Languages: Mock Test - 1 - CUET MCQ

Ahmedabad’s Sunday market that sells waste is this 35-year-old artist’s most liked hunting ground. That’s where he picks saw-blades, printer toners, monitors, busted VCDs and hard disks, video players and other castaway gems.

Back in home, he dismantles his treasure of scrap and segregates it into big pieces (the videoplayer’s outer case), mid-sized (the insides of a hard disk) and small pieces (innards of a mobile).

This is art you can get up, close and personal with. The works grab the viewer’s attention at several levels.

Aesthetically, the creations themselves - such as Frivolity which uses feathers and terracotta diyas painted in dark fossil green that give it a strange life - appeal in a live-and-kicking sort of way.

Look a little closer and hey, you spot a zipper. Then it’s a journey all your own. Your eyes identify hairpins, spray spouts that hairdressers use, paper clips, thread, computer ribbons and the insides of everything from watches to the sliding metal bits that support drawers.

You can almost hear the words whirring.

So Hashissh, constructed from paper clips, backpack clips, a shining CD and twirled thread, may invite you to study its water-blue, pinks and green or Nelumbeshwar may beckon, bathed in acrylic pink and grey-black. But once you’re standing in front of a piece, you spot the zips and the hairpins. Then you simply visually dismantle Har’s work and rebuild it all over again. Zoom in, zoom out. It’s great fun.

Visualising the colour of his work demands a lot of attention, says Har. “During creation, the material is all differently coloured. So there’s a red switch next to a white panel next to a black clip. It can be distracting. I don’t sketch, so I have to keep a sharp focus on the final look I am working towards.”

As his work evolved, Har discovered laser-cutting on a visit to a factory where he had gone to sand-blast one of his pieces. Hooked by the zingy shapes laser-cutting offered, Har promptly used it to speed up a scooter and lend an unbearable lightness of being to a flighty auto rickshaw, his latest works.

The NID-trained animation designer’s scrap quest was first inspired by a spider in his bathroom in Chennai when he was a teenager. He used a table-tennis ball (for the head), a bigger plastic ball (for the body) and twisted clothes hangers to form the legs. His next idea was to create a crab, and his mother obligingly brought one home from the market so that he could study and copy it.

Winning the first Art Positive fellowship offered by Bajaj Capital Arthouse last year gave Har the confidence to believe that he could make it as an artist or ‘aesthete’ as he likes to call himself.

Q. Which of the following is true according to the given passage?

Ahmedabad’s Sunday market that sells waste is this 35-year-old artist’s most liked hunting ground. That’s where he picks saw-blades, printer toners, monitors, busted VCDs and hard disks, video players and other castaway gems.

Back in home, he dismantles his treasure of scrap and segregates it into big pieces (the videoplayer’s outer case), mid-sized (the insides of a hard disk) and small pieces (innards of a mobile).

This is art you can get up, close and personal with. The works grab the viewer’s attention at several levels.

Aesthetically, the creations themselves - such as Frivolity which uses feathers and terracotta diyas painted in dark fossil green that give it a strange life - appeal in a live-and-kicking sort of way.

Look a little closer and hey, you spot a zipper. Then it’s a journey all your own. Your eyes identify hairpins, spray spouts that hairdressers use, paper clips, thread, computer ribbons and the insides of everything from watches to the sliding metal bits that support drawers.

You can almost hear the words whirring.

So Hashissh, constructed from paper clips, backpack clips, a shining CD and twirled thread, may invite you to study its water-blue, pinks and green or Nelumbeshwar may beckon, bathed in acrylic pink and grey-black. But once you’re standing in front of a piece, you spot the zips and the hairpins. Then you simply visually dismantle Har’s work and rebuild it all over again. Zoom in, zoom out. It’s great fun.

Visualising the colour of his work demands a lot of attention, says Har. “During creation, the material is all differently coloured. So there’s a red switch next to a white panel next to a black clip. It can be distracting. I don’t sketch, so I have to keep a sharp focus on the final look I am working towards.”

As his work evolved, Har discovered laser-cutting on a visit to a factory where he had gone to sand-blast one of his pieces. Hooked by the zingy shapes laser-cutting offered, Har promptly used it to speed up a scooter and lend an unbearable lightness of being to a flighty auto rickshaw, his latest works.

The NID-trained animation designer’s scrap quest was first inspired by a spider in his bathroom in Chennai when he was a teenager. He used a table-tennis ball (for the head), a bigger plastic ball (for the body) and twisted clothes hangers to form the legs. His next idea was to create a crab, and his mother obligingly brought one home from the market so that he could study and copy it.Winning the first Art Positive fellowship offered by Bajaj Capital Arthouse last year gave Har the confidence to believe that he could make it as an artist or ‘aesthete’ as he likes to call himself.

Q. According to the author, what makes Har ’s art fun?

Ahmedabad’s Sunday market that sells waste is this 35-year-old artist’s most liked hunting ground. That’s where he picks saw-blades, printer toners, monitors, busted VCDs and hard disks, video players and other castaway gems.

Back in home, he dismantles his treasure of scrap and segregates it into big pieces (the videoplayer’s outer case), mid-sized (the insides of a hard disk) and small pieces (innards of a mobile).

This is art you can get up, close and personal with. The works grab the viewer’s attention at several levels.

Aesthetically, the creations themselves - such as Frivolity which uses feathers and terracotta diyas painted in dark fossil green that give it a strange life - appeal in a live-and-kicking sort of way.

Look a little closer and hey, you spot a zipper. Then it’s a journey all your own. Your eyes identify hairpins, spray spouts that hairdressers use, paper clips, thread, computer ribbons and the insides of everything from watches to the sliding metal bits that support drawers.

You can almost hear the words whirring.

So Hashissh, constructed from paper clips, backpack clips, a shining CD and twirled thread, may invite you to study its water-blue, pinks and green or Nelumbeshwar may beckon, bathed in acrylic pink and grey-black. But once you’re standing in front of a piece, you spot the zips and the hairpins. Then you simply visually dismantle Har’s work and rebuild it all over again. Zoom in, zoom out. It’s great fun.

Visualising the colour of his work demands a lot of attention, says Har. “During creation, the material is all differently coloured. So there’s a red switch next to a white panel next to a black clip. It can be distracting. I don’t sketch, so I have to keep a sharp focus on the final look I am working towards.”

As his work evolved, Har discovered laser-cutting on a visit to a factory where he had gone to sand-blast one of his pieces. Hooked by the zingy shapes laser-cutting offered, Har promptly used it to speed up a scooter and lend an unbearable lightness of being to a flighty auto rickshaw, his latest works.

The NID-trained animation designer’s scrap quest was first inspired by a spider in his bathroom in Chennai when he was a teenager. He used a table-tennis ball (for the head), a bigger plastic ball (for the body) and twisted clothes hangers to form the legs. His next idea was to create a crab, and his mother obligingly brought one home from the market so that he could study and copy it.

Winning the first Art Positive fellowship offered by Bajaj Capital Arthouse last year gave Har the confidence to believe that he could make it as an artist or ‘aesthete’ as he likes to call himself.

Q. Which of the following statements cannot be inferred from the passage?

Ahmedabad’s Sunday market that sells waste is this 35-year-old artist’s most liked hunting ground. That’s where he picks saw-blades, printer toners, monitors, busted VCDs and hard disks, video players and other castaway gems.

Back in home, he dismantles his treasure of scrap and segregates it into big pieces (the videoplayer’s outer case), mid-sized (the insides of a hard disk) and small pieces (innards of a mobile).

This is art you can get up, close and personal with. The works grab the viewer’s attention at several levels.

Aesthetically, the creations themselves - such as Frivolity which uses feathers and terracotta diyas painted in dark fossil green that give it a strange life - appeal in a live-and-kicking sort of way.

Look a little closer and hey, you spot a zipper. Then it’s a journey all your own. Your eyes identify hairpins, spray spouts that hairdressers use, paper clips, thread, computer ribbons and the insides of everything from watches to the sliding metal bits that support drawers.

You can almost hear the words whirring.

So Hashissh, constructed from paper clips, backpack clips, a shining CD and twirled thread, may invite you to study its water-blue, pinks and green or Nelumbeshwar may beckon, bathed in acrylic pink and grey-black. But once you’re standing in front of a piece, you spot the zips and the hairpins. Then you simply visually dismantle Har’s work and rebuild it all over again. Zoom in, zoom out. It’s great fun.

Visualising the colour of his work demands a lot of attention, says Har. “During creation, the material is all differently coloured. So there’s a red switch next to a white panel next to a black clip. It can be distracting. I don’t sketch, so I have to keep a sharp focus on the final look I am working towards.”

As his work evolved, Har discovered laser-cutting on a visit to a factory where he had gone to sand-blast one of his pieces. Hooked by the zingy shapes laser-cutting offered, Har promptly used it to speed up a scooter and lend an unbearable lightness of being to a flighty auto rickshaw, his latest works.

The NID-trained animation designer’s scrap quest was first inspired by a spider in his bathroom in Chennai when he was a teenager. He used a table-tennis ball (for the head), a bigger plastic ball (for the body) and twisted clothes hangers to form the legs. His next idea was to create a crab, and his mother obligingly brought one home from the market so that he could study and copy it.

Winning the first Art Positive fellowship offered by Bajaj Capital Arthouse last year gave Har the confidence to believe that he could make it as an artist or ‘aesthete’ as he likes to call himself.

Q. In the light of the given passage which of the following in not true?

Ahmedabad’s Sunday market that sells waste is this 35-year-old artist’s most liked hunting ground. That’s where he picks saw-blades, printer toners, monitors, busted VCDs and hard disks, video players and other castaway gems.

Back in home, he dismantles his treasure of scrap and segregates it into big pieces (the videoplayer’s outer case), mid-sized (the insides of a hard disk) and small pieces (innards of a mobile).

This is art you can get up, close and personal with. The works grab the viewer’s attention at several levels.

Aesthetically, the creations themselves - such as Frivolity which uses feathers and terracotta diyas painted in dark fossil green that give it a strange life - appeal in a live-and-kicking sort of way.

Look a little closer and hey, you spot a zipper. Then it’s a journey all your own. Your eyes identify hairpins, spray spouts that hairdressers use, paper clips, thread, computer ribbons and the insides of everything from watches to the sliding metal bits that support drawers.

You can almost hear the words whirring.

So Hashissh, constructed from paper clips, backpack clips, a shining CD and twirled thread, may invite you to study its water-blue, pinks and green or Nelumbeshwar may beckon, bathed in acrylic pink and grey-black. But once you’re standing in front of a piece, you spot the zips and the hairpins. Then you simply visually dismantle Har’s work and rebuild it all over again. Zoom in, zoom out. It’s great fun.

Visualising the colour of his work demands a lot of attention, says Har. “During creation, the material is all differently coloured. So there’s a red switch next to a white panel next to a black clip. It can be distracting. I don’t sketch, so I have to keep a sharp focus on the final look I am working towards.”

As his work evolved, Har discovered laser-cutting on a visit to a factory where he had gone to sand-blast one of his pieces. Hooked by the zingy shapes laser-cutting offered, Har promptly used it to speed up a scooter and lend an unbearable lightness of being to a flighty auto rickshaw, his latest works.

The NID-trained animation designer’s scrap quest was first inspired by a spider in his bathroom in Chennai when he was a teenager. He used a table-tennis ball (for the head), a bigger plastic ball (for the body) and twisted clothes hangers to form the legs. His next idea was to create a crab, and his mother obligingly brought one home from the market so that he could study and copy it.

Winning the first Art Positive fellowship offered by Bajaj Capital Arthouse last year gave Har the confidence to believe that he could make it as an artist or ‘aesthete’ as he likes to call himself.

Q. What is the Central idea of the given passage?

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Q. What was the dispute which was rectified by the Supreme Court in the judgement?

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Q. In what context has the term 'ruling' been used in the passage?

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Q. What is the meaning of the term 'moratorium' as used in the passage?

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Q. Why does the author think that the package would not make much of a difference?

A recent incident precipitated the crisis in the already distressed sector. The Supreme Court's 24 October 2019 (Union of India v Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India) ruling ordered the telecom companies to pay up all that they owed in the form of levies, arrears, penalties and interest payments penalties through the last 15 years. The dispute was on how to calculate the gross adjusted revenues from which the government levies a tax. The companies contended that only their revenues arising out of their use of spectrum be considered. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), however, also included all their indirect earnings that form the adjusted gross revenue (AGR). This would include, for example, dividends and revenue from sale of handsets that are bundled with services, interest income, scrap sale or even rental income. The Supreme Court upheld the DoT's view in its October order.

This definition of AGR spikes up the arrears, penalties and interest payments to a value close to Rs. 92,000 crore to be paid by the telecom firms in three months.

This value, in an industry that is already saddled with a huge debt, is a matter of serious concern. While Bharti Airtel and Vodafone-Idea have to pay Rs. 29,000 crore and Rs. 33,000 crore respectively, Reliance Jio, which is a new entrant, needs to pay Rs. 13,000 crore, due to its purchase of Reliance communication’s liabilities. Vodafone-Idea's cash reserves do not even match up to the penalty amount, making it seriously consider closing down. Vodafone-Idea reported a loss of almost Rs. 50,000 crore in the quarter ending in September 2019 (compared with Rs. 5,000 crore last year in the same quarter). This is, by many accounts, the largest loss by an Indian company.

Airtel's story is also woeful, reporting a loss of Rs. 23,000 crore.

These numbers are staggeringly high, enough to break a company down. Price wars in the last two years had led to a considerable bleeding of the incumbents already.

Vodafone-Idea's future seems uncertain. Since the company owes huge debts to public banks, and has a number of dependent vendors, a ripple effect may hurt the overall economy. Lawmakers are genuinely worried and companies are trying hard to strike a deal with the government. A committee of secretaries was formed to consider a relief package for the beleaguered industry.

They have granted a two-year moratorium on the spectrum payments, offering some cash flow relief, but do not touch the Supreme Court-imposed penalty.

Estimates reveal that this package does not make much of a difference. Conversations on the bailout have begun.

While this may not be a good sign, there is a need to dig deeper.

Q. Which of the following would not be a part of the adjusted gross revenue of the companies?

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of jarring elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Punishment.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Q. What, according to the passage, is the Chief Good?

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of jarring elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Punishment.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Q. According to the author, the moral code of Christianity

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of jarring elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Punishment.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Q. According to the author, the doctrines of Mr Darwin

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Q. It is implied in the passage that

That the doctrines connected with the name of Mr Darwin are altering our principles has become a sort of commonplace thing to say. And moral principles are said to share in this general transformation. Now, to pass by other subjects, I do not see why Darwinism need change our ultimate moral ideas. It was not to modify our conception of the end, either for the community, or the individual, unless we have been holding views, which long before Darwin were out of date. As to the principles of ethics I perceive, in short, no sign of revolution. Darwinism has indeed helped many to truer conception of the end, but I cannot admit that it has either originated or modified that conception.

And yet in ethics Darwinism after all perhaps may be revolutionary, it may lead not to another view about the end, but to a different way of regarding the relative importance of the means. For in the ordinary moral creed those means seem estimated on no rational principle.

Our creed appears rather to be an irrational mixture of shaking elements. We have the moral code of Christianity, accepted in part; rejected practically by all save a few fanatics. But we do not realise how in its very principle the Christian ideals are false. And when we reject this code for another and in part a sounder morality, we are in the same condition of blindness and of practical confusion. It is here that Darwinism, with all the tendencies we may group under that name, seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views, and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal. I propose to illustrate here these general statements by some remarks on Retribution.

Darwinism, I have said, has not even modified our ideas of the Chief Good. We may take that as - the welfare of the community realised in its members. There is, of course, a question as to meaning to be given to welfare.

We may identify that with mere pleasure, or gain with mere system, or may rather view both as inseparable aspects of perfection and individuality. And the extent and nature of the community would once more be a subject for some discussion. But we are forced to enter on these controversies here. We may leave welfare undefined, and for present purpose need not distinguish the community from the state. The welfare of this whole exists, of course, nowhere outside the individuals, and the individuals again have rights and duties only as members in the whole.

Q. What is most probably the author's opinion of the existing moral principles of the people?

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.

The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.

Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.

This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.

Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.

Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.

Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.

Q. Which one of these options best explains the reference the author makes to the practice of treaty shopping?

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.

The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.

Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.

This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.

Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.

Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.

Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.

Q. As per the information in the passage, the author is most likely to agree with which of the following?

Consider the following assumptions. 1. The Suprem e Court has ruled in f av our of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter. 2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.

With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?

 The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.

The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.

Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.

This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.

Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.

Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.

Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.

Q. Consider the following assumptions.
1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.
2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.

With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.

The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.

Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.

This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.

Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.

Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.

Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.

Q. Consider the following statements:

1. The Income Tax Act was enacted in 1962.

2. Mr. Parthasarathi Shome was a Tax expert.

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

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.

The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.

Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.

This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.

Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.

Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.

Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.

Q. Consider the following statements:

1. Vodafone bought Hutchison’s stake in the year 2008.

2. The then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee did not alter the Income Tax Act.

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

Beauty is a valuable commodity in our image-obsessed society, so it's not surprising that Miss Indias and Miss Worlds make headlines. These young women aren't just beautiful; they're most often thin too. But Chloe Marshall, the 2008 Miss England runner-up, was size 16 ("full figured" or "ample," to put it politely) and therefore made even more news. A full-figured beauty pageant finalist creating a stop-the-press moment highlights the fact that larger women are not usually considered "the fairest of them all." Indeed, pick up a magazine or newspaper on any other day and the message is loud and clear -thin is in.

With the average woman hovering around a size 14 or above, the comparison is odious. A recent survey revealed only six percent of women aged 18 to 64 were "very satisfied" with their looks. That leaves 94 percent of women critical of their appearance. In other words, the majority of the women sitting with you in the metro this morning woke up feeling judgmental and negative about their looks. "If every woman in the world woke up, slapped herself on the head and said: 'I'm happy with who I am,' entire economies would collapse," says Jane Caro, an award-winning advertising writer.

The media is often portrayed as the bogeyman in the body-image debate, but experts say it's only part of the picture. Paxton notes women are getting messages from family from an early age. The way in which parents view their bodies impacts their children's attitudes. "A mother who is always dieting or being critical of her body is sending a clear message to her daughters," says Tiggemann. "That sense of body dissatisfaction is passed on." The anti-obesity push is also unhelpful. "It's shifted the focus away from health and onto weight and looks," she says. "It's perpetuating the notion that fat is bad, thin is good, and thinner is better." And it's a notion that has recently been proved to be untrue.

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

Beauty is a valuable commodity in our image-obsessed society, so it's not surprising that Miss Indias and Miss Worlds make headlines. These young women aren't just beautiful; they're most often thin too. But Chloe Marshall, the 2008 Miss England runner-up, was size 16 ("full figured" or "ample," to put it politely) and therefore made even more news. A full-figured beauty pageant finalist creating a stop-the-press moment highlights the fact that larger women are not usually considered "the fairest of them all." Indeed, pick up a magazine or newspaper on any other day and the message is loud and clear -thin is in.

With the average woman hovering around a size 14 or above, the comparison is odious. A recent survey revealed only six percent of women aged 18 to 64 were "very satisfied" with their looks. That leaves 94 percent of women critical of their appearance. In other words, the majority of the women sitting with you in the metro this morning woke up feeling judgmental and negative about their looks. "If every woman in the world woke up, slapped herself on the head and said: 'I'm happy with who I am,' entire economies would collapse," says Jane Caro, an award-winning advertising writer.

The media is often portrayed as the bogeyman in the body-image debate, but experts say it's only part of the picture. Paxton notes women are getting messages from family from an early age. The way in which parents view their bodies impacts their children's attitudes. "A mother who is always dieting or being critical of her body is sending a clear message to her daughters," says Tiggemann. "That sense of body dissatisfaction is passed on." The anti-obesity push is also unhelpful. "It's shifted the focus away from health and onto weight and looks," she says. "It's perpetuating the notion that fat is bad, thin is good, and thinner is better." And it's a notion that has recently been proved to be untrue.

Q. Which notion is being talked about in the last line of the passage?

Beauty is a valuable commodity in our image-obsessed society, so it's not surprising that Miss Indias and Miss Worlds make headlines. These young women aren't just beautiful; they're most often thin too. But Chloe Marshall, the 2008 Miss England runner-up, was size 16 ("full figured" or "ample," to put it politely) and therefore made even more news. A full-figured beauty pageant finalist creating a stop-the-press moment highlights the fact that larger women are not usually considered "the fairest of them all." Indeed, pick up a magazine or newspaper on any other day and the message is loud and clear -thin is in.

With the average woman hovering around a size 14 or above, the comparison is odious. A recent survey revealed only six percent of women aged 18 to 64 were "very satisfied" with their looks. That leaves 94 percent of women critical of their appearance. In other words, the majority of the women sitting with you in the metro this morning woke up feeling judgmental and negative about their looks. "If every woman in the world woke up, slapped herself on the head and said: 'I'm happy with who I am,' entire economies would collapse," says Jane Caro, an award-winning advertising writer.

The media is often portrayed as the bogeyman in the body-image debate, but experts say it's only part of the picture. Paxton notes women are getting messages from family from an early age. The way in which parents view their bodies impacts their children's attitudes. "A mother who is always dieting or being critical of her body is sending a clear message to her daughters," says Tiggemann. "That sense of body dissatisfaction is passed on." The anti-obesity push is also unhelpful. "It's shifted the focus away from health and onto weight and looks," she says. "It's perpetuating the notion that fat is bad, thin is good, and thinner is better." And it's a notion that has recently been proved to be untrue.

Q. Which of the following is the synonym of the word "odious"?

Beauty is a valuable commodity in our image-obsessed society, so it's not surprising that Miss Indias and Miss Worlds make headlines. These young women aren't just beautiful; they're most often thin too. But Chloe Marshall, the 2008 Miss England runner-up, was size 16 ("full figured" or "ample," to put it politely) and therefore made even more news. A full-figured beauty pageant finalist creating a stop-the-press moment highlights the fact that larger women are not usually considered "the fairest of them all." Indeed, pick up a magazine or newspaper on any other day and the message is loud and clear -thin is in.

With the average woman hovering around a size 14 or above, the comparison is odious. A recent survey revealed only six percent of women aged 18 to 64 were "very satisfied" with their looks. That leaves 94 percent of women critical of their appearance. In other words, the majority of the women sitting with you in the metro this morning woke up feeling judgmental and negative about their looks. "If every woman in the world woke up, slapped herself on the head and said: 'I'm happy with who I am,' entire economies would collapse," says Jane Caro, an award-winning advertising writer.

The media is often portrayed as the bogeyman in the body-image debate, but experts say it's only part of the picture. Paxton notes women are getting messages from family from an early age. The way in which parents view their bodies impacts their children's attitudes. "A mother who is always dieting or being critical of her body is sending a clear message to her daughters," says Tiggemann. "That sense of body dissatisfaction is passed on." The anti-obesity push is also unhelpful. "It's shifted the focus away from health and onto weight and looks," she says. "It's perpetuating the notion that fat is bad, thin is good, and thinner is better." And it's a notion that has recently been proved to be untrue.

Q. Why did Chloe Marshall make headlines?

Beauty is a valuable commodity in our image-obsessed society, so it's not surprising that Miss Indias and Miss Worlds make headlines. These young women aren't just beautiful; they're most often thin too. But Chloe Marshall, the 2008 Miss England runner-up, was size 16 ("full figured" or "ample," to put it politely) and therefore made even more news. A full-figured beauty pageant finalist creating a stop-the-press moment highlights the fact that larger women are not usually considered "the fairest of them all." Indeed, pick up a magazine or newspaper on any other day and the message is loud and clear -thin is in.

With the average woman hovering around a size 14 or above, the comparison is odious. A recent survey revealed only six percent of women aged 18 to 64 were "very satisfied" with their looks. That leaves 94 percent of women critical of their appearance. In other words, the majority of the women sitting with you in the metro this morning woke up feeling judgmental and negative about their looks. "If every woman in the world woke up, slapped herself on the head and said: 'I'm happy with who I am,' entire economies would collapse," says Jane Caro, an award-winning advertising writer.

The media is often portrayed as the bogeyman in the body-image debate, but experts say it's only part of the picture. Paxton notes women are getting messages from family from an early age. The way in which parents view their bodies impacts their children's attitudes. "A mother who is always dieting or being critical of her body is sending a clear message to her daughters," says Tiggemann. "That sense of body dissatisfaction is passed on." The anti-obesity push is also unhelpful. "It's shifted the focus away from health and onto weight and looks," she says. "It's perpetuating the notion that fat is bad, thin is good, and thinner is better." And it's a notion that has recently been proved to be untrue.

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

A. Beauty is given great importance in today's society.

B. Only a few women are happy the way they look.

C. Media is considered the Lilliputian character that is responsible for the body-image debate.

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements.

As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, closeups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on.

Q. What makes movies such a powerful medium of expressive art?

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements.

As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, closeups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on.

Q. Why do movies tend to often reflect the culture and prevalent norms of a society?