationships are how we relate to others. We have relationships with everyone we know and those who are close to us. Each and every interaction we have with another person is the act of relating. If we have a problem relating to others, it affects our ability to have supportive relationships. We have to ask ourselves if our relationships are supportive, and if they are not, then ask why they are not,

Everyone wants the perfect romance or marriage, but not everyone looks at the mechanics of how to have one. If we fail to have supportive relationships in our life, how can we have the "perfect love" relationships? Through the act of supporting, we honour and validate who the other person is.

This is turn, validates who we are. So, both are supported; no one loses; no egos are involved; and, so doing, we honour the relationship.

This is what it means to have a supportive relationship. This is the desired goal. Now, how do we accomplish it?

Our conduct patterns, 'positive' or 'negative' get set as we grow up. In order to clear a problem, one must identify the original cause which created a behavioural pattern, move through the experience of that situation and experience the emotions associated with it.

The healing process is a time when we must love the self. If we beat up the self about the experience which had caused us harm or our past reaction to it, then we cannot heal. In being loving to the self, we validate what we had experienced at that time.

Our emotions are always valid. So, it is important for us to do this self-validation in order to heal. Love is the energy which helps us heal-whether we give this love to ourselves or receive it from another.

Loving relations start with the self. When we look at having supportive relationship in our life, why not start with the self?

Because that is where love comes from. This is what transforms our relationships and our lives. We must love the self first. And we cannot do that until we have healed and become whole. Spiritually we must rise, and our spiritual quotient must be high.

For, it is not about what we can receive from love, but what we can contribute or give to love. The more we give, the more are the returns.

Q. According to the author from where does love start?

Why on Earth is it taking so long for the world's richest countries to take action on climate change? For a partial answer, we can look back to the controversy that started a decade ago this November, which came to be known as Climategate. In a 2010 paper in the journal Environmental Values, the sociologist Brigitte Nerlich looked at what happened.

Climategate began with the leaking of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. The leaked file included more than 1,000 emails, but climate skeptics quickly seized on just a few of them: some messages in which scientists debated the publication of potentially flawed work, and some others in which they discussed adjusting data using a "trick"-a piece of mathematical jargon that commentators misinterpreted as an effort to deceive the public.

In the U.S. and UK, conservative bloggers quickly latched onto the messages as proof of dishonesty among climate scientists. Nerlich writes that they effectively reached their audiences with a few specific phrases. One of these was the word "climategate" itself apparently first used by conservative UK writer James Delingpole. The -gate suffix, referring back to Watergate, is a familiar method used by partisans and members of the media to indicate a serious scandal.

Looking at the messaging in blog posts about climategate, Nerlich found that another common theme was "science as a religion." Climate change deniers accused environmentalists and scientists of irrationally clinging to their belief in human-made climate change in the face of what they saw as evidence that it was a hoax. "The Global Warming religion is as virulent and insidious as all mind-bending cults of absolute certitude, and yet it has become mainstream orthodoxy and infallible spirituality faster than any faith-based cult in history," as one blogger put it.

Nerlich notes that, when it comes to scientists' levels of certainty, climate change deniers wanted to have it both ways. Any hint of uncertainty-which is almost always a factor in scientific analyses, especially concerning predictions about complex systems-was presented as a reason not to believe that change was happening at all. But too much certainty became proof that scientists were no longer operating from evidence, but instead trying to justify a cult-like faith.

Ultimately, Climategate was shown to be a fabrication.

In April 2010, an independent panel cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing in the leaked messages.

Yet the controversy apparently succeeded in changing public opinion, at least temporarily. In February of 2010, the Guardian reported that, in the previous year, the proportion of British adults who believed that climate change was "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44 to 31 percent.

Q. In the second paragraph the author mentions "trick" in quotes in order to highlight that the adjusting of data was:

Why on Earth is it taking so long for the world's richest countries to take action on climate change? For a partial answer, we can look back to the controversy that started a decade ago this November, which came to be known as Climategate. In a 2010 paper in the journal Environmental Values, the sociologist Brigitte Nerlich looked at what happened.

Climategate began with the leaking of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. The leaked file included more than 1,000 emails, but climate skeptics quickly seized on just a few of them: some messages in which scientists debated the publication of potentially flawed work, and some others in which they discussed adjusting data using a "trick"-a piece of mathematical jargon that commentators misinterpreted as an effort to deceive the public.

In the U.S. and UK, conservative bloggers quickly latched onto the messages as proof of dishonesty among climate scientists. Nerlich writes that they effectively reached their audiences with a few specific phrases. One of these was the word "climategate" itself apparently first used by conservative UK writer James Delingpole. The -gate suffix, referring back to Watergate, is a familiar method used by partisans and members of the media to indicate a serious scandal.

Looking at the messaging in blog posts about climategate, Nerlich found that another common theme was "science as a religion." Climate change deniers accused environmentalists and scientists of irrationally clinging to their belief in human-made climate change in the face of what they saw as evidence that it was a hoax. "The Global Warming religion is as virulent and insidious as all mind-bending cults of absolute certitude, and yet it has become mainstream orthodoxy and infallible spirituality faster than any faith-based cult in history," as one blogger put it.

Nerlich notes that, when it comes to scientists' levels of certainty, climate change deniers wanted to have it both ways. Any hint of uncertainty-which is almost always a factor in scientific analyses, especially concerning predictions about complex systems-was presented as a reason not to believe that change was happening at all. But too much certainty became proof that scientists were no longer operating from evidence, but instead trying to justify a cult-like faith.

Ultimately, Climategate was shown to be a fabrication.

In April 2010, an independent panel cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing in the leaked messages.

Yet the controversy apparently succeeded in changing public opinion, at least temporarily. In February of 2010, the Guardian reported that, in the previous year, the proportion of British adults who believed that climate change was "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44 to 31 percent.

Q. Why did the climate change deniers use the analogy of science as a religion?

Why on Earth is it taking so long for the world's richest countries to take action on climate change? For a partial answer, we can look back to the controversy that started a decade ago this November, which came to be known as Climategate. In a 2010 paper in the journal Environmental Values, the sociologist Brigitte Nerlich looked at what happened.

Climategate began with the leaking of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. The leaked file included more than 1,000 emails, but climate skeptics quickly seized on just a few of them: some messages in which scientists debated the publication of potentially flawed work, and some others in which they discussed adjusting data using a "trick"-a piece of mathematical jargon that commentators misinterpreted as an effort to deceive the public.

In the U.S. and UK, conservative bloggers quickly latched onto the messages as proof of dishonesty among climate scientists. Nerlich writes that they effectively reached their audiences with a few specific phrases. One of these was the word "climategate" itself apparently first used by conservative UK writer James Delingpole. The -gate suffix, referring back to Watergate, is a familiar method used by partisans and members of the media to indicate a serious scandal.

Looking at the messaging in blog posts about climategate, Nerlich found that another common theme was "science as a religion." Climate change deniers accused environmentalists and scientists of irrationally clinging to their belief in human-made climate change in the face of what they saw as evidence that it was a hoax. "The Global Warming religion is as virulent and insidious as all mind-bending cults of absolute certitude, and yet it has become mainstream orthodoxy and infallible spirituality faster than any faith-based cult in history," as one blogger put it.

Nerlich notes that, when it comes to scientists' levels of certainty, climate change deniers wanted to have it both ways. Any hint of uncertainty-which is almost always a factor in scientific analyses, especially concerning predictions about complex systems-was presented as a reason not to believe that change was happening at all. But too much certainty became proof that scientists were no longer operating from evidence, but instead trying to justify a cult-like faith.

Ultimately, Climategate was shown to be a fabrication.

In April 2010, an independent panel cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing in the leaked messages.

Yet the controversy apparently succeeded in changing public opinion, at least temporarily. In February of 2010, the Guardian reported that, in the previous year, the proportion of British adults who believed that climate change was "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44 to 31 percent.

Q. Which one of the following can replace the phrase "absolute certitude" as used in the fourth paragraph?

Why on Earth is it taking so long for the world's richest countries to take action on climate change? For a partial answer, we can look back to the controversy that started a decade ago this November, which came to be known as Climategate. In a 2010 paper in the journal Environmental Values, the sociologist Brigitte Nerlich looked at what happened.

Climategate began with the leaking of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. The leaked file included more than 1,000 emails, but climate skeptics quickly seized on just a few of them: some messages in which scientists debated the publication of potentially flawed work, and some others in which they discussed adjusting data using a "trick"-a piece of mathematical jargon that commentators misinterpreted as an effort to deceive the public.

In the U.S. and UK, conservative bloggers quickly latched onto the messages as proof of dishonesty among climate scientists. Nerlich writes that they effectively reached their audiences with a few specific phrases. One of these was the word "climategate" itself apparently first used by conservative UK writer James Delingpole. The -gate suffix, referring back to Watergate, is a familiar method used by partisans and members of the media to indicate a serious scandal.

Looking at the messaging in blog posts about climategate, Nerlich found that another common theme was "science as a religion." Climate change deniers accused environmentalists and scientists of irrationally clinging to their belief in human-made climate change in the face of what they saw as evidence that it was a hoax. "The Global Warming religion is as virulent and insidious as all mind-bending cults of absolute certitude, and yet it has become mainstream orthodoxy and infallible spirituality faster than any faith-based cult in history," as one blogger put it.

Nerlich notes that, when it comes to scientists' levels of certainty, climate change deniers wanted to have it both ways. Any hint of uncertainty-which is almost always a factor in scientific analyses, especially concerning predictions about complex systems-was presented as a reason not to believe that change was happening at all. But too much certainty became proof that scientists were no longer operating from evidence, but instead trying to justify a cult-like faith.

Ultimately, Climategate was shown to be a fabrication.

In April 2010, an independent panel cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing in the leaked messages.

Yet the controversy apparently succeeded in changing public opinion, at least temporarily. In February of 2010, the Guardian reported that, in the previous year, the proportion of British adults who believed that climate change was "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44 to 31 percent.

Q. Why did some of the conservative users add the suffix -gate in climategate?

Why on Earth is it taking so long for the world's richest countries to take action on climate change? For a partial answer, we can look back to the controversy that started a decade ago this November, which came to be known as Climategate. In a 2010 paper in the journal Environmental Values, the sociologist Brigitte Nerlich looked at what happened.

Climategate began with the leaking of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. The leaked file included more than 1,000 emails, but climate skeptics quickly seized on just a few of them: some messages in which scientists debated the publication of potentially flawed work, and some others in which they discussed adjusting data using a "trick"-a piece of mathematical jargon that commentators misinterpreted as an effort to deceive the public.

In the U.S. and UK, conservative bloggers quickly latched onto the messages as proof of dishonesty among climate scientists. Nerlich writes that they effectively reached their audiences with a few specific phrases. One of these was the word "climategate" itself apparently first used by conservative UK writer James Delingpole. The -gate suffix, referring back to Watergate, is a familiar method used by partisans and members of the media to indicate a serious scandal.

Looking at the messaging in blog posts about climategate, Nerlich found that another common theme was "science as a religion." Climate change deniers accused environmentalists and scientists of irrationally clinging to their belief in human-made climate change in the face of what they saw as evidence that it was a hoax. "The Global Warming religion is as virulent and insidious as all mind-bending cults of absolute certitude, and yet it has become mainstream orthodoxy and infallible spirituality faster than any faith-based cult in history," as one blogger put it.

Nerlich notes that, when it comes to scientists' levels of certainty, climate change deniers wanted to have it both ways. Any hint of uncertainty-which is almost always a factor in scientific analyses, especially concerning predictions about complex systems-was presented as a reason not to believe that change was happening at all. But too much certainty became proof that scientists were no longer operating from evidence, but instead trying to justify a cult-like faith.

Ultimately, Climategate was shown to be a fabrication.

In April 2010, an independent panel cleared the climate scientists of any wrongdoing in the leaked messages.

Yet the controversy apparently succeeded in changing public opinion, at least temporarily. In February of 2010, the Guardian reported that, in the previous year, the proportion of British adults who believed that climate change was "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44 to 31 percent.

Q. Why does the author mention that the proportion of British adults who believed that climate change was "definitely" a reality had dropped from 44 to 31 percent?

Given overwhelming evidence for the primacy of sociocultural factors in determining both drinking patterns and their consequences, it is clear that ethnographic research findings on the social and cultural roles of alcohol may have important implications for policymakers - particularly in areas such as Europe where economic and political 'convergence' could have significant impact on drinking-cultures and their associated lifestyles.

In this context, it is essential for those concerned with policy and legislation on alcohol to have a clear understanding of the sociocultural functions and meanings of drinking. This passage outlines the principal conclusions that can be drawn from the available cross cultural material regarding the symbolic uses of alcoholic beverages, the social functions of drinking-places and the roles of alcohol in transitional and celebratory rituals.

From the ethnographic material available, it is clear that in all cultures where more than one type of alcoholic beverage is available, drinks are classified in terms of their social meaning, and the classification of drinks is used to define the social world. Few, if any, alcoholic beverages are 'socially neutral': every drink is loaded with symbolic meaning, every drink conveys a message.

Alcohol is a symbolic vehicle for identifying, describing, constructing and manipulating cultural systems, values, interpersonal relationships, behavioural norms and expectations. Choice of beverage is rarely a matter of personal taste.

At the simplest level, drinks are used to define the nature of the occasion. In many Western cultures, for example, champagne is synonymous with celebration, such that if champagne is ordered or served at an otherwise 'ordinary' occasion, someone will invariably ask "What are we celebrating?"

In the Wiener Becken in Austria, sekt is drunk on formal occasions, while schnapps is reserved for more intimate, convivial gatherings - the type of drink served defines both the nature of the event and the social relationship between the drinkers. The choice of drink also dictates behaviour, to the extent that the appearance of a bottle of schnapps can prompt a switch from the 'polite' form of address, sie, to the highly intimate du.

Q. The author states the different functions of drinking in order to

Given overwhelming evidence for the primacy of sociocultural factors in determining both drinking patterns and their consequences, it is clear that ethnographic research findings on the social and cultural roles of alcohol may have important implications for policymakers - particularly in areas such as Europe where economic and political 'convergence' could have significant impact on drinking-cultures and their associated lifestyles.

In this context, it is essential for those concerned with policy and legislation on alcohol to have a clear understanding of the sociocultural functions and meanings of drinking. This passage outlines the principal conclusions that can be drawn from the available cross cultural material regarding the symbolic uses of alcoholic beverages, the social functions of drinking-places and the roles of alcohol in transitional and celebratory rituals.

From the ethnographic material available, it is clear that in all cultures where more than one type of alcoholic beverage is available, drinks are classified in terms of their social meaning, and the classification of drinks is used to define the social world. Few, if any, alcoholic beverages are 'socially neutral': every drink is loaded with symbolic meaning, every drink conveys a message.

Alcohol is a symbolic vehicle for identifying, describing, constructing and manipulating cultural systems, values, interpersonal relationships, behavioural norms and expectations. Choice of beverage is rarely a matter of personal taste.

At the simplest level, drinks are used to define the nature of the occasion. In many Western cultures, for example, champagne is synonymous with celebration, such that if champagne is ordered or served at an otherwise 'ordinary' occasion, someone will invariably ask "What are we celebrating?"

In the Wiener Becken in Austria, sekt is drunk on formal occasions, while schnapps is reserved for more intimate, convivial gatherings - the type of drink served defines both the nature of the event and the social relationship between the drinkers. The choice of drink also dictates behaviour, to the extent that the appearance of a bottle of schnapps can prompt a switch from the 'polite' form of address, sie, to the highly intimate du.

Q. Which of the following words is closest in meaning to the word "convivial" used in the fifth paragraph of the passage?

Given overwhelming evidence for the primacy of sociocultural factors in determining both drinking patterns and their consequences, it is clear that ethnographic research findings on the social and cultural roles of alcohol may have important implications for policymakers - particularly in areas such as Europe where economic and political 'convergence' could have significant impact on drinking-cultures and their associated lifestyles.

In this context, it is essential for those concerned with policy and legislation on alcohol to have a clear understanding of the sociocultural functions and meanings of drinking. This passage outlines the principal conclusions that can be drawn from the available cross cultural material regarding the symbolic uses of alcoholic beverages, the social functions of drinking-places and the roles of alcohol in transitional and celebratory rituals.

From the ethnographic material available, it is clear that in all cultures where more than one type of alcoholic beverage is available, drinks are classified in terms of their social meaning, and the classification of drinks is used to define the social world. Few, if any, alcoholic beverages are 'socially neutral': every drink is loaded with symbolic meaning, every drink conveys a message.

Alcohol is a symbolic vehicle for identifying, describing, constructing and manipulating cultural systems, values, interpersonal relationships, behavioural norms and expectations. Choice of beverage is rarely a matter of personal taste.

At the simplest level, drinks are used to define the nature of the occasion. In many Western cultures, for example, champagne is synonymous with celebration, such that if champagne is ordered or served at an otherwise 'ordinary' occasion, someone will invariably ask "What are we celebrating?"

In the Wiener Becken in Austria, sekt is drunk on formal occasions, while schnapps is reserved for more intimate, convivial gatherings - the type of drink served defines both the nature of the event and the social relationship between the drinkers. The choice of drink also dictates behaviour, to the extent that the appearance of a bottle of schnapps can prompt a switch from the 'polite' form of address, sie, to the highly intimate du.

Q. According to the author,

Given overwhelming evidence for the primacy of sociocultural factors in determining both drinking patterns and their consequences, it is clear that ethnographic research findings on the social and cultural roles of alcohol may have important implications for policymakers - particularly in areas such as Europe where economic and political 'convergence' could have significant impact on drinking-cultures and their associated lifestyles.

In this context, it is essential for those concerned with policy and legislation on alcohol to have a clear understanding of the sociocultural functions and meanings of drinking. This passage outlines the principal conclusions that can be drawn from the available cross cultural material regarding the symbolic uses of alcoholic beverages, the social functions of drinking-places and the roles of alcohol in transitional and celebratory rituals.

From the ethnographic material available, it is clear that in all cultures where more than one type of alcoholic beverage is available, drinks are classified in terms of their social meaning, and the classification of drinks is used to define the social world. Few, if any, alcoholic beverages are 'socially neutral': every drink is loaded with symbolic meaning, every drink conveys a message.

Alcohol is a symbolic vehicle for identifying, describing, constructing and manipulating cultural systems, values, interpersonal relationships, behavioural norms and expectations. Choice of beverage is rarely a matter of personal taste.

At the simplest level, drinks are used to define the nature of the occasion. In many Western cultures, for example, champagne is synonymous with celebration, such that if champagne is ordered or served at an otherwise 'ordinary' occasion, someone will invariably ask "What are we celebrating?"

In the Wiener Becken in Austria, sekt is drunk on formal occasions, while schnapps is reserved for more intimate, convivial gatherings - the type of drink served defines both the nature of the event and the social relationship between the drinkers. The choice of drink also dictates behaviour, to the extent that the appearance of a bottle of schnapps can prompt a switch from the 'polite' form of address, sie, to the highly intimate du.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that

Given overwhelming evidence for the primacy of sociocultural factors in determining both drinking patterns and their consequences, it is clear that ethnographic research findings on the social and cultural roles of alcohol may have important implications for policymakers - particularly in areas such as Europe where economic and political 'convergence' could have significant impact on drinking-cultures and their associated lifestyles.

In this context, it is essential for those concerned with policy and legislation on alcohol to have a clear understanding of the sociocultural functions and meanings of drinking. This passage outlines the principal conclusions that can be drawn from the available cross cultural material regarding the symbolic uses of alcoholic beverages, the social functions of drinking-places and the roles of alcohol in transitional and celebratory rituals.

From the ethnographic material available, it is clear that in all cultures where more than one type of alcoholic beverage is available, drinks are classified in terms of their social meaning, and the classification of drinks is used to define the social world. Few, if any, alcoholic beverages are 'socially neutral': every drink is loaded with symbolic meaning, every drink conveys a message.

Alcohol is a symbolic vehicle for identifying, describing, constructing and manipulating cultural systems, values, interpersonal relationships, behavioural norms and expectations. Choice of beverage is rarely a matter of personal taste.

At the simplest level, drinks are used to define the nature of the occasion. In many Western cultures, for example, champagne is synonymous with celebration, such that if champagne is ordered or served at an otherwise 'ordinary' occasion, someone will invariably ask "What are we celebrating?"

In the Wiener Becken in Austria, sekt is drunk on formal occasions, while schnapps is reserved for more intimate, convivial gatherings - the type of drink served defines both the nature of the event and the social relationship between the drinkers. The choice of drink also dictates behaviour, to the extent that the appearance of a bottle of schnapps can prompt a switch from the 'polite' form of address, sie, to the highly intimate du.

Q. The author states the different functions of drinking in order to