CLAT Practice Test - 2 - CLAT MCQ

Read the passage and answer the question that follows.

So apparently, I need to work on pushing my grades up in a few subjects. Okay, okay, I need to push my grades up in all my subjects, but there are some subjects that need a bigger push than others. And no, pushing my grades and subjects off the sides of a cliff into dark, angry waters is not an option. Believe me. I asked.
So, since the grownups decided that Grade VI Maths, Physics and Chemistry were too hard for them to teach, they decided I needed a tutor. I'd just like to point out here that my super old parents who have white hair and life experiences can't manage chem and algebra, but I, an 11-year-old who isn't allowed to have his own phone, am expected to be acing it? Does anyone else see the unfairness here?
First of all, since we live so far away from civilisation, no one wanted to come and take classes for me! My joy was short-lived when K Sir, my math tutor from Grade IV called the parents up and asked how I was doing. Amma believes that it's divine destiny or something, that he somehow sensed I needed help and that's why he called. Like he's some Jedi Math Whiz. Great. I just ruined Star Wars for myself. Anyway, it was decided that K Sir would come for 'extra help', 'doubt clearing' and 'homework assistance'. AKA TUITION! Cue screaming.
Now, I don't hate tuition. But I don't love it either. I mean after seven hours in school, I don't think anyone would want to come home and do more studies. It's like asking grownups to come home after a long day at work and do more work. Okay, okay, I know our parents are always saying that they're on a 'work call' and need to 'check their email', but is it fair I have to suffer too?
When I used this argument on my parents, do you know what they did? DO YOU? They organised my tuitions… FOR THE WEEKEND! What new form of torture was this? Are these people even my parents or are they evil alien parent doppelgängers conducting mind experiments on me?
If after school hours are for brain rest and relaxation, weekend hours are for TV, cricket, swimming and more TV. Not algebra, simple machines and the periodic table. As if a Sunday tuition wasn't bad enough, they fixed it from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.! That's peak playground time. Who does that? Evil alien parent doppelgängers that's who!
To make this entire situation even worse — if that were possible — the Pesky Brother, academic superstar that he is, gets to go down and play! Smiling, singing and SMUG!

Q. What does the word 'doppelgänger' as used in the passage mean?

Read the passage and answer the question that follows.

So apparently, I need to work on pushing my grades up in a few subjects. Okay, okay, I need to push my grades up in all my subjects, but there are some subjects that need a bigger push than others. And no, pushing my grades and subjects off the sides of a cliff into dark, angry waters is not an option. Believe me. I asked.
So, since the grownups decided that Grade VI Maths, Physics and Chemistry were too hard for them to teach, they decided I needed a tutor. I'd just like to point out here that my super old parents who have white hair and life experiences can't manage chem and algebra, but I, an 11-year-old who isn't allowed to have his own phone, am expected to be acing it? Does anyone else see the unfairness here?
First of all, since we live so far away from civilisation, no one wanted to come and take classes for me! My joy was short-lived when K Sir, my math tutor from Grade IV called the parents up and asked how I was doing. Amma believes that it's divine destiny or something, that he somehow sensed I needed help and that's why he called. Like he's some Jedi Math Whiz. Great. I just ruined Star Wars for myself. Anyway, it was decided that K Sir would come for 'extra help', 'doubt clearing' and 'homework assistance'. AKA TUITION! Cue screaming.
Now, I don't hate tuition. But I don't love it either. I mean after seven hours in school, I don't think anyone would want to come home and do more studies. It's like asking grownups to come home after a long day at work and do more work. Okay, okay, I know our parents are always saying that they're on a 'work call' and need to 'check their email', but is it fair I have to suffer too?
When I used this argument on my parents, do you know what they did? DO YOU? They organised my tuitions… FOR THE WEEKEND! What new form of torture was this? Are these people even my parents or are they evil alien parent doppelgängers conducting mind experiments on me?
If after school hours are for brain rest and relaxation, weekend hours are for TV, cricket, swimming and more TV. Not algebra, simple machines and the periodic table. As if a Sunday tuition wasn't bad enough, they fixed it from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.! That's peak playground time. Who does that? Evil alien parent doppelgängers that's who!
To make this entire situation even worse — if that were possible — the Pesky Brother, academic superstar that he is, gets to go down and play! Smiling, singing and SMUG!

Q. What can be inferred about the timings of the author's tution?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The first IIT at Kharagpur stands on the site of the former British prison of Hijli. In the institute's first convocation address, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the location's symbolic value. "Here in the place of that Hijli detention camp stands this fine monument of India," he pointed out. "This picture seems to me symbolic of changes that are coming to India." Nehru went on to laud the engineer as the world's new nation-builder. "Now you are Engineers," he proclaimed, "and this world today...takes shape more and more under the hands of Engineers."
For Nehru, it was appropriate that the engineer had superseded the administrator as the primary agent of governance and development. Administrators had always played an important role, he admitted. However, "the time has now come when the Engineer plays an infinitely greater role than anybody else." In fact, he predicted, the division between administrator and engineer would gradually fade away "because the major work of the country today deals with...engineering schemes of various types. We are building up a new India and the administrator who is completely ignorant of engineering does not help much in administering." This was already true of more technologically developed countries, where "engineers and scientists play a far more important role even outside their sphere of engineering and science." Given the precedent they had set, Nehru concluded, "that is bound to happen in India."
Nehru's pronouncement of engineering as the new technology of nation-building heralded its importance in the project of post independence developmentalism. The engineer was to be the linchpin of the developmental state, with his technical feats putting the prowess of the state on display. But Nehru did not bestow the same level of recognition and responsibility on all of independent India's engineering colleges. His convocation address at the first IIT indicated the exceptional status of the IIT system. As beneficiaries of bilateral relations with the world's industrial powers, the IITs were elevated as institutions that would best realize the promise of technological development.
Institutional stratification was not limited to the field of technical education. In science too, a similar process had produced the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) as the most esteemed of scientific institutions. Both the IITs and the IIS were founded to distinguish effort from expertise. Indeed, this was quite explicitly stated in the government's review committee report on scientific institutions, which defined scientific expertise as the work of a "few men of high calibre" and emphasized the constitutive link between excellence and selectivity. The report tied the success of the IIS directly to uneven investment. The IIS's excellence "required the judicious investment of resources in 'the development of fewer establishments for advanced training and research,' since a more expansive approach would mean that 'the general level of technical education and research would be lowered.'" In other words, democratizing access to training would be antithetical to excellence.

Q. What can be inferred from Nehru's statement when he states that India's first IIT at the site of the Hijli detention camp is symbolic?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The first IIT at Kharagpur stands on the site of the former British prison of Hijli. In the institute's first convocation address, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the location's symbolic value. "Here in the place of that Hijli detention camp stands this fine monument of India," he pointed out. "This picture seems to me symbolic of changes that are coming to India." Nehru went on to laud the engineer as the world's new nation-builder. "Now you are Engineers," he proclaimed, "and this world today...takes shape more and more under the hands of Engineers."
For Nehru, it was appropriate that the engineer had superseded the administrator as the primary agent of governance and development. Administrators had always played an important role, he admitted. However, "the time has now come when the Engineer plays an infinitely greater role than anybody else." In fact, he predicted, the division between administrator and engineer would gradually fade away "because the major work of the country today deals with...engineering schemes of various types. We are building up a new India and the administrator who is completely ignorant of engineering does not help much in administering." This was already true of more technologically developed countries, where "engineers and scientists play a far more important role even outside their sphere of engineering and science." Given the precedent they had set, Nehru concluded, "that is bound to happen in India."
Nehru's pronouncement of engineering as the new technology of nation-building heralded its importance in the project of post independence developmentalism. The engineer was to be the linchpin of the developmental state, with his technical feats putting the prowess of the state on display. But Nehru did not bestow the same level of recognition and responsibility on all of independent India's engineering colleges. His convocation address at the first IIT indicated the exceptional status of the IIT system. As beneficiaries of bilateral relations with the world's industrial powers, the IITs were elevated as institutions that would best realize the promise of technological development.
Institutional stratification was not limited to the field of technical education. In science too, a similar process had produced the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) as the most esteemed of scientific institutions. Both the IITs and the IIS were founded to distinguish effort from expertise. Indeed, this was quite explicitly stated in the government's review committee report on scientific institutions, which defined scientific expertise as the work of a "few men of high calibre" and emphasized the constitutive link between excellence and selectivity. The report tied the success of the IIS directly to uneven investment. The IIS's excellence "required the judicious investment of resources in 'the development of fewer establishments for advanced training and research,' since a more expansive approach would mean that 'the general level of technical education and research would be lowered.'" In other words, democratizing access to training would be antithetical to excellence.

Q. Which of the following is most similar to the expectation that Nehru had from administrators as mentioned in the passage?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The first IIT at Kharagpur stands on the site of the former British prison of Hijli. In the institute's first convocation address, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the location's symbolic value. "Here in the place of that Hijli detention camp stands this fine monument of India," he pointed out. "This picture seems to me symbolic of changes that are coming to India." Nehru went on to laud the engineer as the world's new nation-builder. "Now you are Engineers," he proclaimed, "and this world today...takes shape more and more under the hands of Engineers."
For Nehru, it was appropriate that the engineer had superseded the administrator as the primary agent of governance and development. Administrators had always played an important role, he admitted. However, "the time has now come when the Engineer plays an infinitely greater role than anybody else." In fact, he predicted, the division between administrator and engineer would gradually fade away "because the major work of the country today deals with...engineering schemes of various types. We are building up a new India and the administrator who is completely ignorant of engineering does not help much in administering." This was already true of more technologically developed countries, where "engineers and scientists play a far more important role even outside their sphere of engineering and science." Given the precedent they had set, Nehru concluded, "that is bound to happen in India."
Nehru's pronouncement of engineering as the new technology of nation-building heralded its importance in the project of post independence developmentalism. The engineer was to be the linchpin of the developmental state, with his technical feats putting the prowess of the state on display. But Nehru did not bestow the same level of recognition and responsibility on all of independent India's engineering colleges. His convocation address at the first IIT indicated the exceptional status of the IIT system. As beneficiaries of bilateral relations with the world's industrial powers, the IITs were elevated as institutions that would best realize the promise of technological development.
Institutional stratification was not limited to the field of technical education. In science too, a similar process had produced the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) as the most esteemed of scientific institutions. Both the IITs and the IIS were founded to distinguish effort from expertise. Indeed, this was quite explicitly stated in the government's review committee report on scientific institutions, which defined scientific expertise as the work of a "few men of high calibre" and emphasized the constitutive link between excellence and selectivity. The report tied the success of the IIS directly to uneven investment. The IIS's excellence "required the judicious investment of resources in 'the development of fewer establishments for advanced training and research,' since a more expansive approach would mean that 'the general level of technical education and research would be lowered.'" In other words, democratizing access to training would be antithetical to excellence.

Q. What does the word 'linchpin' as used in the passage mean?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The first IIT at Kharagpur stands on the site of the former British prison of Hijli. In the institute's first convocation address, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the location's symbolic value. "Here in the place of that Hijli detention camp stands this fine monument of India," he pointed out. "This picture seems to me symbolic of changes that are coming to India." Nehru went on to laud the engineer as the world's new nation-builder. "Now you are Engineers," he proclaimed, "and this world today...takes shape more and more under the hands of Engineers."
For Nehru, it was appropriate that the engineer had superseded the administrator as the primary agent of governance and development. Administrators had always played an important role, he admitted. However, "the time has now come when the Engineer plays an infinitely greater role than anybody else." In fact, he predicted, the division between administrator and engineer would gradually fade away "because the major work of the country today deals with...engineering schemes of various types. We are building up a new India and the administrator who is completely ignorant of engineering does not help much in administering." This was already true of more technologically developed countries, where "engineers and scientists play a far more important role even outside their sphere of engineering and science." Given the precedent they had set, Nehru concluded, "that is bound to happen in India."
Nehru's pronouncement of engineering as the new technology of nation-building heralded its importance in the project of post independence developmentalism. The engineer was to be the linchpin of the developmental state, with his technical feats putting the prowess of the state on display. But Nehru did not bestow the same level of recognition and responsibility on all of independent India's engineering colleges. His convocation address at the first IIT indicated the exceptional status of the IIT system. As beneficiaries of bilateral relations with the world's industrial powers, the IITs were elevated as institutions that would best realize the promise of technological development.
Institutional stratification was not limited to the field of technical education. In science too, a similar process had produced the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) as the most esteemed of scientific institutions. Both the IITs and the IIS were founded to distinguish effort from expertise. Indeed, this was quite explicitly stated in the government's review committee report on scientific institutions, which defined scientific expertise as the work of a "few men of high calibre" and emphasized the constitutive link between excellence and selectivity. The report tied the success of the IIS directly to uneven investment. The IIS's excellence "required the judicious investment of resources in 'the development of fewer establishments for advanced training and research,' since a more expansive approach would mean that 'the general level of technical education and research would be lowered.'" In other words, democratizing access to training would be antithetical to excellence.

Q. How does Nehru's convocation address indicate the exceptional status of the IIT system?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The first IIT at Kharagpur stands on the site of the former British prison of Hijli. In the institute's first convocation address, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke of the location's symbolic value. "Here in the place of that Hijli detention camp stands this fine monument of India," he pointed out. "This picture seems to me symbolic of changes that are coming to India." Nehru went on to laud the engineer as the world's new nation-builder. "Now you are Engineers," he proclaimed, "and this world today...takes shape more and more under the hands of Engineers."
For Nehru, it was appropriate that the engineer had superseded the administrator as the primary agent of governance and development. Administrators had always played an important role, he admitted. However, "the time has now come when the Engineer plays an infinitely greater role than anybody else." In fact, he predicted, the division between administrator and engineer would gradually fade away "because the major work of the country today deals with...engineering schemes of various types. We are building up a new India and the administrator who is completely ignorant of engineering does not help much in administering." This was already true of more technologically developed countries, where "engineers and scientists play a far more important role even outside their sphere of engineering and science." Given the precedent they had set, Nehru concluded, "that is bound to happen in India."
Nehru's pronouncement of engineering as the new technology of nation-building heralded its importance in the project of post independence developmentalism. The engineer was to be the linchpin of the developmental state, with his technical feats putting the prowess of the state on display. But Nehru did not bestow the same level of recognition and responsibility on all of independent India's engineering colleges. His convocation address at the first IIT indicated the exceptional status of the IIT system. As beneficiaries of bilateral relations with the world's industrial powers, the IITs were elevated as institutions that would best realize the promise of technological development.
Institutional stratification was not limited to the field of technical education. In science too, a similar process had produced the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) as the most esteemed of scientific institutions. Both the IITs and the IIS were founded to distinguish effort from expertise. Indeed, this was quite explicitly stated in the government's review committee report on scientific institutions, which defined scientific expertise as the work of a "few men of high calibre" and emphasized the constitutive link between excellence and selectivity. The report tied the success of the IIS directly to uneven investment. The IIS's excellence "required the judicious investment of resources in 'the development of fewer establishments for advanced training and research,' since a more expansive approach would mean that 'the general level of technical education and research would be lowered.'" In other words, democratizing access to training would be antithetical to excellence.

Q. Which of the following can be rightly inferred from the given passage?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to a recent Runner's World survey, 84 percent of women have been harassed while running. That harassment can make you feel unsafe and anxious, both while running and in everyday life.
And that's not unreasonable: Harassment is scary stuff, and it's normal to feel a little apprehension about your safety. In fact, fear can be a good thing, since it can tip us off to a dangerous situation, says Adam P. Stern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
If you feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up as you cruise down a dark pathway, that's useful. Pay attention to it. But not all fear is productive: If you're ruled by fear, you might stop lacing up altogether—9 percent of women in our survey say that fear has led them to quit running for a while. Here's how to tell the difference, and how to not let fear rule your running.
Whether you're worrying about an event before it happens, or thinking later about all the things that could have gone wrong, you've got to remind yourself: Obsessing over stuff that hasn't actually happened isn't helpful. Stern suggests dissecting your thoughts with one question: "What role is this mental process serving?" Some degree of worry can actually be helpful, Stern says. Without it, we would never arrive on time to appointments, or learn from our mistakes. But if you're worrying about things you can't logistically change (like who you might run into) or ruminating on scenarios that didn't even happen, realize that these are not productive thoughts.
What are you afraid of? Maybe it's the idea of getting mugged, or the fact your run starts before the sun is up. You can't control who else is out, or what time the sun comes up, but you can control where and when you run and how much you can see and hear. Stern says that taking charge of the variables you can control might make you feel safe enough to get out the door. Make small changes to the things you can control—like running at lunch so there's plenty of daylight—to help you feel like you have a grip on your own safety.
Another way to take control, which doesn't include making sacrifices in your running routine, is to become an advocate for ending rape culture. Talk to the men in your life. Call out sexism and harassment when you see it, and help women seeking justice. Working to break down this system of oppression is both a worthy endeavour and makes you feel like you're being proactive, not reactive.

Q. Which of the following is most similar to the problem or question the author discusses in the given passage?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to a recent Runner's World survey, 84 percent of women have been harassed while running. That harassment can make you feel unsafe and anxious, both while running and in everyday life.
And that's not unreasonable: Harassment is scary stuff, and it's normal to feel a little apprehension about your safety. In fact, fear can be a good thing, since it can tip us off to a dangerous situation, says Adam P. Stern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
If you feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up as you cruise down a dark pathway, that's useful. Pay attention to it. But not all fear is productive: If you're ruled by fear, you might stop lacing up altogether—9 percent of women in our survey say that fear has led them to quit running for a while. Here's how to tell the difference, and how to not let fear rule your running.
Whether you're worrying about an event before it happens, or thinking later about all the things that could have gone wrong, you've got to remind yourself: Obsessing over stuff that hasn't actually happened isn't helpful. Stern suggests dissecting your thoughts with one question: "What role is this mental process serving?" Some degree of worry can actually be helpful, Stern says. Without it, we would never arrive on time to appointments, or learn from our mistakes. But if you're worrying about things you can't logistically change (like who you might run into) or ruminating on scenarios that didn't even happen, realize that these are not productive thoughts.
What are you afraid of? Maybe it's the idea of getting mugged, or the fact your run starts before the sun is up. You can't control who else is out, or what time the sun comes up, but you can control where and when you run and how much you can see and hear. Stern says that taking charge of the variables you can control might make you feel safe enough to get out the door. Make small changes to the things you can control—like running at lunch so there's plenty of daylight—to help you feel like you have a grip on your own safety.
Another way to take control, which doesn't include making sacrifices in your running routine, is to become an advocate for ending rape culture. Talk to the men in your life. Call out sexism and harassment when you see it, and help women seeking justice. Working to break down this system of oppression is both a worthy endeavour and makes you feel like you're being proactive, not reactive.

Q. Why, according to the author, should you pay attention to the hair standing on the back of your neck?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to a recent Runner's World survey, 84 percent of women have been harassed while running. That harassment can make you feel unsafe and anxious, both while running and in everyday life.
And that's not unreasonable: Harassment is scary stuff, and it's normal to feel a little apprehension about your safety. In fact, fear can be a good thing, since it can tip us off to a dangerous situation, says Adam P. Stern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
If you feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up as you cruise down a dark pathway, that's useful. Pay attention to it. But not all fear is productive: If you're ruled by fear, you might stop lacing up altogether—9 percent of women in our survey say that fear has led them to quit running for a while. Here's how to tell the difference, and how to not let fear rule your running.
Whether you're worrying about an event before it happens, or thinking later about all the things that could have gone wrong, you've got to remind yourself: Obsessing over stuff that hasn't actually happened isn't helpful. Stern suggests dissecting your thoughts with one question: "What role is this mental process serving?" Some degree of worry can actually be helpful, Stern says. Without it, we would never arrive on time to appointments, or learn from our mistakes. But if you're worrying about things you can't logistically change (like who you might run into) or ruminating on scenarios that didn't even happen, realize that these are not productive thoughts.
What are you afraid of? Maybe it's the idea of getting mugged, or the fact your run starts before the sun is up. You can't control who else is out, or what time the sun comes up, but you can control where and when you run and how much you can see and hear. Stern says that taking charge of the variables you can control might make you feel safe enough to get out the door. Make small changes to the things you can control—like running at lunch so there's plenty of daylight—to help you feel like you have a grip on your own safety.
Another way to take control, which doesn't include making sacrifices in your running routine, is to become an advocate for ending rape culture. Talk to the men in your life. Call out sexism and harassment when you see it, and help women seeking justice. Working to break down this system of oppression is both a worthy endeavour and makes you feel like you're being proactive, not reactive.

Q. What does the word 'ruminating' as used in the passage mean?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to a recent Runner's World survey, 84 percent of women have been harassed while running. That harassment can make you feel unsafe and anxious, both while running and in everyday life.
And that's not unreasonable: Harassment is scary stuff, and it's normal to feel a little apprehension about your safety. In fact, fear can be a good thing, since it can tip us off to a dangerous situation, says Adam P. Stern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
If you feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up as you cruise down a dark pathway, that's useful. Pay attention to it. But not all fear is productive: If you're ruled by fear, you might stop lacing up altogether—9 percent of women in our survey say that fear has led them to quit running for a while. Here's how to tell the difference, and how to not let fear rule your running.
Whether you're worrying about an event before it happens, or thinking later about all the things that could have gone wrong, you've got to remind yourself: Obsessing over stuff that hasn't actually happened isn't helpful. Stern suggests dissecting your thoughts with one question: "What role is this mental process serving?" Some degree of worry can actually be helpful, Stern says. Without it, we would never arrive on time to appointments, or learn from our mistakes. But if you're worrying about things you can't logistically change (like who you might run into) or ruminating on scenarios that didn't even happen, realize that these are not productive thoughts.
What are you afraid of? Maybe it's the idea of getting mugged, or the fact your run starts before the sun is up. You can't control who else is out, or what time the sun comes up, but you can control where and when you run and how much you can see and hear. Stern says that taking charge of the variables you can control might make you feel safe enough to get out the door. Make small changes to the things you can control—like running at lunch so there's plenty of daylight—to help you feel like you have a grip on your own safety.
Another way to take control, which doesn't include making sacrifices in your running routine, is to become an advocate for ending rape culture. Talk to the men in your life. Call out sexism and harassment when you see it, and help women seeking justice. Working to break down this system of oppression is both a worthy endeavour and makes you feel like you're being proactive, not reactive.

Q. Why, according to the passage, does Stern suggest asking yourself 'what role is this mental process serving?'

Read the passage and answer the following question.

According to a recent Runner's World survey, 84 percent of women have been harassed while running. That harassment can make you feel unsafe and anxious, both while running and in everyday life.
And that's not unreasonable: Harassment is scary stuff, and it's normal to feel a little apprehension about your safety. In fact, fear can be a good thing, since it can tip us off to a dangerous situation, says Adam P. Stern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
If you feel the hair on the back of your neck stand up as you cruise down a dark pathway, that's useful. Pay attention to it. But not all fear is productive: If you're ruled by fear, you might stop lacing up altogether—9 percent of women in our survey say that fear has led them to quit running for a while. Here's how to tell the difference, and how to not let fear rule your running.
Whether you're worrying about an event before it happens, or thinking later about all the things that could have gone wrong, you've got to remind yourself: Obsessing over stuff that hasn't actually happened isn't helpful. Stern suggests dissecting your thoughts with one question: "What role is this mental process serving?" Some degree of worry can actually be helpful, Stern says. Without it, we would never arrive on time to appointments, or learn from our mistakes. But if you're worrying about things you can't logistically change (like who you might run into) or ruminating on scenarios that didn't even happen, realize that these are not productive thoughts.
What are you afraid of? Maybe it's the idea of getting mugged, or the fact your run starts before the sun is up. You can't control who else is out, or what time the sun comes up, but you can control where and when you run and how much you can see and hear. Stern says that taking charge of the variables you can control might make you feel safe enough to get out the door. Make small changes to the things you can control—like running at lunch so there's plenty of daylight—to help you feel like you have a grip on your own safety.
Another way to take control, which doesn't include making sacrifices in your running routine, is to become an advocate for ending rape culture. Talk to the men in your life. Call out sexism and harassment when you see it, and help women seeking justice. Working to break down this system of oppression is both a worthy endeavour and makes you feel like you're being proactive, not reactive.

Q. Which of the following best sums up the author's main point in the passage?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

A ghost on the main highway past our school. She's known as Bhoot-Aunty—a spectral apparition who appears to motorists on their way to Sanjauli. She waves down passing cars and asks for a lift; and if you give her one, you are liable to have an accident.
This lady in white is said to be the revenant of a young woman who was killed in a car accident not far from here, a few months ago. Several motorists claim to have seen her. Oddly enough, pedestrians don't come across her.
Miss Ramola, Miss D'Costa and I are the exceptions.
I had accompanied some of the staff and boys to the girls' school to see a hockey match, and afterwards the ladies asked me to accompany them back as it was getting dark and they had heard there was a panther about.
'The only panther is Mr Oliver,' remarked Miss D'Costa, who was spending the weekend with Anjali Ramola.
'Such a harmless panther,' said Anjali.
I wanted to say that panthers always attack women who wore outsize earrings (such as Miss D'Costa's) but my gentlemanly upbringing prevented a rude response.
As we turned the corner near our school gate, Miss D'Costa cried out, 'Oh, do you see that strange woman sitting on the parapet wall?'
Sure enough, a figure clothed in white was resting against the wall, its face turned away from us.
'Could it—could it be—Bhoot-Aunty?' stammered Miss D'Costa.
The two ladies stood petrified in the middle of the road. I stepped forward and asked, 'Who are you, and what can we do for you?'
The ghostly apparition raised its arms, got up suddenly and rushed past me. Miss D'Costa let out a shriek. Anjali turned and fled. The figure in white flapped about, then tripped over its own winding-cloth, and fell in front of me.
As it got to its feet, the white sheet fell away and revealed—Mirchi!
'You wicked boy!' I shouted. 'Just what do you think you are up to?'
'Sorry, sir,' he gasped. 'It's just a joke. Bhoot-Aunty, sir!' And he fled the scene.
When the ladies had recovered, I saw them home and promised to deal severely with Mirchi. But on second thoughts I decided to overlook his prank. Miss D'Costa deserved getting a bit of a fright for calling me a panther.
I had picked up Mirchi's bedsheet from the road, and after supper I carried it into the dormitory and placed it on his bed without any comment. He was about to get into bed, and looked up at me in some apprehension.
Er—thank you, sir,' he said.
'An enjoyable performance,' I told him. 'Next time, make it more convincing.'

Q. Why does the author consider himself and the two women to be exceptions?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

A ghost on the main highway past our school. She's known as Bhoot-Aunty—a spectral apparition who appears to motorists on their way to Sanjauli. She waves down passing cars and asks for a lift; and if you give her one, you are liable to have an accident.
This lady in white is said to be the revenant of a young woman who was killed in a car accident not far from here, a few months ago. Several motorists claim to have seen her. Oddly enough, pedestrians don't come across her.
Miss Ramola, Miss D'Costa and I are the exceptions.
I had accompanied some of the staff and boys to the girls' school to see a hockey match, and afterwards the ladies asked me to accompany them back as it was getting dark and they had heard there was a panther about.
'The only panther is Mr Oliver,' remarked Miss D'Costa, who was spending the weekend with Anjali Ramola.
'Such a harmless panther,' said Anjali.
I wanted to say that panthers always attack women who wore outsize earrings (such as Miss D'Costa's) but my gentlemanly upbringing prevented a rude response.
As we turned the corner near our school gate, Miss D'Costa cried out, 'Oh, do you see that strange woman sitting on the parapet wall?'
Sure enough, a figure clothed in white was resting against the wall, its face turned away from us.
'Could it—could it be—Bhoot-Aunty?' stammered Miss D'Costa.
The two ladies stood petrified in the middle of the road. I stepped forward and asked, 'Who are you, and what can we do for you?'
The ghostly apparition raised its arms, got up suddenly and rushed past me. Miss D'Costa let out a shriek. Anjali turned and fled. The figure in white flapped about, then tripped over its own winding-cloth, and fell in front of me.
As it got to its feet, the white sheet fell away and revealed—Mirchi!
'You wicked boy!' I shouted. 'Just what do you think you are up to?'
'Sorry, sir,' he gasped. 'It's just a joke. Bhoot-Aunty, sir!' And he fled the scene.
When the ladies had recovered, I saw them home and promised to deal severely with Mirchi. But on second thoughts I decided to overlook his prank. Miss D'Costa deserved getting a bit of a fright for calling me a panther.
I had picked up Mirchi's bedsheet from the road, and after supper I carried it into the dormitory and placed it on his bed without any comment. He was about to get into bed, and looked up at me in some apprehension.
Er—thank you, sir,' he said.
'An enjoyable performance,' I told him. 'Next time, make it more convincing.'

Q. What does the word 'apprehension' as used in the passage mean?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

A ghost on the main highway past our school. She's known as Bhoot-Aunty—a spectral apparition who appears to motorists on their way to Sanjauli. She waves down passing cars and asks for a lift; and if you give her one, you are liable to have an accident.
This lady in white is said to be the revenant of a young woman who was killed in a car accident not far from here, a few months ago. Several motorists claim to have seen her. Oddly enough, pedestrians don't come across her.
Miss Ramola, Miss D'Costa and I are the exceptions.
I had accompanied some of the staff and boys to the girls' school to see a hockey match, and afterwards the ladies asked me to accompany them back as it was getting dark and they had heard there was a panther about.
'The only panther is Mr Oliver,' remarked Miss D'Costa, who was spending the weekend with Anjali Ramola.
'Such a harmless panther,' said Anjali.
I wanted to say that panthers always attack women who wore outsize earrings (such as Miss D'Costa's) but my gentlemanly upbringing prevented a rude response.
As we turned the corner near our school gate, Miss D'Costa cried out, 'Oh, do you see that strange woman sitting on the parapet wall?'
Sure enough, a figure clothed in white was resting against the wall, its face turned away from us.
'Could it—could it be—Bhoot-Aunty?' stammered Miss D'Costa.
The two ladies stood petrified in the middle of the road. I stepped forward and asked, 'Who are you, and what can we do for you?'
The ghostly apparition raised its arms, got up suddenly and rushed past me. Miss D'Costa let out a shriek. Anjali turned and fled. The figure in white flapped about, then tripped over its own winding-cloth, and fell in front of me.
As it got to its feet, the white sheet fell away and revealed—Mirchi!
'You wicked boy!' I shouted. 'Just what do you think you are up to?'
'Sorry, sir,' he gasped. 'It's just a joke. Bhoot-Aunty, sir!' And he fled the scene.
When the ladies had recovered, I saw them home and promised to deal severely with Mirchi. But on second thoughts I decided to overlook his prank. Miss D'Costa deserved getting a bit of a fright for calling me a panther.
I had picked up Mirchi's bedsheet from the road, and after supper I carried it into the dormitory and placed it on his bed without any comment. He was about to get into bed, and looked up at me in some apprehension.
Er—thank you, sir,' he said.
'An enjoyable performance,' I told him. 'Next time, make it more convincing.'

Q. Based on the information set out in the passage, which of the following is most accurate?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

A ghost on the main highway past our school. She's known as Bhoot-Aunty—a spectral apparition who appears to motorists on their way to Sanjauli. She waves down passing cars and asks for a lift; and if you give her one, you are liable to have an accident.
This lady in white is said to be the revenant of a young woman who was killed in a car accident not far from here, a few months ago. Several motorists claim to have seen her. Oddly enough, pedestrians don't come across her.
Miss Ramola, Miss D'Costa and I are the exceptions.
I had accompanied some of the staff and boys to the girls' school to see a hockey match, and afterwards the ladies asked me to accompany them back as it was getting dark and they had heard there was a panther about.
'The only panther is Mr Oliver,' remarked Miss D'Costa, who was spending the weekend with Anjali Ramola.
'Such a harmless panther,' said Anjali.
I wanted to say that panthers always attack women who wore outsize earrings (such as Miss D'Costa's) but my gentlemanly upbringing prevented a rude response.
As we turned the corner near our school gate, Miss D'Costa cried out, 'Oh, do you see that strange woman sitting on the parapet wall?'
Sure enough, a figure clothed in white was resting against the wall, its face turned away from us.
'Could it—could it be—Bhoot-Aunty?' stammered Miss D'Costa.
The two ladies stood petrified in the middle of the road. I stepped forward and asked, 'Who are you, and what can we do for you?'
The ghostly apparition raised its arms, got up suddenly and rushed past me. Miss D'Costa let out a shriek. Anjali turned and fled. The figure in white flapped about, then tripped over its own winding-cloth, and fell in front of me.
As it got to its feet, the white sheet fell away and revealed—Mirchi!
'You wicked boy!' I shouted. 'Just what do you think you are up to?'
'Sorry, sir,' he gasped. 'It's just a joke. Bhoot-Aunty, sir!' And he fled the scene.
When the ladies had recovered, I saw them home and promised to deal severely with Mirchi. But on second thoughts I decided to overlook his prank. Miss D'Costa deserved getting a bit of a fright for calling me a panther.
I had picked up Mirchi's bedsheet from the road, and after supper I carried it into the dormitory and placed it on his bed without any comment. He was about to get into bed, and looked up at me in some apprehension.
Er—thank you, sir,' he said.
'An enjoyable performance,' I told him. 'Next time, make it more convincing.'

Q. From the given passage, which of the following can we infer about Mirchi?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

A ghost on the main highway past our school. She's known as Bhoot-Aunty—a spectral apparition who appears to motorists on their way to Sanjauli. She waves down passing cars and asks for a lift; and if you give her one, you are liable to have an accident.
This lady in white is said to be the revenant of a young woman who was killed in a car accident not far from here, a few months ago. Several motorists claim to have seen her. Oddly enough, pedestrians don't come across her.
Miss Ramola, Miss D'Costa and I are the exceptions.
I had accompanied some of the staff and boys to the girls' school to see a hockey match, and afterwards the ladies asked me to accompany them back as it was getting dark and they had heard there was a panther about.
'The only panther is Mr Oliver,' remarked Miss D'Costa, who was spending the weekend with Anjali Ramola.
'Such a harmless panther,' said Anjali.
I wanted to say that panthers always attack women who wore outsize earrings (such as Miss D'Costa's) but my gentlemanly upbringing prevented a rude response.
As we turned the corner near our school gate, Miss D'Costa cried out, 'Oh, do you see that strange woman sitting on the parapet wall?'
Sure enough, a figure clothed in white was resting against the wall, its face turned away from us.
'Could it—could it be—Bhoot-Aunty?' stammered Miss D'Costa.
The two ladies stood petrified in the middle of the road. I stepped forward and asked, 'Who are you, and what can we do for you?'
The ghostly apparition raised its arms, got up suddenly and rushed past me. Miss D'Costa let out a shriek. Anjali turned and fled. The figure in white flapped about, then tripped over its own winding-cloth, and fell in front of me.
As it got to its feet, the white sheet fell away and revealed—Mirchi!
'You wicked boy!' I shouted. 'Just what do you think you are up to?'
'Sorry, sir,' he gasped. 'It's just a joke. Bhoot-Aunty, sir!' And he fled the scene.
When the ladies had recovered, I saw them home and promised to deal severely with Mirchi. But on second thoughts I decided to overlook his prank. Miss D'Costa deserved getting a bit of a fright for calling me a panther.
I had picked up Mirchi's bedsheet from the road, and after supper I carried it into the dormitory and placed it on his bed without any comment. He was about to get into bed, and looked up at me in some apprehension.
Er—thank you, sir,' he said.
'An enjoyable performance,' I told him. 'Next time, make it more convincing.'

Q. What can be inferred about the author's response to Mirchi and his prank?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The 2019 global Press Freedom Index ranks India as 140th among 180 countries in the world. This is alarming in itself, and even more so when you consider that press freedom is inextricably linked with the functioning of democracy. And India is not alone in this—in several countries around the world, the most startling declines in press freedom have occurred in countries with elected leaders, mostly using technology and majoritarian values to stifle dissent, criticism and information about government failures and excesses. The future of press freedom is not just tied to the future of journalism, but the future of democracy itself, both of which are extremely uncertain at this time.
Journalism has been changing rapidly over the last two decades with the exponential expansion of digital media, and this is likely to continue. We've seen major upheavals in both the format and the essential nature of media. The biggest issue has been one of control—finance models have been broken, the need to constantly churn out content and attract eyeballs has led to a drop in investigative stories, original research and fact-checking, and in the resultant chaos, advertisers, corporations, politicians, governments and technological platforms have placed journalism itself under immense pressure through ceaseless attempts at influence, manipulation and censorship.
Simultaneously, there have been concerted efforts by authority figures everywhere to erode people's trust in the media, both by subversion, proclamations and the menace of fake news—an industry of deception and distraction created by political troll factories and compliant platforms. This is not going to change with more technology shifts—as we move from smartphones to smart scrolls, smart glasses, augmented-, virtual- and mixed-reality journalism and, eventually, news fed directly to your brain, the constant struggle of journalists will be to retain enough freedom, financially, editorially and physically, to not turn into propagandists and PR engines. News automation, which will seek to replace the journalist entirely, is going to make this even more complicated.
The upcoming age of near-total surveillance is going to make finding whistleblowers and retaining anonymous sources even harder, and will also make it even easier for the powerful to prevent news from reaching the public at every stage of its dissemination. So while the need for the news media to keep a check on governments, businesses and religious authorities gone rogue, will be greater than ever, finding the resources to do this will only become more difficult. Along with these threats, the data age will provide new opportunities for journalism, as more things become measurable. We're already seeing diverse communities and their interests being represented in the news, from mainstream journalism about neglected groups and niche interests to new voices, crowdsourced or public journalism.

Q. Why, according to the author, is the threat to free press very serious?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The 2019 global Press Freedom Index ranks India as 140th among 180 countries in the world. This is alarming in itself, and even more so when you consider that press freedom is inextricably linked with the functioning of democracy. And India is not alone in this—in several countries around the world, the most startling declines in press freedom have occurred in countries with elected leaders, mostly using technology and majoritarian values to stifle dissent, criticism and information about government failures and excesses. The future of press freedom is not just tied to the future of journalism, but the future of democracy itself, both of which are extremely uncertain at this time.
Journalism has been changing rapidly over the last two decades with the exponential expansion of digital media, and this is likely to continue. We've seen major upheavals in both the format and the essential nature of media. The biggest issue has been one of control—finance models have been broken, the need to constantly churn out content and attract eyeballs has led to a drop in investigative stories, original research and fact-checking, and in the resultant chaos, advertisers, corporations, politicians, governments and technological platforms have placed journalism itself under immense pressure through ceaseless attempts at influence, manipulation and censorship.
Simultaneously, there have been concerted efforts by authority figures everywhere to erode people's trust in the media, both by subversion, proclamations and the menace of fake news—an industry of deception and distraction created by political troll factories and compliant platforms. This is not going to change with more technology shifts—as we move from smartphones to smart scrolls, smart glasses, augmented-, virtual- and mixed-reality journalism and, eventually, news fed directly to your brain, the constant struggle of journalists will be to retain enough freedom, financially, editorially and physically, to not turn into propagandists and PR engines. News automation, which will seek to replace the journalist entirely, is going to make this even more complicated.
The upcoming age of near-total surveillance is going to make finding whistleblowers and retaining anonymous sources even harder, and will also make it even easier for the powerful to prevent news from reaching the public at every stage of its dissemination. So while the need for the news media to keep a check on governments, businesses and religious authorities gone rogue, will be greater than ever, finding the resources to do this will only become more difficult. Along with these threats, the data age will provide new opportunities for journalism, as more things become measurable. We're already seeing diverse communities and their interests being represented in the news, from mainstream journalism about neglected groups and niche interests to new voices, crowdsourced or public journalism.

Q. What, according to the passage, has been a major issue that has resulted from major upheavals in the media?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The 2019 global Press Freedom Index ranks India as 140th among 180 countries in the world. This is alarming in itself, and even more so when you consider that press freedom is inextricably linked with the functioning of democracy. And India is not alone in this—in several countries around the world, the most startling declines in press freedom have occurred in countries with elected leaders, mostly using technology and majoritarian values to stifle dissent, criticism and information about government failures and excesses. The future of press freedom is not just tied to the future of journalism, but the future of democracy itself, both of which are extremely uncertain at this time.
Journalism has been changing rapidly over the last two decades with the exponential expansion of digital media, and this is likely to continue. We've seen major upheavals in both the format and the essential nature of media. The biggest issue has been one of control—finance models have been broken, the need to constantly churn out content and attract eyeballs has led to a drop in investigative stories, original research and fact-checking, and in the resultant chaos, advertisers, corporations, politicians, governments and technological platforms have placed journalism itself under immense pressure through ceaseless attempts at influence, manipulation and censorship.
Simultaneously, there have been concerted efforts by authority figures everywhere to erode people's trust in the media, both by subversion, proclamations and the menace of fake news—an industry of deception and distraction created by political troll factories and compliant platforms. This is not going to change with more technology shifts—as we move from smartphones to smart scrolls, smart glasses, augmented-, virtual- and mixed-reality journalism and, eventually, news fed directly to your brain, the constant struggle of journalists will be to retain enough freedom, financially, editorially and physically, to not turn into propagandists and PR engines. News automation, which will seek to replace the journalist entirely, is going to make this even more complicated.
The upcoming age of near-total surveillance is going to make finding whistleblowers and retaining anonymous sources even harder, and will also make it even easier for the powerful to prevent news from reaching the public at every stage of its dissemination. So while the need for the news media to keep a check on governments, businesses and religious authorities gone rogue, will be greater than ever, finding the resources to do this will only become more difficult. Along with these threats, the data age will provide new opportunities for journalism, as more things become measurable. We're already seeing diverse communities and their interests being represented in the news, from mainstream journalism about neglected groups and niche interests to new voices, crowdsourced or public journalism.

Q. What does the term 'whistleblowers' as used in the passage mean?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The 2019 global Press Freedom Index ranks India as 140th among 180 countries in the world. This is alarming in itself, and even more so when you consider that press freedom is inextricably linked with the functioning of democracy. And India is not alone in this—in several countries around the world, the most startling declines in press freedom have occurred in countries with elected leaders, mostly using technology and majoritarian values to stifle dissent, criticism and information about government failures and excesses. The future of press freedom is not just tied to the future of journalism, but the future of democracy itself, both of which are extremely uncertain at this time.
Journalism has been changing rapidly over the last two decades with the exponential expansion of digital media, and this is likely to continue. We've seen major upheavals in both the format and the essential nature of media. The biggest issue has been one of control—finance models have been broken, the need to constantly churn out content and attract eyeballs has led to a drop in investigative stories, original research and fact-checking, and in the resultant chaos, advertisers, corporations, politicians, governments and technological platforms have placed journalism itself under immense pressure through ceaseless attempts at influence, manipulation and censorship.
Simultaneously, there have been concerted efforts by authority figures everywhere to erode people's trust in the media, both by subversion, proclamations and the menace of fake news—an industry of deception and distraction created by political troll factories and compliant platforms. This is not going to change with more technology shifts—as we move from smartphones to smart scrolls, smart glasses, augmented-, virtual- and mixed-reality journalism and, eventually, news fed directly to your brain, the constant struggle of journalists will be to retain enough freedom, financially, editorially and physically, to not turn into propagandists and PR engines. News automation, which will seek to replace the journalist entirely, is going to make this even more complicated.
The upcoming age of near-total surveillance is going to make finding whistleblowers and retaining anonymous sources even harder, and will also make it even easier for the powerful to prevent news from reaching the public at every stage of its dissemination. So while the need for the news media to keep a check on governments, businesses and religious authorities gone rogue, will be greater than ever, finding the resources to do this will only become more difficult. Along with these threats, the data age will provide new opportunities for journalism, as more things become measurable. We're already seeing diverse communities and their interests being represented in the news, from mainstream journalism about neglected groups and niche interests to new voices, crowdsourced or public journalism.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following can rightly be considered as a concerted effort by an authority figure to erode trust in journalism?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

The 2019 global Press Freedom Index ranks India as 140th among 180 countries in the world. This is alarming in itself, and even more so when you consider that press freedom is inextricably linked with the functioning of democracy. And India is not alone in this—in several countries around the world, the most startling declines in press freedom have occurred in countries with elected leaders, mostly using technology and majoritarian values to stifle dissent, criticism and information about government failures and excesses. The future of press freedom is not just tied to the future of journalism, but the future of democracy itself, both of which are extremely uncertain at this time.
Journalism has been changing rapidly over the last two decades with the exponential expansion of digital media, and this is likely to continue. We've seen major upheavals in both the format and the essential nature of media. The biggest issue has been one of control—finance models have been broken, the need to constantly churn out content and attract eyeballs has led to a drop in investigative stories, original research and fact-checking, and in the resultant chaos, advertisers, corporations, politicians, governments and technological platforms have placed journalism itself under immense pressure through ceaseless attempts at influence, manipulation and censorship.
Simultaneously, there have been concerted efforts by authority figures everywhere to erode people's trust in the media, both by subversion, proclamations and the menace of fake news—an industry of deception and distraction created by political troll factories and compliant platforms. This is not going to change with more technology shifts—as we move from smartphones to smart scrolls, smart glasses, augmented-, virtual- and mixed-reality journalism and, eventually, news fed directly to your brain, the constant struggle of journalists will be to retain enough freedom, financially, editorially and physically, to not turn into propagandists and PR engines. News automation, which will seek to replace the journalist entirely, is going to make this even more complicated.
The upcoming age of near-total surveillance is going to make finding whistleblowers and retaining anonymous sources even harder, and will also make it even easier for the powerful to prevent news from reaching the public at every stage of its dissemination. So while the need for the news media to keep a check on governments, businesses and religious authorities gone rogue, will be greater than ever, finding the resources to do this will only become more difficult. Along with these threats, the data age will provide new opportunities for journalism, as more things become measurable. We're already seeing diverse communities and their interests being represented in the news, from mainstream journalism about neglected groups and niche interests to new voices, crowdsourced or public journalism.

Q. Which of the following can rightly be inferred from the passage?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

Astronomers will sweep the entire sky for signs of extraterrestrial life for the first time, using 28 giant radio telescopes in an unprecedented hunt for alien civilisations.
Three Earth-sized planets orbiting a cool, dim star called Trappist-1 in the constellation of Aquarius will be high up on the hit list. Computer models suggest the Trappist-1 system is among the most promising for finding planets with atmospheres and temperatures that would enable liquid water to exist on the surface.
"The James Webb Telescope will be able to tell us whether they have atmospheres like the Earth or Venus," said Victoria Meadows, who leads Nasa's Virtual Planetary Laboratory at the University of Washington. "It gives us our first real chance to search for gases given off by life on another planet. We're basically going to get to study Earth's cousins."
Andrew Siemion, director of the Berkeley Seti centre announced the second tranche of results from the $100m (£76m) Breakthrough Listen Initiative: no alien transmissions have been detected so far.
The latest survey, the most comprehensive to date of radio emissions, included the first search of the "Earth transit zone". The transit zone search targeted 20 stars in positions where the hypothetical inhabitants of these solar systems would be able to observe the Earth's shadow flickering across the sun. This method of detection has allowed astronomers to identify thousands of exoplanets and determine whether their conditions are potentially habitable.
"This turns that around and says, 'What if some other civilisation were watching our sun?'" said Siemion.
If there is, it is either watching quietly or watching from some of the other 200bn stars in the Milky Way.
As the latest technology advances bring scientists a step closer to answering the question of whether anyone or anything is out there, there are still issues to be ironed out over best practice in the event that an alien civilisation is detected.
Stephen Hawking warned against attempting any form of contact, suggesting the outcome for humans would not necessarily be good. Siemion disagrees. "Personally I think we absolutely should and I think without a doubt, we would," he said. "Part of being human is wanting to reach out into the unknown and wanting to reach out and make connections."
He is less decisive about what Earth's message should be, however. "I don't know … I spend absolutely zero time thinking about that," he said. "I guess I would just say, 'Hello'."

Q. Why, according to the passage, are the three planets discovered in the Trappist-1 system of significance?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

Astronomers will sweep the entire sky for signs of extraterrestrial life for the first time, using 28 giant radio telescopes in an unprecedented hunt for alien civilisations.
Three Earth-sized planets orbiting a cool, dim star called Trappist-1 in the constellation of Aquarius will be high up on the hit list. Computer models suggest the Trappist-1 system is among the most promising for finding planets with atmospheres and temperatures that would enable liquid water to exist on the surface.
"The James Webb Telescope will be able to tell us whether they have atmospheres like the Earth or Venus," said Victoria Meadows, who leads Nasa's Virtual Planetary Laboratory at the University of Washington. "It gives us our first real chance to search for gases given off by life on another planet. We're basically going to get to study Earth's cousins."
Andrew Siemion, director of the Berkeley Seti centre announced the second tranche of results from the $100m (£76m) Breakthrough Listen Initiative: no alien transmissions have been detected so far.
The latest survey, the most comprehensive to date of radio emissions, included the first search of the "Earth transit zone". The transit zone search targeted 20 stars in positions where the hypothetical inhabitants of these solar systems would be able to observe the Earth's shadow flickering across the sun. This method of detection has allowed astronomers to identify thousands of exoplanets and determine whether their conditions are potentially habitable.
"This turns that around and says, 'What if some other civilisation were watching our sun?'" said Siemion.
If there is, it is either watching quietly or watching from some of the other 200bn stars in the Milky Way.
As the latest technology advances bring scientists a step closer to answering the question of whether anyone or anything is out there, there are still issues to be ironed out over best practice in the event that an alien civilisation is detected.
Stephen Hawking warned against attempting any form of contact, suggesting the outcome for humans would not necessarily be good. Siemion disagrees. "Personally I think we absolutely should and I think without a doubt, we would," he said. "Part of being human is wanting to reach out into the unknown and wanting to reach out and make connections."
He is less decisive about what Earth's message should be, however. "I don't know … I spend absolutely zero time thinking about that," he said. "I guess I would just say, 'Hello'."

Q. According to the passage, which of the following can be considered a planet that would be a cousin to Earth and Venus?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

Astronomers will sweep the entire sky for signs of extraterrestrial life for the first time, using 28 giant radio telescopes in an unprecedented hunt for alien civilisations.
Three Earth-sized planets orbiting a cool, dim star called Trappist-1 in the constellation of Aquarius will be high up on the hit list. Computer models suggest the Trappist-1 system is among the most promising for finding planets with atmospheres and temperatures that would enable liquid water to exist on the surface.
"The James Webb Telescope will be able to tell us whether they have atmospheres like the Earth or Venus," said Victoria Meadows, who leads Nasa's Virtual Planetary Laboratory at the University of Washington. "It gives us our first real chance to search for gases given off by life on another planet. We're basically going to get to study Earth's cousins."
Andrew Siemion, director of the Berkeley Seti centre announced the second tranche of results from the $100m (£76m) Breakthrough Listen Initiative: no alien transmissions have been detected so far.
The latest survey, the most comprehensive to date of radio emissions, included the first search of the "Earth transit zone". The transit zone search targeted 20 stars in positions where the hypothetical inhabitants of these solar systems would be able to observe the Earth's shadow flickering across the sun. This method of detection has allowed astronomers to identify thousands of exoplanets and determine whether their conditions are potentially habitable.
"This turns that around and says, 'What if some other civilisation were watching our sun?'" said Siemion.
If there is, it is either watching quietly or watching from some of the other 200bn stars in the Milky Way.
As the latest technology advances bring scientists a step closer to answering the question of whether anyone or anything is out there, there are still issues to be ironed out over best practice in the event that an alien civilisation is detected.
Stephen Hawking warned against attempting any form of contact, suggesting the outcome for humans would not necessarily be good. Siemion disagrees. "Personally I think we absolutely should and I think without a doubt, we would," he said. "Part of being human is wanting to reach out into the unknown and wanting to reach out and make connections."
He is less decisive about what Earth's message should be, however. "I don't know … I spend absolutely zero time thinking about that," he said. "I guess I would just say, 'Hello'."

Q. What does the phrase 'ironed out' as used in the passage mean?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

Astronomers will sweep the entire sky for signs of extraterrestrial life for the first time, using 28 giant radio telescopes in an unprecedented hunt for alien civilisations.
Three Earth-sized planets orbiting a cool, dim star called Trappist-1 in the constellation of Aquarius will be high up on the hit list. Computer models suggest the Trappist-1 system is among the most promising for finding planets with atmospheres and temperatures that would enable liquid water to exist on the surface.
"The James Webb Telescope will be able to tell us whether they have atmospheres like the Earth or Venus," said Victoria Meadows, who leads Nasa's Virtual Planetary Laboratory at the University of Washington. "It gives us our first real chance to search for gases given off by life on another planet. We're basically going to get to study Earth's cousins."
Andrew Siemion, director of the Berkeley Seti centre announced the second tranche of results from the $100m (£76m) Breakthrough Listen Initiative: no alien transmissions have been detected so far.
The latest survey, the most comprehensive to date of radio emissions, included the first search of the "Earth transit zone". The transit zone search targeted 20 stars in positions where the hypothetical inhabitants of these solar systems would be able to observe the Earth's shadow flickering across the sun. This method of detection has allowed astronomers to identify thousands of exoplanets and determine whether their conditions are potentially habitable.
"This turns that around and says, 'What if some other civilisation were watching our sun?'" said Siemion.
If there is, it is either watching quietly or watching from some of the other 200bn stars in the Milky Way.
As the latest technology advances bring scientists a step closer to answering the question of whether anyone or anything is out there, there are still issues to be ironed out over best practice in the event that an alien civilisation is detected.
Stephen Hawking warned against attempting any form of contact, suggesting the outcome for humans would not necessarily be good. Siemion disagrees. "Personally I think we absolutely should and I think without a doubt, we would," he said. "Part of being human is wanting to reach out into the unknown and wanting to reach out and make connections."
He is less decisive about what Earth's message should be, however. "I don't know … I spend absolutely zero time thinking about that," he said. "I guess I would just say, 'Hello'."

Q. Which of the following would be consistent with the author's description of the first search of the "Earth transit zone"?

Read the passage and answer the following question.

Astronomers will sweep the entire sky for signs of extraterrestrial life for the first time, using 28 giant radio telescopes in an unprecedented hunt for alien civilisations.
Three Earth-sized planets orbiting a cool, dim star called Trappist-1 in the constellation of Aquarius will be high up on the hit list. Computer models suggest the Trappist-1 system is among the most promising for finding planets with atmospheres and temperatures that would enable liquid water to exist on the surface.
"The James Webb Telescope will be able to tell us whether they have atmospheres like the Earth or Venus," said Victoria Meadows, who leads Nasa's Virtual Planetary Laboratory at the University of Washington. "It gives us our first real chance to search for gases given off by life on another planet. We're basically going to get to study Earth's cousins."
Andrew Siemion, director of the Berkeley Seti centre announced the second tranche of results from the $100m (£76m) Breakthrough Listen Initiative: no alien transmissions have been detected so far.
The latest survey, the most comprehensive to date of radio emissions, included the first search of the "Earth transit zone". The transit zone search targeted 20 stars in positions where the hypothetical inhabitants of these solar systems would be able to observe the Earth's shadow flickering across the sun. This method of detection has allowed astronomers to identify thousands of exoplanets and determine whether their conditions are potentially habitable.
"This turns that around and says, 'What if some other civilisation were watching our sun?'" said Siemion.
If there is, it is either watching quietly or watching from some of the other 200bn stars in the Milky Way.
As the latest technology advances bring scientists a step closer to answering the question of whether anyone or anything is out there, there are still issues to be ironed out over best practice in the event that an alien civilisation is detected.
Stephen Hawking warned against attempting any form of contact, suggesting the outcome for humans would not necessarily be good. Siemion disagrees. "Personally I think we absolutely should and I think without a doubt, we would," he said. "Part of being human is wanting to reach out into the unknown and wanting to reach out and make connections."
He is less decisive about what Earth's message should be, however. "I don't know … I spend absolutely zero time thinking about that," he said. "I guess I would just say, 'Hello'."

Q. Why, according to the passage, would Siemion disagree with Stephen Hawking regarding contact with an alien species?