Law And Social Justice, Civics, Class 8 -Test - Class 8 MCQ

To determine when the government amended the Child Labour Prevention Act, we can look at the given options and find the correct one.
Option A: In October 2002
Option B: In January 2004
Option C: In October 2006
Option D: In October 2007
We need to find the amendment date, which is the correct answer.
Answer: C. In October 2006
Explanation:
The government amended the Child Labour Prevention Act in October 2006.

The Bhopal gas tragedy took place on 2 December 1984.
Explanation:
The Bhopal gas tragedy, also known as the Bhopal disaster, was a gas leak incident that occurred in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India. Here is a detailed explanation of the tragedy and its date:
1. Background:
- The tragedy occurred at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal.
- The plant produced the pesticide named "Sevin" (carbaryl).
2. Incident:
- On the night of 2 December 1984, a methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leak occurred at the plant.
- The gas leak was a result of water entering one of the storage tanks, causing a chemical reaction that led to the release of toxic gases.
3. Impact:
- The gas leak affected the surrounding areas, leading to the immediate death of thousands of people.
- The toxic gases caused severe injuries, respiratory problems, and long-term health issues in survivors.
- The impact of the tragedy was devastating, with estimates of over 500,000 people affected.
4. Aftermath:
- The Bhopal gas tragedy is considered one of the world's worst industrial disasters.
- Legal battles and compensation claims followed the incident, with victims and their families seeking justice.
- The tragedy raised awareness about industrial safety and the need for stronger regulations to prevent such incidents.
In conclusion, the Bhopal gas tragedy occurred on 2 December 1984, causing widespread devastation and long-term health effects for the affected population.

The poisonous gas that leaked from the UC plant was Methyl-Isocyanite.
Explanation:
To find the correct answer, we need to analyze the options given and determine which one is the poisonous gas that leaked from the UC plant.
Let's go through each option and eliminate the incorrect ones:
A: Methyl-isocynide - This is a possible option as it is similar to the correct answer, Methyl-Isocyanite. However, it is not the correct answer.
B: Methyl-alcohol - Methyl-alcohol is not a poisonous gas. It is a type of alcohol and does not fit the criteria.
C: Methyl-Isocyanite - This is the correct answer. Methyl-Isocyanite is a highly toxic and volatile chemical compound that can cause severe health effects.
D: Ethyl-alcohol - Ethyl-alcohol is not a poisonous gas. It is a type of alcohol and does not fit the criteria.
Therefore, the correct answer is C: Methyl-Isocyanite.

Yes, as it's headquarter is at Texas, in America. And chairman is Warren Martin Anderson who was an American.

Answer:
The hazardous industry among the given options is the Ship-breaking industry. Here's a detailed explanation:
Dangerous Factors in the Ship-breaking Industry:
- The ship-breaking industry involves dismantling and recycling old ships, which poses various hazards due to the nature of the work and the materials involved.
- Ships often contain hazardous materials such as asbestos, heavy metals, and toxic chemicals, which can pose health risks to workers if not handled properly.
- The process of breaking down ships involves cutting and dismantling large structures, which can lead to accidents and injuries if proper safety measures are not followed.
- Ship-breaking yards are often located in developing countries where safety regulations may be less stringent, further increasing the risks for workers.
Risks and Consequences:
- Workers in the ship-breaking industry are exposed to health hazards such as respiratory problems, skin diseases, and other long-term illnesses due to the exposure to hazardous materials.
- Accidents and injuries are common in ship-breaking yards, which can result in severe injuries or even fatalities.
- Improper disposal of hazardous waste from ship-breaking activities can also have adverse environmental impacts, such as pollution of water bodies and soil contamination.
Importance of Safety Measures:
- It is crucial for the ship-breaking industry to prioritize safety measures to protect workers' health and prevent accidents.
- Proper training and protective equipment should be provided to workers to minimize the risks associated with hazardous materials and the physical demands of the job.
- Environmental regulations should also be enforced to ensure proper disposal of hazardous waste and prevent pollution.
In conclusion, the ship-breaking industry is considered hazardous due to the potential health risks, accidents, and environmental impact associated with the dismantling and recycling of old ships.

Explanation:
The statement "The minimum wages are revised upwards every few years" is true. Here is a detailed explanation:
Minimum wage:
- The minimum wage is the lowest remuneration that employers can legally pay their workers.
- It is usually set by the government or labor unions to ensure that workers receive a fair wage.
Revision of minimum wages:
- Minimum wages are not fixed and can change over time.
- Governments periodically review and revise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation and ensure that workers' incomes keep pace with the cost of living.
- The frequency of revisions may vary depending on the country and its labor laws.
Upward revision:
- When minimum wages are revised, they are typically adjusted upwards.
- The purpose of upward revisions is to improve the standard of living for workers by increasing their income and reducing income inequality.
- Upward revisions can also stimulate consumer spending and boost the economy.
Frequency of revisions:
- The statement mentions that minimum wages are revised every few years.
- While the exact frequency may vary, it is common for governments to review and revise minimum wages every few years to account for changes in the economy and living costs.
Conclusion:
Based on the above explanation, it can be concluded that the statement "The minimum wages are revised upwards every few years" is true.

Contractors and business persons always think about the benefit of their own.

False

Contrary to the statement, contractors and business persons do not always think about their own benefit. Here is a detailed explanation:

• Misconception: It is a common misconception that all contractors and business persons are solely focused on personal gain.


• Varied Motivations: Contractors and business persons may have a range of motivations and priorities, including:




• Providing quality services or products


• Building a reputable business


• Creating job opportunities for others


• Contributing to the community


• Meeting customer needs and satisfaction


• Achieving long-term success




• Ethical Considerations: Many contractors and business persons prioritize ethical practices and strive to operate with integrity, fairness, and transparency.


• Long-Term Perspective: Building and maintaining successful businesses often requires considering the interests of various stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and the community.


• Collaboration: Contractors and business persons frequently collaborate with others to achieve shared goals and create mutually beneficial outcomes.


• Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Contractors and business persons must adhere to legal and regulatory requirements, which often involve considering the welfare of others.


• Competition: In competitive markets, contractors and business persons need to differentiate themselves by providing value to customers and meeting their needs.

In conclusion, while self-interest may play a role in decision-making for contractors and business persons, it is inaccurate to claim that they always prioritize their own benefit. Various other factors and considerations shape their actions and strategies.

Summary:
The statement is false. Despite the passing of the Child Labour Prevention Act, there are still instances where children are employed as domestic workers.
Explanation:
Here is a detailed explanation to support the answer:
1. Child Labour Prevention Act:
- The Child Labour Prevention Act is a legislation aimed at protecting children from forced labor and exploitation.
- It prohibits the employment of children below a certain age, depending on the country's laws.
2. Misinterpretation of the Act:
- While the Act aims to prevent child labor, it does not guarantee the complete eradication of child domestic workers.
- Some people may misinterpret the Act or find ways to exploit loopholes, allowing them to continue employing children as domestic workers.
3. Lack of Enforcement:
- In some cases, there may be a lack of proper enforcement of the Act, making it difficult to monitor and control child labor.
- Limited resources, corruption, and inadequate awareness can hinder the effective implementation of the Act.
4. Poverty and Informal Economy:
- Poverty is one of the main factors that drive child labor.
- In many cases, families living in poverty may resort to sending their children to work as domestic workers to contribute to their household income.
- The informal economy, where labor regulations may not be strictly enforced, can also contribute to the continued employment of child domestic workers.
5. Cultural and Social Norms:
- Cultural and social norms in certain regions or communities may accept child labor as a part of their daily life.
- These norms can perpetuate the employment of child domestic workers, despite the existence of laws against it.
Conclusion:
The statement that no child is employed as a domestic worker after the passing of the Child Labour Prevention Act is false. While the Act is designed to prevent child labor, there are still instances where children are employed in domestic work. Factors such as misinterpretation of the Act, lack of enforcement, poverty, informal economy, and cultural norms contribute to the continued employment of child domestic workers.

Explanation:
The statement suggests that the victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy received justice within a few years. However, this statement is false. Here's a detailed explanation:
Background:
- The Bhopal gas tragedy occurred on December 2-3, 1984, in Bhopal, India.
- A gas leak from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant released toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, resulting in the death of thousands of people and causing severe injuries to hundreds of thousands more.
Reasons why the victims did not get justice within a few years:
1. Legal Proceedings:
- The legal proceedings related to the Bhopal gas tragedy were complex and prolonged.
- It took several years to determine the liability of the Union Carbide Corporation (UCC), the parent company of UCIL.
- UCC and Indian government agencies engaged in legal battles, causing delays in delivering justice to the victims.
2. Compensation:
- The initial compensation provided to the victims was inadequate and did not cover the long-term medical expenses or compensate for the loss of livelihood.
- It took years of legal battles and public pressure for the victims to receive increased compensation.
3. Criminal Accountability:
- The criminal trial against the accused individuals involved in the gas leak took over two decades to conclude.
- In 2010, eight former employees of UCIL were convicted, but the sentences were widely criticized as being too lenient.
4. Environmental Rehabilitation:
- The environmental impact of the gas leak and the contamination of soil and groundwater in the affected area required substantial efforts to rehabilitate.
- It took years for environmental remediation measures to be implemented.
5. Ongoing Impacts:
- Even after several decades, the victims continue to suffer from the long-term health effects of the gas leak.
- The medical needs and support required by the affected individuals have not been adequately addressed.
Conclusion:
The victims of the Bhopal gas tragedy did not receive justice within a few years. The legal proceedings, inadequate compensation, delayed criminal accountability, environmental rehabilitation, and ongoing impacts have hindered the delivery of justice to the victims.

Statement: In 1984, there were very few laws protecting the environment in India and there was hardly any enforcement of these laws.
Analysis:
To determine the accuracy of the statement, we need to consider the environmental legislation and enforcement in India during 1984.
Environmental Legislation in India in 1984:
During the 1980s, India did have some environmental laws in place, but the extent and effectiveness of these laws were limited. Key legislation during this time included:
- The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
- The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
- The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Enforcement of Environmental Laws in India in 1984:
While there were laws in place, the enforcement of these laws was indeed weak during the 1980s. Factors contributing to the lack of enforcement included:
- Limited resources and capacity of environmental regulatory agencies
- Lack of awareness and public participation in environmental issues
- Corruption and bureaucratic hurdles
- Insufficient monitoring and surveillance mechanisms
Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, it can be concluded that the statement is true. In 1984, there were very few laws protecting the environment in India, and the enforcement of these laws was minimal. However, it is important to note that India has made significant progress in strengthening its environmental legislation and enforcement since then.