CLAT Practice Test- 26 - CLAT MCQ

Over the past century, life expectancy has increased dramatically and the world will soon have more old people than children. This social transformation represents both challenges and opportunities.

Countries and health care systems will need to find innovative and sustainable ways to cope with the demographic shift. John Beard, director of the WHO Department of Ageing and Life Course, says that "with the rapid ageing of populations, finding the right model for long-term care becomes more and more urgent." The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA) is a resource for policy-makers, suggesting ways for governments, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to reorient the ways in which their societies perceive, interact with and care for their older citizens, as two billion people will be aged 60 and above by 2050.

Old age consists of ages nearing or surpassing the average life span of human beings. The United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, held in Vienna in 1982, formulated a package of recommendations which gives high priority to research related to developmental and humanitarian aspects of ageing (United Nations, 1987).

The plan of action specifically recommends that "international exchange and research cooperation as well as data collection should be promoted in all the fields having a bearing on ageing, in order to provide a rational basis for future social policies and action. Special emphasis should be placed on comparative and cross cultural studies in ageing."

Many people develop disabilities in later life related to the wear and tear of ageing (e.g., arthritis) or the onset of a chronic disease, (e.g., lung cancer, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease) or a degenerative illness (e.g., dementia). But disabilities associated with ageing and the onset of chronic disease can be prevented or delayed.

The traditional Indian society and the age-old joint family system have been instrumental in safeguarding the social and economic security of the elderly people. However, with rapid changes in society and the emergence of nuclear families in India in recent years, the elderly are likely to be exposed to emotional, physical and financial insecurity in the years to come.

Q. Which of the following is a disease NOT associated with ageing?

Over the past century, life expectancy has increased dramatically and the world will soon have more old people than children. This social transformation represents both challenges and opportunities.

Countries and health care systems will need to find innovative and sustainable ways to cope with the demographic shift. John Beard, director of the WHO Department of Ageing and Life Course, says that "with the rapid ageing of populations, finding the right model for long-term care becomes more and more urgent." The Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA) is a resource for policy-makers, suggesting ways for governments, non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders to reorient the ways in which their societies perceive, interact with and care for their older citizens, as two billion people will be aged 60 and above by 2050.

Old age consists of ages nearing or surpassing the average life span of human beings. The United Nations World Assembly on Ageing, held in Vienna in 1982, formulated a package of recommendations which gives high priority to research related to developmental and humanitarian aspects of ageing (United Nations, 1987).

The plan of action specifically recommends that "international exchange and research cooperation as well as data collection should be promoted in all the fields having a bearing on ageing, in order to provide a rational basis for future social policies and action. Special emphasis should be placed on comparative and cross cultural studies in ageing."

Many people develop disabilities in later life related to the wear and tear of ageing (e.g., arthritis) or the onset of a chronic disease, (e.g., lung cancer, diabetes and peripheral vascular disease) or a degenerative illness (e.g., dementia). But disabilities associated with ageing and the onset of chronic disease can be prevented or delayed.

The traditional Indian society and the age-old joint family system have been instrumental in safeguarding the social and economic security of the elderly people. However, with rapid changes in society and the emergence of nuclear families in India in recent years, the elderly are likely to be exposed to emotional, physical and financial insecurity in the years to come.

Q. What is the tone of the passage?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds"-the World's Bank and the Bank's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capital markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.

In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank's World". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable" came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.

Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff.

Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank's conventional method of conducting business.

Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities.

She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world's most important development groups.

Q. Under which environments does Weaver assess World Bank's hypocrisy?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds"-the World's Bank and the Bank's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capital markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.

In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank's World". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable" came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.

Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff.

Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank's conventional method of conducting business.

Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities.

She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world's most important development groups.

Q. It can be inferred that Weaver's attitude to the World Bank is best reflected in which of the following statements?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds"-the World's Bank and the Bank's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capital markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.

In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank's World". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable" came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.

Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff.

Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank's conventional method of conducting business.

Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities.

She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world's most important development groups.

Q. Consider the following statements:

1. The World Bank engaged in reforms in the 1980s.

2. Every operation of the World Bank is open to extensive reviews.

According to the above passage, which of the statements is/are valid?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds"-the World's Bank and the Bank's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capital markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.

In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank's World". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable" came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.

Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff.

Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank's conventional method of conducting business.

Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities.

She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world's most important development groups.

Q. What changes does Weaver feel the bank needs to bring in for true reform?

Weaver sees hypocrisy in the World Bank as a predictable feature in a large international organization especially when viewed using resource dependency (viewing the competitive environment) and sociological institutionalism (the authorising environment). The Bank's emphasis on organizational survival and legitimacy shows itself in its interactions with multiple actors in its competitive and authoritarian environments. Many critics of the Bank simply see the Bank as unable to achieve the goals it sets and help its client states. Weaver however launches into an in-depth description of two "worlds"-the World's Bank and the Bank's World. The former indicates the complex structure of the Bank including its donor states, client states, its private capital markets and the watchdog Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Weaver's examination reveals the various pressures exerted on the Bank and the degree of American influence on the bank.

In as much as the Bank is pressured from many sides, Weaver notes a strong degree of operational authority and autonomy in the "Bank's World". This stems from the complexity of its operations, some which are not open to extensive review. Second the diversity of member states allows the Bank some autonomy and most importantly, the Bank holds a strong monopoly over development related knowledge. This control of ideas is coupled with a technocratic and economic rationality, reinforced with the influx of Western trained neo-classical economists. Bank ideological coherence is also maintained by the editing of reports to align with neoliberal beliefs. It is within these strong intellectual norms that Weaver examines World Bank reforms. Contrary to some critics, the Bank did engage in reforms in the 1990s. The Strategic Compact arose as a need to transform the Bank back as an effort to re-orientate itself as the premier development agency, after external criticism and an internal evaluation. The first aim of streamlining bureaucracy was easily reached however the aim of being more "poverty focused and accountable" came at odds with the technical, economic and apolitical rationality. New efforts such as listening to clients and conducting consultations clashed with the existing approval culture. Overall, changes occurred but still the approval culture remained strong.

Similarly, the focus on good governance was not that effective with apolitical stances amongst staff.

Furthermore, the dominating neo-liberal mindset resulted in governance issues framed with economic objectives in mind. Just as with the Strategic Compact, Weaver notes that governance reform challenged the Bank's conventional method of conducting business.

Weaver does qualify that the constant need to placate the demands of various external groups also hampered Bank reform. She however noted that the Bank deep culture will prevent any productive change. Weaver thus delves away from the normal criticism of the World Bank to explain the reasons of Bank actions and activities.

She shed a new light noting that such hypocrisy is a tenet in any large international organisation. In order for any improvement to the World Bank, it is not simply the initiation of change but the need to re work the internal settings of one of the world's most important development groups.

Q. What is the tone of the author?

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.

The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.

Q. The main purpose of the passage is to

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.

The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.

Q. According to the passage, article 32 has which of the following characteristics?

A. it is used for enforcement of fundamental rights.

B. The Supreme Court may issue a writ against any person or government of India.

C. Article 32 defines a fundamental right.

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.

The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.

Q. What is the correct meaning of the word ‘infringement’?

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.

The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.

Q. All of the following can be inferred from the passage except:-

The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the Constitution. Any provision in any Constitution for Fundamental Rights is meaningless unless there are adequate safeguards to ensure enforcement of such provisions. Since the reality of such rights is tested only through the judiciary, the safeguards assume even more importance. In addition, enforcement also depends upon the degree of independence of the Judiciary and the availability of relevant instruments with the executive authority. Indian Constitution, like most of Western Constitutions, lays down certain provisions to ensure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

However, Article 32 is referred to as the “Constitutional Remedy” for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. This provision itself has been included in the Fundamental Rights and hence it cannot be denied to any person. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar described Article 32 as the most important one, without which the Constitution would be reduced to nullity. It is also referred to as the heart and soul of the Constitution. By including Article 32 in the Fundamental Rights, the Supreme Court has been made the protector and guarantor of these Rights. An application made under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, cannot be refused on technical grounds. In addition to the prescribed five types of writs, the Supreme Court may pass any other appropriate order. Moreover, only the questions pertaining to the Fundamental Rights can be determined in proceedings against Article 32. Under Article 32, the Supreme Court may issue a Writ against any person or government within the territory of India. Where the infringement of a Fundamental Right has been established, the Supreme Court cannot refuse relief on the ground that the aggrieved person may have remedy before some other court or under the ordinary law.

The relief can also not be denied on the ground that the disputed facts have to be investigated or some evidence has to be collected. Even if an aggrieved person has not asked for a particular Writ, the Supreme Court, after considering the facts and circumstances, may grant the appropriate Writ and may even modify it to suit the exigencies of the case. Normally, only the aggrieved person is allowed to move the Court. But it has been held by the Supreme Court that in social or public interest matters, any one may move the Court. A Public Interest Litigation can be filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution or before the High Court of a State under Article 226 of the Constitution under their respective Writ Jurisdictions.

Q. What is the tone of the author?

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office.

Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country.

Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too -those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution.

Q. Which of the following is a quality that the world admires about India?

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office.

Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country.

Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too -those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution.

Q. Which of the following was one of the major flaws of the "Government of India Act, 1919"?

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office.

Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country.

Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too -those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution.

Q. Which of the following chiefly advocates the primary idea of the passage?

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office.

Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country.

Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too -those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution.

Q. What does the phase "working flat out" as used in the passage mean?

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office.

Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines.

The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country.

Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too -those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution.

Q. Which of the following serves as an evidence for the participation of the Congress in the second conference?

The growth in the index of industrial production (IIP) fell to 1.7 per cent in January compared with 7.5 per cent a year ago. The growth fell because of a subdued performance by the manufacturing sector, especially capital and consumer goods. The growth was also lower on a sequential basis from 2.4 per cent in December to 1.7 per cent in January, according to CSO data.

Manufacturing output expanded 1.3 per cent on a yearly basis, mining grew 3.9 per cent and electricity generation rose 0.8 per cent in January. Electricity had grown 7.6 per cent in the year-ago period. Rating agency CARE said lower growth in manufacturing was expected because of a high base effect. Besides, production was less because of a higher stock built-up from the second quarter as demand did not materialise fully in the third quarter.

CARE expects IIP growth for the year "to be around 5 per cent from 4.4 percent cumulative till January. While base effect will be there, it will diminish in size as companies also expand on production to meet annual targets". Data showed 11 of the 23 industry groups in the manufacturing sector witnessed positive growth.

However, furniture and paper products, excluding machines and equipment, declined the most. The production of infrastructure goods rose 7.9 per cent compared with 10.1 per cent in December. The output of intermediate goods contracted 3 per cent in January compared with a 5.4 per cent rise in the year-ago period.

Consumer as well as non-consumer durables output rose 1.8 per cent compared with a 7.6 per cent rise in January 2018. IIP growth stood at 4.4 per cent compared with 4.1 per cent in the same period a year ago.

Economic growth slowed to a five-quarter low of 6.6 per cent in the October-December period. The government estimate for the financial year ending this month has been revised down to a five-year low of 7 per cent from 7.2 percent. The IIP numbers come ahead of the RBI's monetary policy statement on April 4 and may increase the clamour for a cut in interest rates to boost economic activity.

Q. Out of the following options, which one can be inferred from the passage?

The growth in the index of industrial production (IIP) fell to 1.7 per cent in January compared with 7.5 per cent a year ago. The growth fell because of a subdued performance by the manufacturing sector, especially capital and consumer goods. The growth was also lower on a sequential basis from 2.4 per cent in December to 1.7 per cent in January, according to CSO data.

Manufacturing output expanded 1.3 per cent on a yearly basis, mining grew 3.9 per cent and electricity generation rose 0.8 per cent in January. Electricity had grown 7.6 per cent in the year-ago period. Rating agency CARE said lower growth in manufacturing was expected because of a high base effect. Besides, production was less because of a higher stock built-up from the second quarter as demand did not materialise fully in the third quarter.

CARE expects IIP growth for the year "to be around 5 per cent from 4.4 percent cumulative till January. While base effect will be there, it will diminish in size as companies also expand on production to meet annual targets". Data showed 11 of the 23 industry groups in the manufacturing sector witnessed positive growth.

However, furniture and paper products, excluding machines and equipment, declined the most. The production of infrastructure goods rose 7.9 per cent compared with 10.1 per cent in December. The output of intermediate goods contracted 3 per cent in January compared with a 5.4 per cent rise in the year-ago period.

Consumer as well as non-consumer durables output rose 1.8 per cent compared with a 7.6 per cent rise in January 2018. IIP growth stood at 4.4 per cent compared with 4.1 per cent in the same period a year ago.

Economic growth slowed to a five-quarter low of 6.6 per cent in the October-December period. The government estimate for the financial year ending this month has been revised down to a five-year low of 7 per cent from 7.2 percent. The IIP numbers come ahead of the RBI's monetary policy statement on April 4 and may increase the clamour for a cut in interest rates to boost economic activity.

Q. Out of the following options, which one can be inferred from the passage?

The growth in the index of industrial production (IIP) fell to 1.7 per cent in January compared with 7.5 per cent a year ago. The growth fell because of a subdued performance by the manufacturing sector, especially capital and consumer goods. The growth was also lower on a sequential basis from 2.4 per cent in December to 1.7 per cent in January, according to CSO data.

Manufacturing output expanded 1.3 per cent on a yearly basis, mining grew 3.9 per cent and electricity generation rose 0.8 per cent in January. Electricity had grown 7.6 per cent in the year-ago period. Rating agency CARE said lower growth in manufacturing was expected because of a high base effect. Besides, production was less because of a higher stock built-up from the second quarter as demand did not materialise fully in the third quarter.

CARE expects IIP growth for the year "to be around 5 per cent from 4.4 percent cumulative till January. While base effect will be there, it will diminish in size as companies also expand on production to meet annual targets". Data showed 11 of the 23 industry groups in the manufacturing sector witnessed positive growth.

However, furniture and paper products, excluding machines and equipment, declined the most. The production of infrastructure goods rose 7.9 per cent compared with 10.1 per cent in December. The output of intermediate goods contracted 3 per cent in January compared with a 5.4 per cent rise in the year-ago period.

Consumer as well as non-consumer durables output rose 1.8 per cent compared with a 7.6 per cent rise in January 2018. IIP growth stood at 4.4 per cent compared with 4.1 per cent in the same period a year ago.

Economic growth slowed to a five-quarter low of 6.6 per cent in the October-December period. The government estimate for the financial year ending this month has been revised down to a five-year low of 7 per cent from 7.2 percent. The IIP numbers come ahead of the RBI's monetary policy statement on April 4 and may increase the clamour for a cut in interest rates to boost economic activity.

Q. The author of the passage is most likely to agree with which of the following.

The growth in the index of industrial production (IIP) fell to 1.7 per cent in January compared with 7.5 per cent a year ago. The growth fell because of a subdued performance by the manufacturing sector, especially capital and consumer goods. The growth was also lower on a sequential basis from 2.4 per cent in December to 1.7 per cent in January, according to CSO data.

Manufacturing output expanded 1.3 per cent on a yearly basis, mining grew 3.9 per cent and electricity generation rose 0.8 per cent in January. Electricity had grown 7.6 per cent in the year-ago period. Rating agency CARE said lower growth in manufacturing was expected because of a high base effect. Besides, production was less because of a higher stock built-up from the second quarter as demand did not materialise fully in the third quarter.

CARE expects IIP growth for the year "to be around 5 per cent from 4.4 percent cumulative till January. While base effect will be there, it will diminish in size as companies also expand on production to meet annual targets". Data showed 11 of the 23 industry groups in the manufacturing sector witnessed positive growth.

However, furniture and paper products, excluding machines and equipment, declined the most. The production of infrastructure goods rose 7.9 per cent compared with 10.1 per cent in December. The output of intermediate goods contracted 3 per cent in January compared with a 5.4 per cent rise in the year-ago period.

Consumer as well as non-consumer durables output rose 1.8 per cent compared with a 7.6 per cent rise in January 2018. IIP growth stood at 4.4 per cent compared with 4.1 per cent in the same period a year ago.

Economic growth slowed to a five-quarter low of 6.6 per cent in the October-December period. The government estimate for the financial year ending this month has been revised down to a five-year low of 7 per cent from 7.2 percent. The IIP numbers come ahead of the RBI's monetary policy statement on April 4 and may increase the clamour for a cut in interest rates to boost economic activity.

Q. Out of the following options, which one is an appropriate title of the given passage?

Since 2005, the NGO Pratham's Annual Status of Education Reports (ASER) have shone a light on a critical failure of India's education system: A large number of school-going children across the country are short on basic learning skills. These reports have led to debates on seminal policy interventions such as the Right to Education Act and have been catalysts for meaningful conversations on the pedagogical deficiencies of the formal school system. The latest edition of ASER, released on Tuesday, directs attention to children between four and eight years of age, and suggests that India's learning crisis could be linked to the weakness of the country's pre-primary system.

More than 20 per cent of students in Standard I are less than six, ASER 2019 reveals - they should ideally be in pre-school. At the same time, 36 per cent students in Standard 1 are older than the RTE-mandated age of six. "Even within Standard I, children's performance on cognitive, early language, early numeracy, and social and emotional learning tasks is strongly related to their age. Older children do better on all tasks," the report says. This is a significant finding and should be the starting point for a substantive debate on the ideal entrylevel age to primary school. In this context, policymakers would also do well to go back to the pedagogical axiom which underlines that children between four and eight are best taught cognitive skills through play-based activities. The emphasis, as ASER 2019 emphasises, should be on "developing problem-solving faculties and building memory of children, and not content knowledge".

ASER 2019 talks about leveraging the existing network of anganwadi centres to implement school readiness.

The core structure of the anganwadis was developed more than 40 years ago as part of the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Pre-school education is part of their mandate. But at the best of times, these centres do no more than implement the government's child nutrition schemes. A number of health crises -including last year's AES outbreak in Bihar - have bared the inadequacies of the system. A growing body of scholarly work has also shown that the anganwadi worker is poorly-paid, demoralised and lacks the autonomy to be an effective nurturer. The ASER report is alive to such shortcomings. "There is a need to expand and upgrade anganwadis to ensure that children get adequate and correct educational inputs of the kind that are not modeled after the formal school," it notes. The government would do well to act on this recommendation - especially since the Draft Education Policy that was put up for public discussion last year, also stresses on the pre-school system.

Q. Each of the following is a reason as to why anganwadi workers are not as effective as they should be EXCEPT:

Since 2005, the NGO Pratham's Annual Status of Education Reports (ASER) have shone a light on a critical failure of India's education system: A large number of school-going children across the country are short on basic learning skills. These reports have led to debates on seminal policy interventions such as the Right to Education Act and have been catalysts for meaningful conversations on the pedagogical deficiencies of the formal school system. The latest edition of ASER, released on Tuesday, directs attention to children between four and eight years of age, and suggests that India's learning crisis could be linked to the weakness of the country's pre-primary system.

More than 20 per cent of students in Standard I are less than six, ASER 2019 reveals - they should ideally be in pre-school. At the same time, 36 per cent students in Standard 1 are older than the RTE-mandated age of six. "Even within Standard I, children's performance on cognitive, early language, early numeracy, and social and emotional learning tasks is strongly related to their age. Older children do better on all tasks," the report says. This is a significant finding and should be the starting point for a substantive debate on the ideal entrylevel age to primary school. In this context, policymakers would also do well to go back to the pedagogical axiom which underlines that children between four and eight are best taught cognitive skills through play-based activities. The emphasis, as ASER 2019 emphasises, should be on "developing problem-solving faculties and building memory of children, and not content knowledge".

ASER 2019 talks about leveraging the existing network of anganwadi centres to implement school readiness.

The core structure of the anganwadis was developed more than 40 years ago as part of the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Pre-school education is part of their mandate. But at the best of times, these centres do no more than implement the government's child nutrition schemes. A number of health crises -including last year's AES outbreak in Bihar - have bared the inadequacies of the system. A growing body of scholarly work has also shown that the anganwadi worker is poorly-paid, demoralised and lacks the autonomy to be an effective nurturer. The ASER report is alive to such shortcomings. "There is a need to expand and upgrade anganwadis to ensure that children get adequate and correct educational inputs of the kind that are not modeled after the formal school," it notes. The government would do well to act on this recommendation - especially since the Draft Education Policy that was put up for public discussion last year, also stresses on the pre-school system.

Q. Which one of the following statements is the author most likely to agree with?

Since 2005, the NGO Pratham's Annual Status of Education Reports (ASER) have shone a light on a critical failure of India's education system: A large number of school-going children across the country are short on basic learning skills. These reports have led to debates on seminal policy interventions such as the Right to Education Act and have been catalysts for meaningful conversations on the pedagogical deficiencies of the formal school system. The latest edition of ASER, released on Tuesday, directs attention to children between four and eight years of age, and suggests that India's learning crisis could be linked to the weakness of the country's pre-primary system.

More than 20 per cent of students in Standard I are less than six, ASER 2019 reveals - they should ideally be in pre-school. At the same time, 36 per cent students in Standard 1 are older than the RTE-mandated age of six. "Even within Standard I, children's performance on cognitive, early language, early numeracy, and social and emotional learning tasks is strongly related to their age. Older children do better on all tasks," the report says. This is a significant finding and should be the starting point for a substantive debate on the ideal entrylevel age to primary school. In this context, policymakers would also do well to go back to the pedagogical axiom which underlines that children between four and eight are best taught cognitive skills through play-based activities. The emphasis, as ASER 2019 emphasises, should be on "developing problem-solving faculties and building memory of children, and not content knowledge".

ASER 2019 talks about leveraging the existing network of anganwadi centres to implement school readiness.

The core structure of the anganwadis was developed more than 40 years ago as part of the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Pre-school education is part of their mandate. But at the best of times, these centres do no more than implement the government's child nutrition schemes. A number of health crises -including last year's AES outbreak in Bihar - have bared the inadequacies of the system. A growing body of scholarly work has also shown that the anganwadi worker is poorly-paid, demoralised and lacks the autonomy to be an effective nurturer. The ASER report is alive to such shortcomings. "There is a need to expand and upgrade anganwadis to ensure that children get adequate and correct educational inputs of the kind that are not modeled after the formal school," it notes. The government would do well to act on this recommendation - especially since the Draft Education Policy that was put up for public discussion last year, also stresses on the pre-school system.

Q. What does the word "seminal" mean as used in the first paragraph passage?

Since 2005, the NGO Pratham's Annual Status of Education Reports (ASER) have shone a light on a critical failure of India's education system: A large number of school-going children across the country are short on basic learning skills. These reports have led to debates on seminal policy interventions such as the Right to Education Act and have been catalysts for meaningful conversations on the pedagogical deficiencies of the formal school system. The latest edition of ASER, released on Tuesday, directs attention to children between four and eight years of age, and suggests that India's learning crisis could be linked to the weakness of the country's pre-primary system.

More than 20 per cent of students in Standard I are less than six, ASER 2019 reveals - they should ideally be in pre-school. At the same time, 36 per cent students in Standard 1 are older than the RTE-mandated age of six. "Even within Standard I, children's performance on cognitive, early language, early numeracy, and social and emotional learning tasks is strongly related to their age. Older children do better on all tasks," the report says. This is a significant finding and should be the starting point for a substantive debate on the ideal entrylevel age to primary school. In this context, policymakers would also do well to go back to the pedagogical axiom which underlines that children between four and eight are best taught cognitive skills through play-based activities. The emphasis, as ASER 2019 emphasises, should be on "developing problem-solving faculties and building memory of children, and not content knowledge".

ASER 2019 talks about leveraging the existing network of anganwadi centres to implement school readiness.

The core structure of the anganwadis was developed more than 40 years ago as part of the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Pre-school education is part of their mandate. But at the best of times, these centres do no more than implement the government's child nutrition schemes. A number of health crises -including last year's AES outbreak in Bihar - have bared the inadequacies of the system. A growing body of scholarly work has also shown that the anganwadi worker is poorly-paid, demoralised and lacks the autonomy to be an effective nurturer. The ASER report is alive to such shortcomings. "There is a need to expand and upgrade anganwadis to ensure that children get adequate and correct educational inputs of the kind that are not modeled after the formal school," it notes. The government would do well to act on this recommendation - especially since the Draft Education Policy that was put up for public discussion last year, also stresses on the pre-school system.

Q. In the last paragraph, why does the author states that the government should act on the recommendation based on the ASER report?

If Peggy Young, who was a driver for United Parcel Service, had had an accident that limited her ability to lift heavy packages, or even lost her license because of driving while intoxicated, U.P.S. would have allowed her to go on "light duty" or assigned her another type of work. But Ms. Young got pregnant. When her doctors told her not to lift packages over 20 pounds to avoid jeopardizing the pregnancy, U.P.S. refused to accommodate her and effectively compelled her to go on unpaid medical leave.

Her case, which has implications for millions of American women and their families, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for the court to strike a blow against discriminatory treatment and the resulting economic harm that are too often imposed on women who get pregnant - as the vast majority of women entering the work force eventually do.

Although many women can work through an entire pregnancy without job modifications, some - especially those in low-wage jobs requiring long hours, prolonged standing and heavy lifting - may require temporary help to safeguard their own health and their pregnancies.

U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform. It said its collective bargaining agreement limited work modifications to only three categories: those with injuries that occur on the job; people covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act; and those who lose their Department of Transportation certification because of a legal impediment, like a license revoked for driving while intoxicated. Sorry, pregnancy is not included.

Ms. Young argued in her lawsuit that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 1978 law that requires employers to give women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same accommodations it gives other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."

The language is plain and clear, as is the statute's history, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Ms. Young's complaint. It said that respecting the act's "unambiguous" text would create "anomalous consequences," allegedly giving pregnant women preferential treatment. That is preposterous. To avoid systematically forcing pregnant workers out of their jobs, the law merely requires employers to treat them as they would treat employees eligible for a change in duty for other reasons.

In a brief filed in October, U.P.S. said it is discontinuing its policy of not accommodating pregnant workers as a matter of "corporate discretion," but claims the policy was legal and denies any liability for damages. It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand.

U.P.S. said it was merely following the same pregnancy policy observed by the United States Postal Service and defended in the past by the Justice Department.

But, in a brief supporting Ms. Young's claim, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. renounced the Justice Department's stance and said the Postal Service was reviewing its policy. Someone in the Obama administration needs to check how many other parts of the federal government have been following the same unfair policy for pregnant workers and put a stop to it.

Under a plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and also as a matter of fairness, pregnant workers should be treated no worse than employees who are injured on the job, and the Supreme Court should use the Young case to say so.

Q. What is the central idea of the passage?

If Peggy Young, who was a driver for United Parcel Service, had had an accident that limited her ability to lift heavy packages, or even lost her license because of driving while intoxicated, U.P.S. would have allowed her to go on "light duty" or assigned her another type of work. But Ms. Young got pregnant. When her doctors told her not to lift packages over 20 pounds to avoid jeopardizing the pregnancy, U.P.S. refused to accommodate her and effectively compelled her to go on unpaid medical leave.

Her case, which has implications for millions of American women and their families, will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It is an opportunity for the court to strike a blow against discriminatory treatment and the resulting economic harm that are too often imposed on women who get pregnant - as the vast majority of women entering the work force eventually do.

Although many women can work through an entire pregnancy without job modifications, some - especially those in low-wage jobs requiring long hours, prolonged standing and heavy lifting - may require temporary help to safeguard their own health and their pregnancies.

U.P.S. claims it has a legal right to deny pregnant workers who have temporary physical limitations the flexibility it shows workers with other conditions that similarly affect the tasks they are able to perform. It said its collective bargaining agreement limited work modifications to only three categories: those with injuries that occur on the job; people covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act; and those who lose their Department of Transportation certification because of a legal impediment, like a license revoked for driving while intoxicated. Sorry, pregnancy is not included.

Ms. Young argued in her lawsuit that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 1978 law that requires employers to give women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions the same accommodations it gives other employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."

The language is plain and clear, as is the statute's history, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected Ms. Young's complaint. It said that respecting the act's "unambiguous" text would create "anomalous consequences," allegedly giving pregnant women preferential treatment. That is preposterous. To avoid systematically forcing pregnant workers out of their jobs, the law merely requires employers to treat them as they would treat employees eligible for a change in duty for other reasons.

In a brief filed in October, U.P.S. said it is discontinuing its policy of not accommodating pregnant workers as a matter of "corporate discretion," but claims the policy was legal and denies any liability for damages. It is good that, beginning on Jan. 1, pregnant U.P.S. employees will be treated better. But the notion that the better treatment is optional should not be allowed to stand.

U.P.S. said it was merely following the same pregnancy policy observed by the United States Postal Service and defended in the past by the Justice Department.

But, in a brief supporting Ms. Young's claim, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. renounced the Justice Department's stance and said the Postal Service was reviewing its policy. Someone in the Obama administration needs to check how many other parts of the federal government have been following the same unfair policy for pregnant workers and put a stop to it.

Under a plain reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and also as a matter of fairness, pregnant workers should be treated no worse than employees who are injured on the job, and the Supreme Court should use the Young case to say so.

Q. As per the passage which of the following is not true?