CLAT Practice Test- 28 - CLAT MCQ
30 Questions MCQ Test - CLAT Practice Test- 28
Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Why has the method, by which we may master any subject, not been applied to language?
Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Which of the following is the meaning of 'splitting hairs', as used in the passage?
| 1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App |
Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Which of the following held a low place in literature for a very long time?
Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Which of the following can be said to be true about languages like Latin and Greek?
Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. What has been described as a horrifying task in the passage?
In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.
The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.
In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.
Q. What issues, according to the passage, should form the basis for the Left to rise and be counted?
In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.
The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.
In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.
Q. Why have remedial measures been taken in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela?
In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.
The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.
In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.
Q. Hegemony means
In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.
The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.
In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.
Q. What do you feel is the political ideology of leaders like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales?
In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.
The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.
In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.
Q. What has Chavez been struggling for?
India’s delicately balanced current account wouldn’t be the only major casualty of costlier crude oil: Local travelers now have to pay more to fly within the country as expensive jet fuel propels airlines to raise domestic fares that had tracked global energy prices to plunge to record lows last year.
Higher consumer fares in January reflect the persistent rise in aviation-fuel prices, which increased 8% on-month in November at the New Delhi airport, the country’s busiest. After a brief lull in December, prices firmed in January and February, breaching the levels of 2015 when the cycle of declines began.
The trend has led carriers to pass additional fuel costs on to consumers, many of whom switched to airlines after the gap between air and upper-class train fares narrowed in 2016. A senior executive at Jet Airways, India’s second-biggest airline by market share, said that the airline has recently revived the practice of levying a fuel surcharge - a fare component linked to movements in jet fuel prices - on domestic flights.
“We used to charge between Rs 100 and Rs 300 depending on short- and long haul sectors. Now we charge as much as Rs 700,” he added. Jet-fuel is the biggest cost item for Indian carriers.
Prices of petroleum products began rising since the spring after the 2015-16 winter witnessed record lows for crude oil, with global prices breaching $30 a barrel on their way down to levels not seen since the 1980s.
However, after a period of consolidation that analysts believed would have put many shale oil producers out of business, global crude oil prices began firming and have now stabilized around $55 a barrel, a level that some believe would be maintained over the medium term.
Airlines had clubbed fuel surcharge with the base fare component in 2015 after an advisory from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the country’s aviation regulator.
No-frills carrier SpiceJet has separated the two components over the last six months, although the fuel surcharge hasn’t been increased yet, said a spokesperson.
Travel company executives said overall fares have increased in January. According to data on Makemytrip, the country’s biggest online travel portal, average fares dropped in November and December but rose in January. Ticket prices for the Delhi-Mumbai sector rose to Rs 4,266 in January, compared with Rs 3,908 the same month last year, Rs 4,914 on the MumbaiBangalore sector compared with Rs 4,573 a year earlier, and Rs 4,473 on the Mumbai-Chennai route, compared with Rs 3,784 last January. Rival Cleartrip noticed divergent trends that showed those booking early stood to benefit. Last year, spot-booking fares too had fallen drastically.
“An analysis of the last three months of airfare data for the top 20 air travel sectors reveals that the increased cost to airlines, contributed by the fuel prices surge and the rupee’s depreciation, has resulted in a 15% increase in airfares for a booking window of 0-14 days,” said Samyukth Sridharan, president and chief operating officer of Cleartrip. “At the same time, we see that the airlines have been quite aggressive in offering deals to passengers who plan in advance, reflected in a 21% year on-year drop in fares on an average for travel bookings made over 14 days in advance.”
Last year, airlines had offered substantial discounts across sectors and made attractive offers for ticket-buyers who planned their travel in advance, resulting in lower yields. To be sure, the industry’s ability to charge more will depend on the direction in aviation fuel prices and seasonal changes in air-travel demand.
“February and March are lean months, and the airlines may not have room to increase so much. But there will be increases subsequently if jet fuel prices continue their climb,” said a senior executive of a budget carrier.
Q. According to the passage, why have many passengers switched to air travel post 2016?
India’s delicately balanced current account wouldn’t be the only major casualty of costlier crude oil: Local travelers now have to pay more to fly within the country as expensive jet fuel propels airlines to raise domestic fares that had tracked global energy prices to plunge to record lows last year.
Higher consumer fares in January reflect the persistent rise in aviation-fuel prices, which increased 8% on-month in November at the New Delhi airport, the country’s busiest. After a brief lull in December, prices firmed in January and February, breaching the levels of 2015 when the cycle of declines began.
The trend has led carriers to pass additional fuel costs on to consumers, many of whom switched to airlines after the gap between air and upper-class train fares narrowed in 2016. A senior executive at Jet Airways, India’s second-biggest airline by market share, said that the airline has recently revived the practice of levying a fuel surcharge - a fare component linked to movements in jet fuel prices - on domestic flights.
“We used to charge between Rs 100 and Rs 300 depending on short- and long haul sectors. Now we charge as much as Rs 700,” he added. Jet-fuel is the biggest cost item for Indian carriers.
Prices of petroleum products began rising since the spring after the 2015-16 winter witnessed record lows for crude oil, with global prices breaching $30 a barrel on their way down to levels not seen since the 1980s.
However, after a period of consolidation that analysts believed would have put many shale oil producers out of business, global crude oil prices began firming and have now stabilized around $55 a barrel, a level that some believe would be maintained over the medium term.
Airlines had clubbed fuel surcharge with the base fare component in 2015 after an advisory from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the country’s aviation regulator.
No-frills carrier SpiceJet has separated the two components over the last six months, although the fuel surcharge hasn’t been increased yet, said a spokesperson.
Travel company executives said overall fares have increased in January. According to data on Makemytrip, the country’s biggest online travel portal, average fares dropped in November and December but rose in January. Ticket prices for the Delhi-Mumbai sector rose to Rs 4,266 in January, compared with Rs 3,908 the same month last year, Rs 4,914 on the MumbaiBangalore sector compared with Rs 4,573 a year earlier, and Rs 4,473 on the Mumbai-Chennai route, compared with Rs 3,784 last January. Rival Cleartrip noticed divergent trends that showed those booking early stood to benefit. Last year, spot-booking fares too had fallen drastically.
“An analysis of the last three months of airfare data for the top 20 air travel sectors reveals that the increased cost to airlines, contributed by the fuel prices surge and the rupee’s depreciation, has resulted in a 15% increase in airfares for a booking window of 0-14 days,” said Samyukth Sridharan, president and chief operating officer of Cleartrip. “At the same time, we see that the airlines have been quite aggressive in offering deals to passengers who plan in advance, reflected in a 21% year on-year drop in fares on an average for travel bookings made over 14 days in advance.”
Last year, airlines had offered substantial discounts across sectors and made attractive offers for ticket-buyers who planned their travel in advance, resulting in lower yields. To be sure, the industry’s ability to charge more will depend on the direction in aviation fuel prices and seasonal changes in air-travel demand.
“February and March are lean months, and the airlines may not have room to increase so much. But there will be increases subsequently if jet fuel prices continue their climb,” said a senior executive of a budget carrier.
Q. Since when have airlines started clubbing the fuel surcharge with the base fare component?
India’s delicately balanced current account wouldn’t be the only major casualty of costlier crude oil: Local travelers now have to pay more to fly within the country as expensive jet fuel propels airlines to raise domestic fares that had tracked global energy prices to plunge to record lows last year.
Higher consumer fares in January reflect the persistent rise in aviation-fuel prices, which increased 8% on-month in November at the New Delhi airport, the country’s busiest. After a brief lull in December, prices firmed in January and February, breaching the levels of 2015 when the cycle of declines began.
The trend has led carriers to pass additional fuel costs on to consumers, many of whom switched to airlines after the gap between air and upper-class train fares narrowed in 2016. A senior executive at Jet Airways, India’s second-biggest airline by market share, said that the airline has recently revived the practice of levying a fuel surcharge - a fare component linked to movements in jet fuel prices - on domestic flights.
“We used to charge between Rs 100 and Rs 300 depending on short- and long haul sectors. Now we charge as much as Rs 700,” he added. Jet-fuel is the biggest cost item for Indian carriers.
Prices of petroleum products began rising since the spring after the 2015-16 winter witnessed record lows for crude oil, with global prices breaching $30 a barrel on their way down to levels not seen since the 1980s.
However, after a period of consolidation that analysts believed would have put many shale oil producers out of business, global crude oil prices began firming and have now stabilized around $55 a barrel, a level that some believe would be maintained over the medium term.
Airlines had clubbed fuel surcharge with the base fare component in 2015 after an advisory from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the country’s aviation regulator.
No-frills carrier SpiceJet has separated the two components over the last six months, although the fuel surcharge hasn’t been increased yet, said a spokesperson.
Travel company executives said overall fares have increased in January. According to data on Makemytrip, the country’s biggest online travel portal, average fares dropped in November and December but rose in January. Ticket prices for the Delhi-Mumbai sector rose to Rs 4,266 in January, compared with Rs 3,908 the same month last year, Rs 4,914 on the MumbaiBangalore sector compared with Rs 4,573 a year earlier, and Rs 4,473 on the Mumbai-Chennai route, compared with Rs 3,784 last January. Rival Cleartrip noticed divergent trends that showed those booking early stood to benefit. Last year, spot-booking fares too had fallen drastically.
“An analysis of the last three months of airfare data for the top 20 air travel sectors reveals that the increased cost to airlines, contributed by the fuel prices surge and the rupee’s depreciation, has resulted in a 15% increase in airfares for a booking window of 0-14 days,” said Samyukth Sridharan, president and chief operating officer of Cleartrip. “At the same time, we see that the airlines have been quite aggressive in offering deals to passengers who plan in advance, reflected in a 21% year on-year drop in fares on an average for travel bookings made over 14 days in advance.”
Last year, airlines had offered substantial discounts across sectors and made attractive offers for ticket-buyers who planned their travel in advance, resulting in lower yields. To be sure, the industry’s ability to charge more will depend on the direction in aviation fuel prices and seasonal changes in air-travel demand.
“February and March are lean months, and the airlines may not have room to increase so much. But there will be increases subsequently if jet fuel prices continue their climb,” said a senior executive of a budget carrier.
Q. Out of the following options, which of the following comes closest in meaning to the word “breach”?
India’s delicately balanced current account wouldn’t be the only major casualty of costlier crude oil: Local travelers now have to pay more to fly within the country as expensive jet fuel propels airlines to raise domestic fares that had tracked global energy prices to plunge to record lows last year.
Higher consumer fares in January reflect the persistent rise in aviation-fuel prices, which increased 8% on-month in November at the New Delhi airport, the country’s busiest. After a brief lull in December, prices firmed in January and February, breaching the levels of 2015 when the cycle of declines began.
The trend has led carriers to pass additional fuel costs on to consumers, many of whom switched to airlines after the gap between air and upper-class train fares narrowed in 2016. A senior executive at Jet Airways, India’s second-biggest airline by market share, said that the airline has recently revived the practice of levying a fuel surcharge - a fare component linked to movements in jet fuel prices - on domestic flights.
“We used to charge between Rs 100 and Rs 300 depending on short- and long haul sectors. Now we charge as much as Rs 700,” he added. Jet-fuel is the biggest cost item for Indian carriers.
Prices of petroleum products began rising since the spring after the 2015-16 winter witnessed record lows for crude oil, with global prices breaching $30 a barrel on their way down to levels not seen since the 1980s.
However, after a period of consolidation that analysts believed would have put many shale oil producers out of business, global crude oil prices began firming and have now stabilized around $55 a barrel, a level that some believe would be maintained over the medium term.
Airlines had clubbed fuel surcharge with the base fare component in 2015 after an advisory from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the country’s aviation regulator.
No-frills carrier SpiceJet has separated the two components over the last six months, although the fuel surcharge hasn’t been increased yet, said a spokesperson.
Travel company executives said overall fares have increased in January. According to data on Makemytrip, the country’s biggest online travel portal, average fares dropped in November and December but rose in January. Ticket prices for the Delhi-Mumbai sector rose to Rs 4,266 in January, compared with Rs 3,908 the same month last year, Rs 4,914 on the MumbaiBangalore sector compared with Rs 4,573 a year earlier, and Rs 4,473 on the Mumbai-Chennai route, compared with Rs 3,784 last January. Rival Cleartrip noticed divergent trends that showed those booking early stood to benefit. Last year, spot-booking fares too had fallen drastically.
“An analysis of the last three months of airfare data for the top 20 air travel sectors reveals that the increased cost to airlines, contributed by the fuel prices surge and the rupee’s depreciation, has resulted in a 15% increase in airfares for a booking window of 0-14 days,” said Samyukth Sridharan, president and chief operating officer of Cleartrip. “At the same time, we see that the airlines have been quite aggressive in offering deals to passengers who plan in advance, reflected in a 21% year on-year drop in fares on an average for travel bookings made over 14 days in advance.”
Last year, airlines had offered substantial discounts across sectors and made attractive offers for ticket-buyers who planned their travel in advance, resulting in lower yields. To be sure, the industry’s ability to charge more will depend on the direction in aviation fuel prices and seasonal changes in air-travel demand.
“February and March are lean months, and the airlines may not have room to increase so much. But there will be increases subsequently if jet fuel prices continue their climb,” said a senior executive of a budget carrier.
Q. As per the passage, what is meant by fuel surcharge?
India’s delicately balanced current account wouldn’t be the only major casualty of costlier crude oil: Local travelers now have to pay more to fly within the country as expensive jet fuel propels airlines to raise domestic fares that had tracked global energy prices to plunge to record lows last year.
Higher consumer fares in January reflect the persistent rise in aviation-fuel prices, which increased 8% on-month in November at the New Delhi airport, the country’s busiest. After a brief lull in December, prices firmed in January and February, breaching the levels of 2015 when the cycle of declines began.
The trend has led carriers to pass additional fuel costs on to consumers, many of whom switched to airlines after the gap between air and upper-class train fares narrowed in 2016. A senior executive at Jet Airways, India’s second-biggest airline by market share, said that the airline has recently revived the practice of levying a fuel surcharge - a fare component linked to movements in jet fuel prices - on domestic flights.
“We used to charge between Rs 100 and Rs 300 depending on short- and long haul sectors. Now we charge as much as Rs 700,” he added. Jet-fuel is the biggest cost item for Indian carriers.
Prices of petroleum products began rising since the spring after the 2015-16 winter witnessed record lows for crude oil, with global prices breaching $30 a barrel on their way down to levels not seen since the 1980s.
However, after a period of consolidation that analysts believed would have put many shale oil producers out of business, global crude oil prices began firming and have now stabilized around $55 a barrel, a level that some believe would be maintained over the medium term.
Airlines had clubbed fuel surcharge with the base fare component in 2015 after an advisory from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, the country’s aviation regulator.
No-frills carrier SpiceJet has separated the two components over the last six months, although the fuel surcharge hasn’t been increased yet, said a spokesperson.
Travel company executives said overall fares have increased in January. According to data on Makemytrip, the country’s biggest online travel portal, average fares dropped in November and December but rose in January. Ticket prices for the Delhi-Mumbai sector rose to Rs 4,266 in January, compared with Rs 3,908 the same month last year, Rs 4,914 on the MumbaiBangalore sector compared with Rs 4,573 a year earlier, and Rs 4,473 on the Mumbai-Chennai route, compared with Rs 3,784 last January. Rival Cleartrip noticed divergent trends that showed those booking early stood to benefit. Last year, spot-booking fares too had fallen drastically.
“An analysis of the last three months of airfare data for the top 20 air travel sectors reveals that the increased cost to airlines, contributed by the fuel prices surge and the rupee’s depreciation, has resulted in a 15% increase in airfares for a booking window of 0-14 days,” said Samyukth Sridharan, president and chief operating officer of Cleartrip. “At the same time, we see that the airlines have been quite aggressive in offering deals to passengers who plan in advance, reflected in a 21% year on-year drop in fares on an average for travel bookings made over 14 days in advance.”
Last year, airlines had offered substantial discounts across sectors and made attractive offers for ticket-buyers who planned their travel in advance, resulting in lower yields. To be sure, the industry’s ability to charge more will depend on the direction in aviation fuel prices and seasonal changes in air-travel demand.
“February and March are lean months, and the airlines may not have room to increase so much. But there will be increases subsequently if jet fuel prices continue their climb,” said a senior executive of a budget carrier.
Q. What was the observation of Cleartrip on airline ticket prices?
Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos.
And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.
So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - worker owned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.
The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.
This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.
Q. Which of the following is the primary concern expressed in the passage?
Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos.
And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.
So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.
The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.
This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.
Q. Which of the following best reflects the economic model that the author prefers?
Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos.
And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.
So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.
The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.
This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.
Q. Which of the following comparison has the author employed to point the difference between the rich and the poor?
Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos.
And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.
So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.
The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.
This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.
Q. Why are corporate leaders not willing to work towards the collective interest of people?
Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos.
And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to.
So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - workerowned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly.
The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life.
This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom.
Q. Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?
The area that makes up what the French refer to as "le Midi", is, generally speaking, the most popular tourist region in France and needs little introduction. It consists of the French Mediterranean coastline and its hinterland, from the Italian to the Spanish borders, and is made up of two French regions, PACA or Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur to the east of the Rhone, and Languedoc Roussillon to the west of the Rhone.
The coastal region is very busy in Summer and travelling to the south of France by car on a summer Saturday can be a nightmare experience; but the region has masses to offer, in terms of climate, history, and landscape. The French Riviera ("la Côte d'Azur") is a small part of the south of France, the thin coastal strip from around Cassis (east of Marseille) in the west to the Italian border in the east. It is a coastline that gets very crowded in summer, though on account of the rocky coastline, there are still some quiet and peaceful spots to be found.
However much of the actual coast of the French Riviera is fairly heavily built up in many parts, and accommodation is expensive, particularly in the most famous resorts like St. Tropez, Cannes or Nice. The mountainous hinterland, on the other hand, the "Alpes de Haute Provence" the "Hautes Alpes" the "Alpes Maritimes", is very attractive, with its small villages and towns, many of them perched precariously on hillsides or beside trickling rivers that become raging torrents in the springtime. The southern Alps are different from the northern Alps - drier, more rocky, and less crowded.
Briançon, capital of the High Alps department, is the highest small city in Europe.
Those who do not want to spend their holidays being mass-grilled on a beach will prefer areas inland from the coastal strip, notably to the hills and mountains of Provence, with their dry landscapes and deep river gorges and valleys, or the valleys of the Cevennes, more wooded and rural, or the inland areas of the Languedoc.
The historic area of Provence (which used to include land to the west of the Rhone as well as the east) has a lot of historic cities, such as Avignon with its famous bridge, Arles with its Roman remains, the Camargue, and the university town of Aix en Provence.
Q. Which of the following best describes the purpose of the passage?
The area that makes up what the French refer to as "le Midi", is, generally speaking, the most popular tourist region in France and needs little introduction. It consists of the French Mediterranean coastline and its hinterland, from the Italian to the Spanish borders, and is made up of two French regions, PACA or Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur to the east of the Rhone, and Languedoc Roussillon to the west of the Rhone.
The coastal region is very busy in Summer and travelling to the south of France by car on a summer Saturday can be a nightmare experience; but the region has masses to offer, in terms of climate, history, and landscape. The French Riviera ("la Côte d'Azur") is a small part of the south of France, the thin coastal strip from around Cassis (east of Marseille) in the west to the Italian border in the east. It is a coastline that gets very crowded in summer, though on account of the rocky coastline, there are still some quiet and peaceful spots to be found.
However much of the actual coast of the French Riviera is fairly heavily built up in many parts, and accommodation is expensive, particularly in the most famous resorts like St. Tropez, Cannes or Nice. The mountainous hinterland, on the other hand, the "Alpes de Haute Provence" the "Hautes Alpes" the "Alpes Maritimes", is very attractive, with its small villages and towns, many of them perched precariously on hillsides or beside trickling rivers that become raging torrents in the springtime. The southern Alps are different from the northern Alps - drier, more rocky, and less crowded.
Briançon, capital of the High Alps department, is the highest small city in Europe.
Those who do not want to spend their holidays being mass-grilled on a beach will prefer areas inland from the coastal strip, notably to the hills and mountains of Provence, with their dry landscapes and deep river gorges and valleys, or the valleys of the Cevennes, more wooded and rural, or the inland areas of the Languedoc.
The historic area of Provence (which used to include land to the west of the Rhone as well as the east) has a lot of historic cities, such as Avignon with its famous bridge, Arles with its Roman remains, the Camargue, and the university town of Aix en Provence.
Q. Which of the following could be the reason behind the resorts being expensive?
The area that makes up what the French refer to as "le Midi", is, generally speaking, the most popular tourist region in France and needs little introduction. It consists of the French Mediterranean coastline and its hinterland, from the Italian to the Spanish borders, and is made up of two French regions, PACA or Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur to the east of the Rhone, and Languedoc Roussillon to the west of the Rhone.
The coastal region is very busy in Summer and travelling to the south of France by car on a summer Saturday can be a nightmare experience; but the region has masses to offer, in terms of climate, history, and landscape. The French Riviera ("la Côte d'Azur") is a small part of the south of France, the thin coastal strip from around Cassis (east of Marseille) in the west to the Italian border in the east. It is a coastline that gets very crowded in summer, though on account of the rocky coastline, there are still some quiet and peaceful spots to be found.
However much of the actual coast of the French Riviera is fairly heavily built up in many parts, and accommodation is expensive, particularly in the most famous resorts like St. Tropez, Cannes or Nice. The mountainous hinterland, on the other hand, the "Alpes de Haute Provence" the "Hautes Alpes" the "Alpes Maritimes", is very attractive, with its small villages and towns, many of them perched precariously on hillsides or beside trickling rivers that become raging torrents in the springtime. The southern Alps are different from the northern Alps - drier, more rocky, and less crowded.
Briançon, capital of the High Alps department, is the highest small city in Europe.
Those who do not want to spend their holidays being mass-grilled on a beach will prefer areas inland from the coastal strip, notably to the hills and mountains of Provence, with their dry landscapes and deep river gorges and valleys, or the valleys of the Cevennes, more wooded and rural, or the inland areas of the Languedoc.
The historic area of Provence (which used to include land to the west of the Rhone as well as the east) has a lot of historic cities, such as Avignon with its famous bridge, Arles with its Roman remains, the Camargue, and the university town of Aix en Provence.
Q. The French borders with which two countries hav e been mentioned in the passage?
The area that makes up what the French refer to as "le Midi", is, generally speaking, the most popular tourist region in France and needs little introduction. It consists of the French Mediterranean coastline and its hinterland, from the Italian to the Spanish borders, and is made up of two French regions, PACA or Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur to the east of the Rhone, and Languedoc Roussillon to the west of the Rhone.
The coastal region is very busy in Summer and travelling to the south of France by car on a summer Saturday can be a nightmare experience; but the region has masses to offer, in terms of climate, history, and landscape. The French Riviera ("la Côte d'Azur") is a small part of the south of France, the thin coastal strip from around Cassis (east of Marseille) in the west to the Italian border in the east. It is a coastline that gets very crowded in summer, though on account of the rocky coastline, there are still some quiet and peaceful spots to be found.
However much of the actual coast of the French Riviera is fairly heavily built up in many parts, and accommodation is expensive, particularly in the most famous resorts like St. Tropez, Cannes or Nice. The mountainous hinterland, on the other hand, the "Alpes de Haute Provence" the "Hautes Alpes" the "Alpes Maritimes", is very attractive, with its small villages and towns, many of them perched precariously on hillsides or beside trickling rivers that become raging torrents in the springtime. The southern Alps are different from the northern Alps - drier, more rocky, and less crowded.
Briançon, capital of the High Alps department, is the highest small city in Europe.
Those who do not want to spend their holidays being mass-grilled on a beach will prefer areas inland from the coastal strip, notably to the hills and mountains of Provence, with their dry landscapes and deep river gorges and valleys, or the valleys of the Cevennes, more wooded and rural, or the inland areas of the Languedoc.
The historic area of Provence (which used to include land to the west of the Rhone as well as the east) has a lot of historic cities, such as Avignon with its famous bridge, Arles with its Roman remains, the Camargue, and the university town of Aix en Provence.
Q. As mentioned in the passage, the word "hinterland", most nearly means
The area that makes up what the French refer to as "le Midi", is, generally speaking, the most popular tourist region in France and needs little introduction. It consists of the French Mediterranean coastline and its hinterland, from the Italian to the Spanish borders, and is made up of two French regions, PACA or Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur to the east of the Rhone, and Languedoc Roussillon to the west of the Rhone.
The coastal region is very busy in Summer and travelling to the south of France by car on a summer Saturday can be a nightmare experience; but the region has masses to offer, in terms of climate, history, and landscape. The French Riviera ("la Côte d'Azur") is a small part of the south of France, the thin coastal strip from around Cassis (east of Marseille) in the west to the Italian border in the east. It is a coastline that gets very crowded in summer, though on account of the rocky coastline, there are still some quiet and peaceful spots to be found.
However much of the actual coast of the French Riviera is fairly heavily built up in many parts, and accommodation is expensive, particularly in the most famous resorts like St. Tropez, Cannes or Nice. The mountainous hinterland, on the other hand, the "Alpes de Haute Provence" the "Hautes Alpes" the "Alpes Maritimes", is very attractive, with its small villages and towns, many of them perched precariously on hillsides or beside trickling rivers that become raging torrents in the springtime. The southern Alps are different from the northern Alps - drier, more rocky, and less crowded.
Briançon, capital of the High Alps department, is the highest small city in Europe.
Those who do not want to spend their holidays being mass-grilled on a beach will prefer areas inland from the coastal strip, notably to the hills and mountains of Provence, with their dry landscapes and deep river gorges and valleys, or the valleys of the Cevennes, more wooded and rural, or the inland areas of the Languedoc.
The historic area of Provence (which used to include land to the west of the Rhone as well as the east) has a lot of historic cities, such as Avignon with its famous bridge, Arles with its Roman remains, the Camargue, and the university town of Aix en Provence.
Q. Which of the following people are most likely to choose the hills over coasts and beaches?
Like many Indian children, I grew up on the vast, varied, and fascinating tales of the Mahabharat.
At the core of the epic lies the fierce rivalry between two branches of the Kuru dynasty, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The lifelong struggle between the cousins for the throne of Hastinapur culminates in the bloody battle of Kurukshetra, in which most kings of that period participated and perished. But numerous other characters people the world of the Mahabharat and contribute to its magnetism and continuing relevance.
These larger-than-life heroes, epitomizing inspiring virtues and deadly vices, etched many cautionary morals into my child-consciousness. Some of my favorites, who play prominent roles in The Palace of Illusions, are: Vyasa the sage; Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu and mentor to the Pandavas; Bheeshma, the patriarch ; Drona, the brahmin-warrior; Drupad, the king of Panchaal; and Karna, the great warrior.
But always, listening to the stories of the Mahabharat as a young girl in the lantern-lit evenings at my grandfather's village home, or later, poring over the thousand-page leather-bound volume in my parents' home in Kolkata, I was left unsatisfied by the portrayals of the women. It wasn't as though the epic didn't have powerful, complex women characters that affected the action in major ways. For instance, there was the widowed Kunti, mother of the Pandavas, who dedicates her life to making sure her sons became kings. There was Gandhari, wife of the sightless Kaurava king, who chooses to blindfold herself at marriage, thus relinquishing her power as queen and mother. And most of all, there was Panchaali (also known as Draupadi), King Drupad's beautiful daughter, who has the unique distinction of being married to five men at the same time-the five Pandava brothers, the greatest heroes of their time. Panchaali who, some might argue, by her headstrong actions helps to bring about the destruction of the Third Age of Man. But in some way, they remained shadowy figures, their thoughts and motives mysterious, their emotions portrayed only when they affected the lives of the male heroes, their roles ultimately subservient to those of their fathers or husbands, brothers or sons.
If I ever wrote a book, I remember thinking, I would place the women in the forefront of the action. I would uncover the story that lay invisible between the lines of the men's exploits. Better still, I would have one of them tell it herself, with all her joys and doubts, her struggles and her triumphs, her heartbreaks, her achievements, the unique female way in which she sees her world and her place in it. And who could be better suited for this than Panchaali? It is her life, her voice, her questions, and her vision that I invite you into in The Palace of Illusions.
Q. What does the word 'subservient' as used in the passage mean?
Like many Indian children, I grew up on the vast, varied, and fascinating tales of the Mahabharat.
At the core of the epic lies the fierce rivalry between two branches of the Kuru dynasty, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The lifelong struggle between the cousins for the throne of Hastinapur culminates in the bloody battle of Kurukshetra, in which most kings of that period participated and perished. But numerous other characters people the world of the Mahabharat and contribute to its magnetism and continuing relevance.
These larger-than-life heroes, epitomizing inspiring virtues and deadly vices, etched many cautionary morals into my child-consciousness. Some of my favorites, who play prominent roles in The Palace of Illusions, are: Vyasa the sage; Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu and mentor to the Pandavas; Bheeshma, the patriarch ; Drona, the brahmin-warrior; Drupad, the king of Panchaal; and Karna, the great warrior.
But always, listening to the stories of the Mahabharat as a young girl in the lantern-lit evenings at my grandfather's village home, or later, poring over the thousand-page leather-bound volume in my parents' home in Kolkata, I was left unsatisfied by the portrayals of the women. It wasn't as though the epic didn't have powerful, complex women characters that affected the action in major ways. For instance, there was the widowed Kunti, mother of the Pandavas, who dedicates her life to making sure her sons became kings. There was Gandhari, wife of the sightless Kaurava king, who chooses to blindfold herself at marriage, thus relinquishing her power as queen and mother. And most of all, there was Panchaali (also known as Draupadi), King Drupad's beautiful daughter, who has the unique distinction of being married to five men at the same time-the five Pandava brothers, the greatest heroes of their time. Panchaali who, some might argue, by her headstrong actions helps to bring about the destruction of the Third Age of Man. But in some way, they remained shadowy figures, their thoughts and motives mysterious, their emotions portrayed only when they affected the lives of the male heroes, their roles ultimately subservient to those of their fathers or husbands, brothers or sons.
If I ever wrote a book, I remember thinking, I would place the women in the forefront of the action. I would uncover the story that lay invisible between the lines of the men's exploits. Better still, I would have one of them tell it herself, with all her joys and doubts, her struggles and her triumphs, her heartbreaks, her achievements, the unique female way in which she sees her world and her place in it. And who could be better suited for this than Panchaali? It is her life, her voice, her questions, and her vision that I invite you into in The Palace of Illusions.
Q. Why did the author place the women in the forefront of action in her novel "The Palace of Illusions"?
Like many Indian children, I grew up on the vast, varied, and fascinating tales of the Mahabharat.
At the core of the epic lies the fierce rivalry between two branches of the Kuru dynasty, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The lifelong struggle between the cousins for the throne of Hastinapur culminates in the bloody battle of Kurukshetra, in which most kings of that period participated and perished. But numerous other characters people the world of the Mahabharat and contribute to its magnetism and continuing relevance.
These larger-than-life heroes, epitomizing inspiring virtues and deadly vices, etched many cautionary morals into my child-consciousness. Some of my favorites, who play prominent roles in The Palace of Illusions, are: Vyasa the sage; Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu and mentor to the Pandavas; Bheeshma, the patriarch ; Drona, the brahmin-warrior; Drupad, the king of Panchaal; and Karna, the great warrior.
But always, listening to the stories of the Mahabharat as a young girl in the lantern-lit evenings at my grandfather's village home, or later, poring over the thousand-page leather-bound volume in my parents' home in Kolkata, I was left unsatisfied by the portrayals of the women. It wasn't as though the epic didn't have powerful, complex women characters that affected the action in major ways. For instance, there was the widowed Kunti, mother of the Pandavas, who dedicates her life to making sure her sons became kings. There was Gandhari, wife of the sightless Kaurava king, who chooses to blindfold herself at marriage, thus relinquishing her power as queen and mother. And most of all, there was Panchaali (also known as Draupadi), King Drupad's beautiful daughter, who has the unique distinction of being married to five men at the same time-the five Pandava brothers, the greatest heroes of their time. Panchaali who, some might argue, by her headstrong actions helps to bring about the destruction of the Third Age of Man. But in some way, they remained shadowy figures, their thoughts and motives mysterious, their emotions portrayed only when they affected the lives of the male heroes, their roles ultimately subservient to those of their fathers or husbands, brothers or sons.
If I ever wrote a book, I remember thinking, I would place the women in the forefront of the action. I would uncover the story that lay invisible between the lines of the men's exploits. Better still, I would have one of them tell it herself, with all her joys and doubts, her struggles and her triumphs, her heartbreaks, her achievements, the unique female way in which she sees her world and her place in it. And who could be better suited for this than Panchaali? It is her life, her voice, her questions, and her vision that I invite you into in The Palace of Illusions.
Q. Consider this line from the passage: "I would uncover the story that lay invisible between the lines of the men's exploits.". What is invisible?
Like many Indian children, I grew up on the vast, varied, and fascinating tales of the Mahabharat.
At the core of the epic lies the fierce rivalry between two branches of the Kuru dynasty, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The lifelong struggle between the cousins for the throne of Hastinapur culminates in the bloody battle of Kurukshetra, in which most kings of that period participated and perished. But numerous other characters people the world of the Mahabharat and contribute to its magnetism and continuing relevance.
These larger-than-life heroes, epitomizing inspiring virtues and deadly vices, etched many cautionary morals into my child-consciousness. Some of my favorites, who play prominent roles in The Palace of Illusions, are: Vyasa the sage; Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu and mentor to the Pandavas; Bheeshma, the patriarch ; Drona, the brahmin-warrior; Drupad, the king of Panchaal; and Karna, the great warrior.
But always, listening to the stories of the Mahabharat as a young girl in the lantern-lit evenings at my grandfather's village home, or later, poring over the thousand-page leather-bound volume in my parents' home in Kolkata, I was left unsatisfied by the portrayals of the women. It wasn't as though the epic didn't have powerful, complex women characters that affected the action in major ways. For instance, there was the widowed Kunti, mother of the Pandavas, who dedicates her life to making sure her sons became kings. There was Gandhari, wife of the sightless Kaurava king, who chooses to blindfold herself at marriage, thus relinquishing her power as queen and mother. And most of all, there was Panchaali (also known as Draupadi), King Drupad's beautiful daughter, who has the unique distinction of being married to five men at the same time-the five Pandava brothers, the greatest heroes of their time. Panchaali who, some might argue, by her headstrong actions helps to bring about the destruction of the Third Age of Man. But in some way, they remained shadowy figures, their thoughts and motives mysterious, their emotions portrayed only when they affected the lives of the male heroes, their roles ultimately subservient to those of their fathers or husbands, brothers or sons.
If I ever wrote a book, I remember thinking, I would place the women in the forefront of the action. I would uncover the story that lay invisible between the lines of the men's exploits. Better still, I would have one of them tell it herself, with all her joys and doubts, her struggles and her triumphs, her heartbreaks, her achievements, the unique female way in which she sees her world and her place in it. And who could be better suited for this than Panchaali? It is her life, her voice, her questions, and her vision that I invite you into in The Palace of Illusions.
Q. It can be inferred from the passage that the novel "The Palace of Illusions" is most likely to be:
Like many Indian children, I grew up on the vast, varied, and fascinating tales of the Mahabharat.
At the core of the epic lies the fierce rivalry between two branches of the Kuru dynasty, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The lifelong struggle between the cousins for the throne of Hastinapur culminates in the bloody battle of Kurukshetra, in which most kings of that period participated and perished. But numerous other characters people the world of the Mahabharat and contribute to its magnetism and continuing relevance.
These larger-than-life heroes, epitomizing inspiring virtues and deadly vices, etched many cautionary morals into my child-consciousness. Some of my favorites, who play prominent roles in The Palace of Illusions, are: Vyasa the sage; Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu and mentor to the Pandavas; Bheeshma, the patriarch ; Drona, the brahmin-warrior; Drupad, the king of Panchaal; and Karna, the great warrior.
But always, listening to the stories of the Mahabharat as a young girl in the lantern-lit evenings at my grandfather's village home, or later, poring over the thousand-page leather-bound volume in my parents' home in Kolkata, I was left unsatisfied by the portrayals of the women. It wasn't as though the epic didn't have powerful, complex women characters that affected the action in major ways. For instance, there was the widowed Kunti, mother of the Pandavas, who dedicates her life to making sure her sons became kings. There was Gandhari, wife of the sightless Kaurava king, who chooses to blindfold herself at marriage, thus relinquishing her power as queen and mother. And most of all, there was Panchaali (also known as Draupadi), King Drupad's beautiful daughter, who has the unique distinction of being married to five men at the same time-the five Pandava brothers, the greatest heroes of their time. Panchaali who, some might argue, by her headstrong actions helps to bring about the destruction of the Third Age of Man. But in some way, they remained shadowy figures, their thoughts and motives mysterious, their emotions portrayed only when they affected the lives of the male heroes, their roles ultimately subservient to those of their fathers or husbands, brothers or sons.
If I ever wrote a book, I remember thinking, I would place the women in the forefront of the action. I would uncover the story that lay invisible between the lines of the men's exploits. Better still, I would have one of them tell it herself, with all her joys and doubts, her struggles and her triumphs, her heartbreaks, her achievements, the unique female way in which she sees her world and her place in it. And who could be better suited for this than Panchaali? It is her life, her voice, her questions, and her vision that I invite you into in The Palace of Illusions.
Q. In the novel "The Palace of Illusions", some of the male characters of Mahabarat:
Top Courses for CLAT
Important Questions for CLAT Practice Test- 28
CLAT Practice Test- 28 MCQs with Answers
Online Tests for CLAT Practice Test- 28
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
