CLAT Practice Test - 21 - CLAT MCQ

The first visible change to the body—occurring 15 to 20 minutes after death—is pallor mortis, in which the body begins to pale. Pallor mortis occurs because blood stops moving through the capillaries, the smallest of the body’s blood vessels. This process is identical for all people, but it’s less immediately apparent on people with darker skin. Meanwhile, the body cools, decreasing in temperature about 1.5 °F (0.84 °C) per hour. But even when the body is cold, it’s still full of life. Damaged blood cells pour out of their broken vessels and trigger discoloration on the skin’s surface. Though this discoloration begins to set in about an hour after death, it usually isn’t visible until a few hours later. In death, chemical bridges gradually form between the actin and the myosin, so the muscles contract and stay that way till the bridges break down. This stiffness, known as rigor mortis, occurs about two to six hours after death. Rigor mortis adds to the difficulty of performing an autopsy or preparing a body for a funeral, as the body loses the flexibility it had during life. Among the living things in the human body are bacteria. While the body is alive, they are concentrated in the gut but are mostly kept out of other internal organs by the immune system. After death, though, these bacteria are free to “feed” on the whole body. First, they digest the intestines and nearby tissue. Then they expand their reach, entering the capillaries and making their way into the heart and brain to feast.

Decomposition takes time. How much time may depend on such factors as the cause of death, the environmental conditions, or even the clothing on the body. Decomposition is “a continuous process,” explained forensic scientist M. Lee Goff to Medical News Today, “beginning at the point of death and ending when the body has been reduced to a skeleton.” To slow that arguably gruesome process, humans have devised various practices for preserving the body. A well-preserved body has long been a chief mortuary concern, especially when it will be displayed during a period of mourning. Embalming is one way of preserving a body after death. A wide variety of substances—including vinegar, wine, brandy, and honey—have been used to “pickle” corpses and thus delay putrefaction. In the modern procedure of embalming, blood is drained from the veins, and another fluid, usually based on a solution of formaldehyde in water, is injected into a major artery. Though this version of embalming isn’t permanent, it serves its purpose—giving the body a lifelike appearance in the days after death when it will be viewed by mourners.

Q. The modern procedure of embalming is suitable for?

The first visible change to the body—occurring 15 to 20 minutes after death—is pallor mortis, in which the body begins to pale. Pallor mortis occurs because blood stops moving through the capillaries, the smallest of the body’s blood vessels. This process is identical for all people, but it’s less immediately apparent on people with darker skin. Meanwhile, the body cools, decreasing in temperature about 1.5 °F (0.84 °C) per hour. But even when the body is cold, it’s still full of life. Damaged blood cells pour out of their broken vessels and trigger discoloration on the skin’s surface. Though this discoloration begins to set in about an hour after death, it usually isn’t visible until a few hours later. In death, chemical bridges gradually form between the actin and the myosin, so the muscles contract and stay that way till the bridges break down. This stiffness, known as rigor mortis, occurs about two to six hours after death. Rigor mortis adds to the difficulty of performing an autopsy or preparing a body for a funeral, as the body loses the flexibility it had during life. Among the living things in the human body are bacteria. While the body is alive, they are concentrated in the gut but are mostly kept out of other internal organs by the immune system. After death, though, these bacteria are free to “feed” on the whole body. First, they digest the intestines and nearby tissue. Then they expand their reach, entering the capillaries and making their way into the heart and brain to feast.

Decomposition takes time. How much time may depend on such factors as the cause of death, the environmental conditions, or even the clothing on the body. Decomposition is “a continuous process,” explained forensic scientist M. Lee Goff to Medical News Today, “beginning at the point of death and ending when the body has been reduced to a skeleton.” To slow that arguably gruesome process, humans have devised various practices for preserving the body. A well-preserved body has long been a chief mortuary concern, especially when it will be displayed during a period of mourning. Embalming is one way of preserving a body after death. A wide variety of substances—including vinegar, wine, brandy, and honey—have been used to “pickle” corpses and thus delay putrefaction. In the modern procedure of embalming, blood is drained from the veins, and another fluid, usually based on a solution of formaldehyde in water, is injected into a major artery. Though this version of embalming isn’t permanent, it serves its purpose—giving the body a lifelike appearance in the days after death when it will be viewed by mourners.

Q. “Muscles contract” when we die. Which of the following is not the correct usage of the term ‘contract’?

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 ""Climate-gate"" 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 analysis, 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 ""Climate-gate"" 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 analysis, 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 ""Climate-gate"" 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 analysis, 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 ""Climate-gate"" 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 analysis, 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?

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 ""Climate-gate"" 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 analysis, 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 ""Climate-gate"" 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 analysis, 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 of the following could be an apposite title to the passage?

Faith in entities is often an act of personal commitment not amenable to falsification, but trust in a scientific process can be established with confidence-building measures and full disclosure of all relevant data. Any mass campaign that involves voluntary effort on the part of the public can succeed only when transparency and open communication channels are the tools of choice. If the poor rate of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in most of the States in the country is any indication, the government has not taken the people of the country along, in what is a purely voluntary exercise, but one vested with great power to retard the pace of the epidemic. For instance, Tamil Nadu, a State perceived to be largely health literate, and relatively well-equipped with health infrastructure, achieved only over 16% of its targeted coverage on the launch day. On the second day of vaccination, the compliance further dropped; in some States, vaccination was suspended. A marked favouring of the Covishield vaccine over Covaxin was also noticed in multiple States.

But none of this is a surprise. The signs, verily, were out there for everyone to see, for a long time indeed. Studies measured high levels of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, and among health-care workers, the first in the line list of people to receive free vaccination. Clearly, vaccine hesitancy was not addressed sufficiently, or not taken seriously enough. With the sequence of events that followed the clearance of Emergency Use Authorisation (in Covaxin, it is emergency use authorisation in ‘clinical trial mode’) — a high-handed announcement with little attempt to put out compelling evidence in the public domain, or answer multiple queries in press conferences — vaccine hesitancy merely dug its heels in deeper. The inability of the government and agencies involved to amicably resolve controversies surrounding the clearance for Covaxin, even before it was able to produce interim data on efficacy from phase-3 trials, has had a direct consequence, as witnessed by poor numbers in its uptake so far. A vaccine, unequivocally, is public good, but the lack of transparency surrounding the roll-out of the COVID vaccines has done little to enhance trust in this experiential principle. This uncommon haste in trying to lunge towards the tape while still some distance from the finish line might have been justified if the state had taken the people along. Vaccinating the nation, however, is less a race than a slow and steady process. Building confidence in the process is crucial to achieving the task at hand. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oft-repeated mantra, ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’, is very relevant here. And the Health Ministry must do whatever it takes to make a success of the vaccination drive.

Q. Which of the following could be deduced from the passage?

Faith in entities is often an act of personal commitment not amenable to falsification, but trust in a scientific process can be established with confidence-building measures and full disclosure of all relevant data. Any mass campaign that involves voluntary effort on the part of the public can succeed only when transparency and open communication channels are the tools of choice. If the poor rate of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in most of the States in the country is any indication, the government has not taken the people of the country along, in what is a purely voluntary exercise, but one vested with great power to retard the pace of the epidemic. For instance, Tamil Nadu, a State perceived to be largely health literate, and relatively well-equipped with health infrastructure, achieved only over 16% of its targeted coverage on the launch day. On the second day of vaccination, the compliance further dropped; in some States, vaccination was suspended. A marked favouring of the Covishield vaccine over Covaxin was also noticed in multiple States.

But none of this is a surprise. The signs, verily, were out there for everyone to see, for a long time indeed. Studies measured high levels of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, and among health-care workers, the first in the line list of people to receive free vaccination. Clearly, vaccine hesitancy was not addressed sufficiently, or not taken seriously enough. With the sequence of events that followed the clearance of Emergency Use Authorisation (in Covaxin, it is emergency use authorisation in ‘clinical trial mode’) — a high-handed announcement with little attempt to put out compelling evidence in the public domain, or answer multiple queries in press conferences — vaccine hesitancy merely dug its heels in deeper. The inability of the government and agencies involved to amicably resolve controversies surrounding the clearance for Covaxin, even before it was able to produce interim data on efficacy from phase-3 trials, has had a direct consequence, as witnessed by poor numbers in its uptake so far. A vaccine, unequivocally, is public good, but the lack of transparency surrounding the roll-out of the COVID vaccines has done little to enhance trust in this experiential principle. This uncommon haste in trying to lunge towards the tape while still some distance from the finish line might have been justified if the state had taken the people along. Vaccinating the nation, however, is less a race than a slow and steady process. Building confidence in the process is crucial to achieving the task at hand. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oft-repeated mantra, ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’, is very relevant here. And the Health Ministry must do whatever it takes to make a success of the vaccination drive.

Q. Which of the following is true regarding the tone of the author in the passage?

Faith in entities is often an act of personal commitment not amenable to falsification, but trust in a scientific process can be established with confidence-building measures and full disclosure of all relevant data. Any mass campaign that involves voluntary effort on the part of the public can succeed only when transparency and open communication channels are the tools of choice. If the poor rate of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in most of the States in the country is any indication, the government has not taken the people of the country along, in what is a purely voluntary exercise, but one vested with great power to retard the pace of the epidemic. For instance, Tamil Nadu, a State perceived to be largely health literate, and relatively well-equipped with health infrastructure, achieved only over 16% of its targeted coverage on the launch day. On the second day of vaccination, the compliance further dropped; in some States, vaccination was suspended. A marked favouring of the Covishield vaccine over Covaxin was also noticed in multiple States.

But none of this is a surprise. The signs, verily, were out there for everyone to see, for a long time indeed. Studies measured high levels of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, and among health-care workers, the first in the line list of people to receive free vaccination. Clearly, vaccine hesitancy was not addressed sufficiently, or not taken seriously enough. With the sequence of events that followed the clearance of Emergency Use Authorisation (in Covaxin, it is emergency use authorisation in ‘clinical trial mode’) — a high-handed announcement with little attempt to put out compelling evidence in the public domain, or answer multiple queries in press conferences — vaccine hesitancy merely dug its heels in deeper. The inability of the government and agencies involved to amicably resolve controversies surrounding the clearance for Covaxin, even before it was able to produce interim data on efficacy from phase-3 trials, has had a direct consequence, as witnessed by poor numbers in its uptake so far. A vaccine, unequivocally, is public good, but the lack of transparency surrounding the roll-out of the COVID vaccines has done little to enhance trust in this experiential principle. This uncommon haste in trying to lunge towards the tape while still some distance from the finish line might have been justified if the state had taken the people along. Vaccinating the nation, however, is less a race than a slow and steady process. Building confidence in the process is crucial to achieving the task at hand. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oft-repeated mantra, ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’, is very relevant here. And the Health Ministry must do whatever it takes to make a success of the vaccination drive.

Q. Which of the following is true on the basis of the passage?

1.Vaccine hesitancy has been caused due to the non-transparency with respect to the vaccine

2. All the vaccines being used in India have not even passed the trial stage

3. Tamil Nadu is the only state which has shown hesitancy with respect to the vaccine uptake

Faith in entities is often an act of personal commitment not amenable to falsification, but trust in a scientific process can be established with confidence-building measures and full disclosure of all relevant data. Any mass campaign that involves voluntary effort on the part of the public can succeed only when transparency and open communication channels are the tools of choice. If the poor rate of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in most of the States in the country is any indication, the government has not taken the people of the country along, in what is a purely voluntary exercise, but one vested with great power to retard the pace of the epidemic. For instance, Tamil Nadu, a State perceived to be largely health literate, and relatively well-equipped with health infrastructure, achieved only over 16% of its targeted coverage on the launch day. On the second day of vaccination, the compliance further dropped; in some States, vaccination was suspended. A marked favouring of the Covishield vaccine over Covaxin was also noticed in multiple States.

But none of this is a surprise. The signs, verily, were out there for everyone to see, for a long time indeed. Studies measured high levels of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, and among health-care workers, the first in the line list of people to receive free vaccination. Clearly, vaccine hesitancy was not addressed sufficiently, or not taken seriously enough. With the sequence of events that followed the clearance of Emergency Use Authorisation (in Covaxin, it is emergency use authorisation in ‘clinical trial mode’) — a high-handed announcement with little attempt to put out compelling evidence in the public domain, or answer multiple queries in press conferences — vaccine hesitancy merely dug its heels in deeper. The inability of the government and agencies involved to amicably resolve controversies surrounding the clearance for Covaxin, even before it was able to produce interim data on efficacy from phase-3 trials, has had a direct consequence, as witnessed by poor numbers in its uptake so far. A vaccine, unequivocally, is public good, but the lack of transparency surrounding the roll-out of the COVID vaccines has done little to enhance trust in this experiential principle. This uncommon haste in trying to lunge towards the tape while still some distance from the finish line might have been justified if the state had taken the people along. Vaccinating the nation, however, is less a race than a slow and steady process. Building confidence in the process is crucial to achieving the task at hand. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oft-repeated mantra, ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’, is very relevant here. And the Health Ministry must do whatever it takes to make a success of the vaccination drive.

Q. Which of the following is not consistent with the passage?

Faith in entities is often an act of personal commitment not amenable to falsification, but trust in a scientific process can be established with confidence-building measures and full disclosure of all relevant data. Any mass campaign that involves voluntary effort on the part of the public can succeed only when transparency and open communication channels are the tools of choice. If the poor rate of uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in most of the States in the country is any indication, the government has not taken the people of the country along, in what is a purely voluntary exercise, but one vested with great power to retard the pace of the epidemic. For instance, Tamil Nadu, a State perceived to be largely health literate, and relatively well-equipped with health infrastructure, achieved only over 16% of its targeted coverage on the launch day. On the second day of vaccination, the compliance further dropped; in some States, vaccination was suspended. A marked favouring of the Covishield vaccine over Covaxin was also noticed in multiple States.

But none of this is a surprise. The signs, verily, were out there for everyone to see, for a long time indeed. Studies measured high levels of vaccine hesitancy among the general population, and among health-care workers, the first in the line list of people to receive free vaccination. Clearly, vaccine hesitancy was not addressed sufficiently, or not taken seriously enough. With the sequence of events that followed the clearance of Emergency Use Authorisation (in Covaxin, it is emergency use authorisation in ‘clinical trial mode’) — a high-handed announcement with little attempt to put out compelling evidence in the public domain, or answer multiple queries in press conferences — vaccine hesitancy merely dug its heels in deeper. The inability of the government and agencies involved to amicably resolve controversies surrounding the clearance for Covaxin, even before it was able to produce interim data on efficacy from phase-3 trials, has had a direct consequence, as witnessed by poor numbers in its uptake so far. A vaccine, unequivocally, is public good, but the lack of transparency surrounding the roll-out of the COVID vaccines has done little to enhance trust in this experiential principle. This uncommon haste in trying to lunge towards the tape while still some distance from the finish line might have been justified if the state had taken the people along. Vaccinating the nation, however, is less a race than a slow and steady process. Building confidence in the process is crucial to achieving the task at hand. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oft-repeated mantra, ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’, is very relevant here. And the Health Ministry must do whatever it takes to make a success of the vaccination drive.

Q. Which of the following is the antonym for the word, confidence?

On a magical Tuesday, India’s cricketing history gained a luminous chapter even as the shadows lengthened at Brisbane’s Gabba. When Rishabh Pant’s winning four aptly concluded a tense pursuit of 328 on a nerve-wracking fifth day of the fourth Test, Ajinkya Rahane’s men seized the series at 2-1 to retain (no of times) the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. As far as role-reversals go, this was stunning in its execution and jaw-dropping in its impact. It was a verdict that seemed improbable after India’s 36, its lowest ever Test score, during the debilitating loss in the first game at Adelaide. But India progressed despite losing personnel to injuries or personal reasons. Skipper Virat Kohli took paternity leave while other regulars had to be benched following a spate of injuries. Yet, Rahane’s men persevered, right from the established Cheteshwar Pujara and R. Ashwin to the latest rookies in the squad — Shubman Gill and Washington Sundar. At various points, the experienced professional and the fresh debutant joined forces and nourished miraculous dreams. The turn-around at Melbourne was followed by the stone-walling at Sydney. Finally, in a long tour that commenced on November 12, last year, a second-wind was found in the climax. India did not have any of its frontline bowlers at Brisbane but Mohammed Siraj astutely helmed the attack and Tim Paine’s men were defeated by three wickets.

Winning a Test series against Australia in its backyard is considered as cricket’s highest benchmark for excellence. This yardstick has lasted for two decades ever since the previous dominant outfit, the West Indies, suffered a decline. Seen in that context, what India has achieved over the course of two tours — in 2018-19 and the just concluded 2020-21 face-off — is nothing short of stupendous. Twice, India has defeated Australia by identical margins (2-1). However, the latest act will rank right up in an all-time list of great Test series ever since the sport’s longest format commenced at Melbourne in 1877. When India last toured Australia, the host was blighted by the ball-tampering scandal and Steve Smith and David Warner were rightly put to pasture. Cut to the present, the visitor was up against a full-strength home unit. These are fraught times due to the pandemic and resultant bio-bubble angst, and even stepping out for a coffee is deemed an offence. To make it worse, India was never at its optimum potential and with every passing day, its list of the walking-wounded grew. There were even wry jokes about how coach Ravi Shastri may be forced to turn out considering his diminishing resources. But India thrived and just like it did at Eden Gardens in 2001, adversity became its springboard for success against an old adversary.

Q. Which of the following could be an appropriate title to the passage?

On a magical Tuesday, India’s cricketing history gained a luminous chapter even as the shadows lengthened at Brisbane’s Gabba. When Rishabh Pant’s winning four aptly concluded a tense pursuit of 328 on a nerve-wracking fifth day of the fourth Test, Ajinkya Rahane’s men seized the series at 2-1 to retain (no of times) the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. As far as role-reversals go, this was stunning in its execution and jaw-dropping in its impact. It was a verdict that seemed improbable after India’s 36, its lowest ever Test score, during the debilitating loss in the first game at Adelaide. But India progressed despite losing personnel to injuries or personal reasons. Skipper Virat Kohli took paternity leave while other regulars had to be benched following a spate of injuries. Yet, Rahane’s men persevered, right from the established Cheteshwar Pujara and R. Ashwin to the latest rookies in the squad — Shubman Gill and Washington Sundar. At various points, the experienced professional and the fresh debutant joined forces and nourished miraculous dreams. The turn-around at Melbourne was followed by the stone-walling at Sydney. Finally, in a long tour that commenced on November 12, last year, a second-wind was found in the climax. India did not have any of its frontline bowlers at Brisbane but Mohammed Siraj astutely helmed the attack and Tim Paine’s men were defeated by three wickets.

Winning a Test series against Australia in its backyard is considered as cricket’s highest benchmark for excellence. This yardstick has lasted for two decades ever since the previous dominant outfit, the West Indies, suffered a decline. Seen in that context, what India has achieved over the course of two tours — in 2018-19 and the just concluded 2020-21 face-off — is nothing short of stupendous. Twice, India has defeated Australia by identical margins (2-1). However, the latest act will rank right up in an all-time list of great Test series ever since the sport’s longest format commenced at Melbourne in 1877. When India last toured Australia, the host was blighted by the ball-tampering scandal and Steve Smith and David Warner were rightly put to pasture. Cut to the present, the visitor was up against a full-strength home unit. These are fraught times due to the pandemic and resultant bio-bubble angst, and even stepping out for a coffee is deemed an offence. To make it worse, India was never at its optimum potential and with every passing day, its list of the walking-wounded grew. There were even wry jokes about how coach Ravi Shastri may be forced to turn out considering his diminishing resources. But India thrived and just like it did at Eden Gardens in 2001, adversity became its springboard for success against an old adversary.

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

On a magical Tuesday, India’s cricketing history gained a luminous chapter even as the shadows lengthened at Brisbane’s Gabba. When Rishabh Pant’s winning four aptly concluded a tense pursuit of 328 on a nerve-wracking fifth day of the fourth Test, Ajinkya Rahane’s men seized the series at 2-1 to retain (no of times) the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. As far as role-reversals go, this was stunning in its execution and jaw-dropping in its impact. It was a verdict that seemed improbable after India’s 36, its lowest ever Test score, during the debilitating loss in the first game at Adelaide. But India progressed despite losing personnel to injuries or personal reasons. Skipper Virat Kohli took paternity leave while other regulars had to be benched following a spate of injuries. Yet, Rahane’s men persevered, right from the established Cheteshwar Pujara and R. Ashwin to the latest rookies in the squad — Shubman Gill and Washington Sundar. At various points, the experienced professional and the fresh debutant joined forces and nourished miraculous dreams. The turn-around at Melbourne was followed by the stone-walling at Sydney. Finally, in a long tour that commenced on November 12, last year, a second-wind was found in the climax. India did not have any of its frontline bowlers at Brisbane but Mohammed Siraj astutely helmed the attack and Tim Paine’s men were defeated by three wickets.

Winning a Test series against Australia in its backyard is considered as cricket’s highest benchmark for excellence. This yardstick has lasted for two decades ever since the previous dominant outfit, the West Indies, suffered a decline. Seen in that context, what India has achieved over the course of two tours — in 2018-19 and the just concluded 2020-21 face-off — is nothing short of stupendous. Twice, India has defeated Australia by identical margins (2-1). However, the latest act will rank right up in an all-time list of great Test series ever since the sport’s longest format commenced at Melbourne in 1877. When India last toured Australia, the host was blighted by the ball-tampering scandal and Steve Smith and David Warner were rightly put to pasture. Cut to the present, the visitor was up against a full-strength home unit. These are fraught times due to the pandemic and resultant bio-bubble angst, and even stepping out for a coffee is deemed an offence. To make it worse, India was never at its optimum potential and with every passing day, its list of the walking-wounded grew. There were even wry jokes about how coach Ravi Shastri may be forced to turn out considering his diminishing resources. But India thrived and just like it did at Eden Gardens in 2001, adversity became its springboard for success against an old adversary.

Q. Which of the following is true with regards to the Border Gavaskar trophy in accordance to the passage?

On a magical Tuesday, India’s cricketing history gained a luminous chapter even as the shadows lengthened at Brisbane’s Gabba. When Rishabh Pant’s winning four aptly concluded a tense pursuit of 328 on a nerve-wracking fifth day of the fourth Test, Ajinkya Rahane’s men seized the series at 2-1 to retain (no of times) the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. As far as role-reversals go, this was stunning in its execution and jaw-dropping in its impact. It was a verdict that seemed improbable after India’s 36, its lowest ever Test score, during the debilitating loss in the first game at Adelaide. But India progressed despite losing personnel to injuries or personal reasons. Skipper Virat Kohli took paternity leave while other regulars had to be benched following a spate of injuries. Yet, Rahane’s men persevered, right from the established Cheteshwar Pujara and R. Ashwin to the latest rookies in the squad — Shubman Gill and Washington Sundar. At various points, the experienced professional and the fresh debutant joined forces and nourished miraculous dreams. The turn-around at Melbourne was followed by the stone-walling at Sydney. Finally, in a long tour that commenced on November 12, last year, a second-wind was found in the climax. India did not have any of its frontline bowlers at Brisbane but Mohammed Siraj astutely helmed the attack and Tim Paine’s men were defeated by three wickets.

Winning a Test series against Australia in its backyard is considered as cricket’s highest benchmark for excellence. This yardstick has lasted for two decades ever since the previous dominant outfit, the West Indies, suffered a decline. Seen in that context, what India has achieved over the course of two tours — in 2018-19 and the just concluded 2020-21 face-off — is nothing short of stupendous. Twice, India has defeated Australia by identical margins (2-1). However, the latest act will rank right up in an all-time list of great Test series ever since the sport’s longest format commenced at Melbourne in 1877. When India last toured Australia, the host was blighted by the ball-tampering scandal and Steve Smith and David Warner were rightly put to pasture. Cut to the present, the visitor was up against a full-strength home unit. These are fraught times due to the pandemic and resultant bio-bubble angst, and even stepping out for a coffee is deemed an offence. To make it worse, India was never at its optimum potential and with every passing day, its list of the walking-wounded grew. There were even wry jokes about how coach Ravi Shastri may be forced to turn out considering his diminishing resources. But India thrived and just like it did at Eden Gardens in 2001, adversity became its springboard for success against an old adversary.

Q. Which of the following is the meaning of the word debilitating?

On a magical Tuesday, India’s cricketing history gained a luminous chapter even as the shadows lengthened at Brisbane’s Gabba. When Rishabh Pant’s winning four aptly concluded a tense pursuit of 328 on a nerve-wracking fifth day of the fourth Test, Ajinkya Rahane’s men seized the series at 2-1 to retain (no of times) the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. As far as role-reversals go, this was stunning in its execution and jaw-dropping in its impact. It was a verdict that seemed improbable after India’s 36, its lowest ever Test score, during the debilitating loss in the first game at Adelaide. But India progressed despite losing personnel to injuries or personal reasons. Skipper Virat Kohli took paternity leave while other regulars had to be benched following a spate of injuries. Yet, Rahane’s men persevered, right from the established Cheteshwar Pujara and R. Ashwin to the latest rookies in the squad — Shubman Gill and Washington Sundar. At various points, the experienced professional and the fresh debutant joined forces and nourished miraculous dreams. The turn-around at Melbourne was followed by the stone-walling at Sydney. Finally, in a long tour that commenced on November 12, last year, a second-wind was found in the climax. India did not have any of its frontline bowlers at Brisbane but Mohammed Siraj astutely helmed the attack and Tim Paine’s men were defeated by three wickets.

Winning a Test series against Australia in its backyard is considered as cricket’s highest benchmark for excellence. This yardstick has lasted for two decades ever since the previous dominant outfit, the West Indies, suffered a decline. Seen in that context, what India has achieved over the course of two tours — in 2018-19 and the just concluded 2020-21 face-off — is nothing short of stupendous. Twice, India has defeated Australia by identical margins (2-1). However, the latest act will rank right up in an all-time list of great Test series ever since the sport’s longest format commenced at Melbourne in 1877. When India last toured Australia, the host was blighted by the ball-tampering scandal and Steve Smith and David Warner were rightly put to pasture. Cut to the present, the visitor was up against a full-strength home unit. These are fraught times due to the pandemic and resultant bio-bubble angst, and even stepping out for a coffee is deemed an offence. To make it worse, India was never at its optimum potential and with every passing day, its list of the walking-wounded grew. There were even wry jokes about how coach Ravi Shastri may be forced to turn out considering his diminishing resources. But India thrived and just like it did at Eden Gardens in 2001, adversity became its springboard for success against an old adversary.

Q. Which of the following is true on the basis of the passage?

1. David Warner is a debutant in the current series from the Australian Team

2. There has been no experienced player which played the series against Australia

3. The test series was of 4 matches

Each year, thousands of children die worldwide and the childhoods and development of millions more are scarred by harmful practices perpetrated by parents, relatives, religious and community leaders and other adults.

Violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices, but the common characteristic of the violations is that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.

Many identified practices involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and discrimination against children with disabilities. The practices are based on tradition and/or superstition, religious belief, false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain, leading in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury. Others involve mental violence. All are an assault on the child’s human dignity and violate universally agreed international human rights standards.

The continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a devastating failure of human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.

Harmful practices are often committed against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, either by parents directly, or by others with parents’ consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern”.

The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent.

Q. Which of these are not characteristics of the nature of harmful practices that violate children’s rights?

Each year, thousands of children die worldwide and the childhoods and development of millions more are scarred by harmful practices perpetrated by parents, relatives, religious and community leaders and other adults.

Violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices, but the common characteristic of the violations is that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.

Many identified practices involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and discrimination against children with disabilities. The practices are based on tradition and/or superstition, religious belief, false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain, leading in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury. Others involve mental violence. All are an assault on the child’s human dignity and violate universally agreed international human rights standards.

The continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a devastating failure of human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.

Harmful practices are often committed against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, either by parents directly, or by others with parents’ consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern”.

The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent.

Q. Which of these is true with respect to the government and child rights?

Each year, thousands of children die worldwide and the childhoods and development of millions more are scarred by harmful practices perpetrated by parents, relatives, religious and community leaders and other adults.

Violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices, but the common characteristic of the violations is that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.

Many identified practices involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and discrimination against children with disabilities. The practices are based on tradition and/or superstition, religious belief, false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain, leading in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury. Others involve mental violence. All are an assault on the child’s human dignity and violate universally agreed international human rights standards.

The continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a devastating failure of human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.

Harmful practices are often committed against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, either by parents directly, or by others with parents’ consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern”.

The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent.

Q. According to the passage, why are harmful practices easy to carry out against young children?

Each year, thousands of children die worldwide and the childhoods and development of millions more are scarred by harmful practices perpetrated by parents, relatives, religious and community leaders and other adults.

Violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices, but the common characteristic of the violations is that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.

Many identified practices involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and discrimination against children with disabilities. The practices are based on tradition and/or superstition, religious belief, false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain, leading in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury. Others involve mental violence. All are an assault on the child’s human dignity and violate universally agreed international human rights standards.

The continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a devastating failure of human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.

Harmful practices are often committed against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, either by parents directly, or by others with parents’ consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern”.

The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent.

Q. Fill in the following blank correctly. Over the years, many unlawful practices _____ scarred children.

Each year, thousands of children die worldwide and the childhoods and development of millions more are scarred by harmful practices perpetrated by parents, relatives, religious and community leaders and other adults.

Violations of children’s rights can legitimately be described as harmful practices, but the common characteristic of the violations is that they are based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition and are perpetrated and actively condoned by the child’s parents or significant adults within the child’s community. Indeed, they often enjoy majority support within communities or whole states.

Many identified practices involve gross and unlawful discrimination against groups of children, including gender discrimination, and discrimination against children with disabilities. The practices are based on tradition and/or superstition, religious belief, false information or beliefs about child development and health. Many involve extreme physical violence and pain, leading in some cases intentionally, to death or serious injury. Others involve mental violence. All are an assault on the child’s human dignity and violate universally agreed international human rights standards.

The continued legality and social and cultural acceptance of a very wide range of these practices in many states illustrates a devastating failure of human rights mechanisms to provoke the necessary challenge, prohibition and elimination. Comprehensive, children’s rights-based analysis and action are needed now. Above all, there must be an assertion of every state’s immediate obligation to ensure all children their right to full respect for their human dignity and physical integrity.

Harmful practices are often committed against very young children or infants, who are clearly lacking the capacity to consent or to refuse consent themselves. Assumptions of parental powers or rights over their children allow the perpetration of a wide range of these practices, either by parents directly, or by others with parents’ consent. Yet the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) favours the replacement of the concept of parental “rights” over children with parental “responsibilities,” ensuring that the child’s best interests are parents’ “basic concern”.

The CRC also upholds the child’s own independent right to religious freedom (Article 14). Children are not born into a religion. Every individual has the right to religious freedom. Thus, parents and others cannot quote their adult religious beliefs to justify perpetrating harmful practices on a child, before she or he has the capacity to provide informed consent.

Q. Which set of words below contains the correct set of antonyms for all of the following words: perpetrate, condone, universal, devastating

Dieting and weight loss/management has long been a driver of failure more often due to the haze of less or half-knowledge of the subject than lack of motivation. The human brain, after years and years of practice with the social media feeds and in-a-day deliveries of Amazon couriers has, unfortunately but successfully become nonchalant to long-term goals and practices of patience in life. So much so, that now when a person x feels like losing weight and looks it up, this person's brain will automatically only want for him/her to look out for results and plans that don't take much time to achieve. Health related searches on Google and YouTube alone are enough to prove the point, where most searches that started with 'How To Lose Weight' almost mostly ended with the words 'in 1, 2 or 3 Weeks/Months'.

Dieting is one such misconception where a huge chunk of dieters and hopeful followers of a prospectively healthy lifestyle fail to be aware of the simplest of principles in their lives, which is, if you begin your journey towards health by putting your body in a constant position of negative struggle and make it crave what it should be getting in abundance, you can only prolong your agony and finally give up harder than you began.

A common misconception surrounding weight loss is to eat less, and I say 'misconception' for the reason that it's not the principle that's essentially flawed here, it's the false practice of it which makes things go south for most.

When we eat, we eat for taste and we eat for satiation. What we don't do is eat to just survive, that's too ancient for us to even consider at this point in time. So coming back to the first line, we eat for taste which satisfies us, but the important part to look out for here is 'satiation'. Being satiated essentially means to stay satisfied after you eat, till your next meal of course. Satisfaction occurs when we realise that we're full and won't need another round of serving on our plates, but food giants such as Domino's and McDonald's have made it their aspiration and drive in life to erase that line of satiation completely inside our heads, and re-wire, then hard-wire us to binge-eat. Clever marketing and enhanced imagery of food products and competitive pricing through the years have led people to sit and eat way over their point of satiation, which over-time does make their brains believe that their point of satiation lies post-binge rather than mid-binge.

Q. As per the author, humans have become nonchalant to long-term goals and practices of patience in life due to which of the following reasons?

Dieting and weight loss/management has long been a driver of failure more often due to the haze of less or half-knowledge of the subject than lack of motivation. The human brain, after years and years of practice with the social media feeds and in-a-day deliveries of Amazon couriers has, unfortunately but successfully become nonchalant to long-term goals and practices of patience in life. So much so, that now when a person x feels like losing weight and looks it up, this person's brain will automatically only want for him/her to look out for results and plans that don't take much time to achieve. Health related searches on Google and YouTube alone are enough to prove the point, where most searches that started with 'How To Lose Weight' almost mostly ended with the words 'in 1, 2 or 3 Weeks/Months'.

Dieting is one such misconception where a huge chunk of dieters and hopeful followers of a prospectively healthy lifestyle fail to be aware of the simplest of principles in their lives, which is, if you begin your journey towards health by putting your body in a constant position of negative struggle and make it crave what it should be getting in abundance, you can only prolong your agony and finally give up harder than you began.

A common misconception surrounding weight loss is to eat less, and I say 'misconception' for the reason that it's not the principle that's essentially flawed here, it's the false practice of it which makes things go south for most.

When we eat, we eat for taste and we eat for satiation. What we don't do is eat to just survive, that's too ancient for us to even consider at this point in time. So coming back to the first line, we eat for taste which satisfies us, but the important part to look out for here is 'satiation'. Being satiated essentially means to stay satisfied after you eat, till your next meal of course. Satisfaction occurs when we realise that we're full and won't need another round of serving on our plates, but food giants such as Domino's and McDonald's have made it their aspiration and drive in life to erase that line of satiation completely inside our heads, and re-wire, then hard-wire us to binge-eat. Clever marketing and enhanced imagery of food products and competitive pricing through the years have led people to sit and eat way over their point of satiation, which over-time does make their brains believe that their point of satiation lies post-binge rather than mid-binge.

Q. What is the misconception surrounding dieting as per the author?

Dieting and weight loss/management has long been a driver of failure more often due to the haze of less or half-knowledge of the subject than lack of motivation. The human brain, after years and years of practice with the social media feeds and in-a-day deliveries of Amazon couriers has, unfortunately but successfully become nonchalant to long-term goals and practices of patience in life. So much so, that now when a person x feels like losing weight and looks it up, this person's brain will automatically only want for him/her to look out for results and plans that don't take much time to achieve. Health related searches on Google and YouTube alone are enough to prove the point, where most searches that started with 'How To Lose Weight' almost mostly ended with the words 'in 1, 2 or 3 Weeks/Months'.

Dieting is one such misconception where a huge chunk of dieters and hopeful followers of a prospectively healthy lifestyle fail to be aware of the simplest of principles in their lives, which is, if you begin your journey towards health by putting your body in a constant position of negative struggle and make it crave what it should be getting in abundance, you can only prolong your agony and finally give up harder than you began.

A common misconception surrounding weight loss is to eat less, and I say 'misconception' for the reason that it's not the principle that's essentially flawed here, it's the false practice of it which makes things go south for most.

When we eat, we eat for taste and we eat for satiation. What we don't do is eat to just survive, that's too ancient for us to even consider at this point in time. So coming back to the first line, we eat for taste which satisfies us, but the important part to look out for here is 'satiation'. Being satiated essentially means to stay satisfied after you eat, till your next meal of course. Satisfaction occurs when we realise that we're full and won't need another round of serving on our plates, but food giants such as Domino's and McDonald's have made it their aspiration and drive in life to erase that line of satiation completely inside our heads, and re-wire, then hard-wire us to binge-eat. Clever marketing and enhanced imagery of food products and competitive pricing through the years have led people to sit and eat way over their point of satiation, which over-time does make their brains believe that their point of satiation lies post-binge rather than mid-binge.

Q. What does satiation mean as per the author above?

Dieting and weight loss/management has long been a driver of failure more often due to the haze of less or half-knowledge of the subject than lack of motivation. The human brain, after years and years of practice with the social media feeds and in-a-day deliveries of Amazon couriers has, unfortunately but successfully become nonchalant to long-term goals and practices of patience in life. So much so, that now when a person x feels like losing weight and looks it up, this person's brain will automatically only want for him/her to look out for results and plans that don't take much time to achieve. Health related searches on Google and YouTube alone are enough to prove the point, where most searches that started with 'How To Lose Weight' almost mostly ended with the words 'in 1, 2 or 3 Weeks/Months'.

Dieting is one such misconception where a huge chunk of dieters and hopeful followers of a prospectively healthy lifestyle fail to be aware of the simplest of principles in their lives, which is, if you begin your journey towards health by putting your body in a constant position of negative struggle and make it crave what it should be getting in abundance, you can only prolong your agony and finally give up harder than you began.

A common misconception surrounding weight loss is to eat less, and I say 'misconception' for the reason that it's not the principle that's essentially flawed here, it's the false practice of it which makes things go south for most.

When we eat, we eat for taste and we eat for satiation. What we don't do is eat to just survive, that's too ancient for us to even consider at this point in time. So coming back to the first line, we eat for taste which satisfies us, but the important part to look out for here is 'satiation'. Being satiated essentially means to stay satisfied after you eat, till your next meal of course. Satisfaction occurs when we realise that we're full and won't need another round of serving on our plates, but food giants such as Domino's and McDonald's have made it their aspiration and drive in life to erase that line of satiation completely inside our heads, and re-wire, then hard-wire us to binge-eat. Clever marketing and enhanced imagery of food products and competitive pricing through the years have led people to sit and eat way over their point of satiation, which over-time does make their brains believe that their point of satiation lies post-binge rather than mid-binge.

Q. According to the author, food giants such as Domino's and McDonald's have cast what effect on our satiation levels?