SLAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern)

Directions: In the following question, the two words given to the left of sign (: :) bear a certain relationship to each other. The same relationship exists between the two words to its right, one of which is missing. Find the missing word from the given alternatives.

Spring : Spiral : : Bangle : ?

In a certain code language. 'FIGHTER' is written as 'HTERFIG'. How will the word 'QUESTIONS' be written?

Pointing to a lady, Rohit said, ''She is the sister of the daughter of my father's wife's son.'' How is the lady related to Rohit?

Directions: Find the odd one out.

Directions: Find the odd one from the given alternatives.

Ninu was born on 3rd March, 1980. Mini was born 3 days before Ninu. If the Republic Day that year fell on a Saturday, then Mini was born on a

Directions: There is a certain relationship between the two terms to the left of the sign (: :). The same relationship exists between the two terms to the right of it, out of which one is missing. Find the missing term from the given alternatives.

3 : 35 : : 99 : _____

Neelam, says to Deepika, ''Your mother Rekha is the only sister of my father Deepak, whose father is Ram Lal.'' How is Ram Lal related to Neelam?

If water is called black, black is called tree, tree is called blue, blue is called rain, rain is called pink and pink is called fish in a certain language, then what is the colour of sky called in that language?

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and select the correct option accordingly.

Assertion (A): Directive Principles of State Policy are adopted from Irish Constitution.

Reason (R): Ireland itself borrowed them from Spain.

Directions: The sentence given below is a legal principle followed by a factual situation based on the legal principle. Choose the correct option, which relates both the principle and the situation.

Legal Principle: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort.

Factual Situation: Sudhir purchased a bottle of soft drink from a retailer. As he consumed more than half of the content of the bottle, he found decomposed remains of a cockroach in the bottle. He vomited and fell sick on the thought of what he has consumed. He sued the manufacturer of soft drink for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of manufacturer. In your opinion, is the suit maintainable against the manufacturer or the retailer?

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.

Principle: Oral evidence must, in all cases, be direct, i.e. if the evidence is a fact that was seen, it must be given by the person who saw it or felt it.

Facts: A woman sitting in her apartment heard a gunshot in the next room.

Who is/are required to give the necessary evidence?

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.

Principle: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee done during his course of employment.

Facts: Batman was a billionaire businessman in the city of Gotham and the owner of Wayne Enterprises. Alfred and Robin were two of his employees. One day, Batman asked Robin and Alfred to carry some piece of technology with all the care to Amanda Waller, the chief of ARGUS. They were told that any negligence could be fatal and they should go to the destination directly. While going there, Robin encountered Riddler, a criminal, and started chasing him with the van which was carrying the piece of technology. Alfred asked him not to do so, but he did not listen. He hit the van in a house, and the device in the van exploded, causing massive damage to the house.

Decide.

Directions: Read the following situation and choose the correct answer to the question asked.

Situation: Arya and Anya were widows of a Muslim man, Aashiq. They both entered into a contract that whosoever marries another man will have to forget her share in Aashiq's property.

Which of the following statements is true?

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.

Principle: When an offer is accepted by a person to whom it is made, it becomes a promise. But this promise will become legally binding only when the acceptance of the offer is unconditional.

Facts: Ram makes an offer to sell his house to Shyam for Rs. 50 lacs. Shyam accepts this offer, but he wants to pay the price of the house in five quarterly installments. Ram does not agree to it. Thereafter, Shyam agrees to pay the price of the house in the way as originally desired by Ram. But Ram does not reply to it. Can Shyam compel Ram to sell his house to him?

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle(s) and the other as Facts. You are to examine the Principle(s) and apply it/them to the given Facts carefully, and select the best option.

Principle: Direct evidence is that which goes expressly to the very point in question and which, if believed, proves the point in question without aid from inference or reasoning.

Facts: A was tried for the murder of B. Evidence of the fact that A had a motive to murder B and that, at the time B was murdered, A withdrew a sword and was seen going towards the place where B was murdered and, shortly afterwards, was seen returning from the place with clothes stained with blood.

What would be the nature of evidence highlighted through clothes stained with blood?

Directions: The following question consists of two statements, one labelled as Assertion (A) and the other as Reason (R). You are to examine these two statements carefully and select the correct option accordingly.

Assertion (A): It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove a person guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Reason (R): Every man is to be regarded as legally innocent, until the contrary is proved.

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given statements carefully and select the best option.

Principle: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.

Facts: Ram and his friends went to a restaurant and ordered and paid for iced tea. The cover and design for the cup carrying iced tea was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. Ram consumed some of the contents and then lifted the cup to pour the remainder of the contents into a tumbler. The remains of a cockroach in decomposed state dropped out of the cup into the tumbler. Ram later complained of a stomach pain and his doctor diagnosed him as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. Ram sued the owner of restaurant for negligence.

Decide the case.

Directions: Read the following situation and choose the correct answer to the question asked.

Situation: Aryan transferred his entire property, including his house, in the name of Lord Krishna as he was a die-hard devotee of Lord Krishna. The transfer proceedings were carried out in the name of a temple trust under the instructions of the religious head and leader of the trust, whom Aryan blindly followed and worshipped like God.

Is the transfer valid?

Directions: The sentence given below is a legal principle followed by a factual situation based on the legal principle. Choose the correct option, which relates both the principle and the situation.

Principle: The standard to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the standard of care which, in the given circumstances, a reasonable man could have foreseen.

Facts: The Agricultural University constructed 200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two huge bore wells were sunk and motors were installed. They did not cover the pump rooms properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the quarters was playing near the pump house. On hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to see the motor. She touched the motor that was not covered properly and three of her fingers were cut.

Decision:

Directions: The question consists of two statements, one labelled as Principle and the other as Facts. You are to examine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.

Principle: When a party to a contract has refused to perform, or disabled himself from performing his promise in its entirety, the other party may put an end to the contract.

Facts: A engaged B on April 12 to enter his service on June 1, but on May 11, A wrote to B that his services would not be needed. On May 22, B joined C for employment.

Decide.

Directions: Find the missing term in the following series.

6, 3, 12, 6, 18, ___

Directions: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Seven friends H, I, J, K, L, M and N are seated in a straight line, but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing north while some are facing south.

K is sitting third to the left of I. Neither I nor K is sitting at any of the extreme ends of the line.

Only three people are sitting between K and M. J is sitting second to the right of M.

H is sitting to the immediate left of N. N, who is facing south, is not an immediate neighbour of K.

Both the immediate neighbours of L are facing south.

Both the immediate neighbours of K are facing the direction opposite to that of N ﴾i.e. if N faces north, then both the immediate neighbours of K are facing south and vice versa).

Who among the following is sitting at an extreme end of the line, facing north?

Directions: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Seven friends H, I, J, K, L, M and N are seated in a straight line, but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing north while some are facing south.

K is sitting third to the left of I. Neither I nor K is sitting at any of the extreme ends of the line.

Only three people are sitting between K and M. J is sitting second to the right of M.

H is sitting to the immediate left of N. N, who is facing south, is not an immediate neighbour of K.

Both the immediate neighbours of L are facing south.

Both the immediate neighbours of K are facing the direction opposite to that of N (i.e. if N faces north, then both the immediate neighbours of K are facing south and vice versa).

In which of the following pairs are both the persons facing south?

Directions: In the following question, a letter series is given with one or more terms missing. Choose the alternative that will continue the same pattern and complete the given series.

CJQ, DKR, ELS, FMT, ...

Directions: In the following question, a statement is followed by two assumptions I and II. You are to consider each statement and assumptions that follow, and decide which of the assumption(s) is/are implicit in the statement.

Statement:

A few people demanded one-man-one-post for strengthening the political party and for efficient administration.

Assumptions:

I. No human being can be efficient in two spheres.

II. A person attending to only administration or party work will be able to do much.

If FRANCE is coded as 123456 and GERMANY is coded as 7628349, then FARMER will be coded as

Directions: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Seven friends H, I, J, K, L, M and N are seated in a straight line, but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing north while some are facing south.

K is sitting third to the left of I. Neither I nor K is sitting at any of the extreme ends of the line.

Only three people are sitting between K and M. J is sitting second to the right of M.

H is sitting to the immediate left of N. N, who is facing south, is not an immediate neighbour of K.

Both the immediate neighbours of L are facing south.

Both the immediate neighbours of K are facing the direction opposite to that of N ﴾i.e. if N faces north, then both the immediate neighbours of K are facing south and vice versa).

What is the position of N with respect to K?

Directions: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Seven friends H, I, J, K, L, M and N are seated in a straight line, but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing north while some are facing south.

K is sitting third to the left of I. Neither I nor K is sitting at any of the extreme ends of the line.

Only three people are sitting between K and M. J is sitting second to the right of M.

H is sitting to the immediate left of N. N, who is facing south, is not an immediate neighbour of K.

Both the immediate neighbours of L are facing south.

Both the immediate neighbours of K are facing the direction opposite to that of N ﴾i.e. if N faces north, then both the immediate neighbours of K are facing south and vice versa).

Based on the given information, which of the following statements is true with respect to L?

Directions: Read the information given below and answer the question that follows.

Seven friends H, I, J, K, L, M and N are seated in a straight line, but not necessarily in the same order. Some of them are facing north while some are facing south.

K is sitting third to the left of I. Neither I nor K is sitting at any of the extreme ends of the line.

Only three people are sitting between K and M. J is sitting second to the right of M.

H is sitting to the immediate left of N. N, who is facing south, is not an immediate neighbour of K.

Both the immediate neighbours of L are facing south.

Both the immediate neighbours of K are facing the direction opposite to that of N ﴾i.e. if N faces north, then both the immediate neighbours of K are facing south and vice versa).

Who among the following are siting exactly between K and I?

Rohit travels a distance of 15 km towards South, then turns to his left and travels 25 km. He again turns left and travels 15 km. How far is he from his starting point?

The present ages of Nitish, Manish and Rohit are in the ratio 5 : 6 : 11. Seven years later, the sum of their ages will be 87. Find their present ages.

A and B run a 2 km race. A gives B a start of 100 m and still beats him by 20 seconds. If A runs at 20 kmph, find B's rate in kmph.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In 1787, the twenty-eighth year of the reign of King George III, the British Government sent a fleet to colonize Australia. Never had a colony been founded so far from its parent state, or in such ignorance of the land it occupied. There had been no reconnaissance. In 1770 Captain James Cook had made landfall on the unexplored east coast of this utterly enigmatic continent, stopped for a short while at a place named 'Botany Bay' and gone north again. Since then, no ship had called - not a word, not an observation, for 17 years, each one of which was exactly like the thousands that had preceded it, locked in its historical immensity of blue heat, blush, sandstone and the measured booming of glassy pacific rollers.

Now this coast was to witness a new colonial experiment, never tried before, not repeated since, an unexplored continent would become a jail. The space around it, the very air and sea, the whole transparent labyrinth of the South pacific, would become a wall 14,000 miles thick.

The late 18th century abounded in schemes of social goodness thrown off by its burgeoning sense of revolution. But here, the process was to be reversed: not Utopia, but Dystopia; not Rousseau's natural man moving in moral grace amid free social contracts, but man coerced, exiled, deracinated, in chains. Other parts of the Pacific, especially Tahiti, might seem to confirm Rousseau. But the intellectual patrons of Australia, in its first colonial years, were Hobbes and Sade.

In their most sanguine moments, the authorities hoped that it would eventually swallow a whole class - the "criminal class", whose existence was one of the prime sociological beliefs of late Georgian and early Victorian England. Australia was settled to defend English property not from the frog-eating invader across the Channel but from the marauder within. English lawmakers wished not only to get rid of the "Criminal class" but if possible to forget about it. Australia was a cloaca, invisible, its contents filthy and unnamable.

To most Englishmen this place seemed not just a mutant society but another planet - an exiled world, summed up in its popular name, "Botany Bay". It was remote and anomalous to its white creators. It was strange but close, as the unconscious to the conscious mind. There was as yet no such thing as "Australian" history or culture. For its first forty years, everything that happened in the thief-colony was English. In the whole period of convict transportation, the Crown shipped more than 160,000 men, women and children (due to defects in the records, the true number will never be precisely known) in bondage to Australia. This was the largest forced exile of citizens at the behest of a European government in pre-modern history. Nothing in earlier penology compares with it. In Australia, England drew the sketch for our own century's vaster and more terrible fresco of repression the Gulag. No other country had such a birth, and its pangs may be said to have begun on the afternoon of January 26, 1788, when a fleet of eleven vessels carrying 1,030 people, including 548 male and 188 female convicts, under the command of captain Arthur Phillip in his flagship Sirius, entered Port Jackson or, as it would presently be called, Sydney Harbor.

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In 1787, the twenty-eighth year of the reign of King George III, the British Government sent a fleet to colonize Australia. Never had a colony been founded so far from its parent state, or in such ignorance of the land it occupied. There had been no reconnaissance. In 1770 Captain James Cook had made landfall on the unexplored east coast of this utterly enigmatic continent, stopped for a short while at a place named 'Botany Bay' and gone north again. Since then, no ship had called - not a word, not an observation, for 17 years, each one of which was exactly like the thousands that had preceded it, locked in its historical immensity of blue heat, blush, sandstone and the measured booming of glassy pacific rollers.

Now this coast was to witness a new colonial experiment, never tried before, not repeated since, an unexplored continent would become a jail. The space around it, the very air and sea, the whole transparent labyrinth of the South pacific, would become a wall 14,000 miles thick.

The late 18th century abounded in schemes of social goodness thrown off by its burgeoning sense of revolution. But here, the process was to be reversed: not Utopia, but Dystopia; not Rousseau's natural man moving in moral grace amid free social contracts, but man coerced, exiled, deracinated, in chains. Other parts of the Pacific, especially Tahiti, might seem to confirm Rousseau. But the intellectual patrons of Australia, in its first colonial years, were Hobbes and Sade.

In their most sanguine moments, the authorities hoped that it would eventually swallow a whole class - the "criminal class", whose existence was one of the prime sociological beliefs of late Georgian and early Victorian England. Australia was settled to defend English property not from the frog-eating invader across the Channel but from the marauder within. English lawmakers wished not only to get rid of the "Criminal class" but if possible to forget about it. Australia was a cloaca, invisible, its contents filthy and unnamable.

To most Englishmen this place seemed not just a mutant society but another planet - an exiled world, summed up in its popular name, "Botany Bay". It was remote and anomalous to its white creators. It was strange but close, as the unconscious to the conscious mind. There was as yet no such thing as "Australian" history or culture. For its first forty years, everything that happened in the thief-colony was English. In the whole period of convict transportation, the Crown shipped more than 160,000 men, women and children (due to defects in the records, the true number will never be precisely known) in bondage to Australia. This was the largest forced exile of citizens at the behest of a European government in pre-modern history. Nothing in earlier penology compares with it. In Australia, England drew the sketch for our own century's vaster and more terrible fresco of repression the Gulag. No other country had such a birth, and its pangs may be said to have begun on the afternoon of January 26, 1788, when a fleet of eleven vessels carrying 1,030 people, including 548 male and 188 female convicts, under the command of captain Arthur Phillip in his flagship Sirius, entered Port Jackson or, as it would presently be called, Sydney Harbor.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Early in the careers of most novelists, the critics nag and carp; later, the cold eye of reassessment is cast over their life's work at the peak of a writing career, which is where Doris Lessing now stands, the years of solid achievement command maximum respect. ­

A survey of critical responses to Lessing's books might reveal curious strata of social history. It is hard to remember now that she was once considered very daring and very militant (she insisted that relations between the sexes were difficult and unequal). She has been accused of being a feminist, and then accused by feminists of not being feminist enough. She has been a communist, but then moved on from a belief in simplistic political solutions to interest in deeper psychological change, touching on themes of madness and of mystical and extrasensory states of consciousness.

Lessing has written clearly into all her work the conviction that we are moving blindly and inevitably toward global catastrophe. Her message seems to be our complete moral and social bankruptcy, particularly in the relations between men and women. Hers is not an angry feminism, though her men are rather poor creatures compared to her bruised but gritty women. Anger may imply a hope that things could be better if only some sense could be knocked into somebody's head, a hope for a time after the revolution. One does not feel that Lessing sees any hope, only perpetual deadlock.

Certainly Lessing has earned the respect accorded to a writer of her stature and productivity. Doggedly she has been writing into her fiction signposts and warnings that we need desperately to be reminded of and writing in a way that has been more persuasive and imaginative than if she had been a pure polemicist. But the critic has the problem of distinguishing between what an author says and the way she says it. The moralist in Lessing, struggling with the very skilled writer, at times has made her writing prolix, clogged, slow - though in her latest novels she has successfully introduced a leavening of fantasy. The fact is that there are writers who in an economical page or two can make us feel our dilemmas more piercingly than she does in a leisurely fictional experience. Missing from her work is that sense of time and space gathered up for a moment between the hands, that sudden shift from understanding to seeing directly, that we expect at rare moments from our storytellers.

Q. The aspect of Lessing's work most extensively discussed in the passage is its

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Early in the careers of most novelists, the critics nag and carp; later, the cold eye of reassessment is cast over their life's work at the peak of a writing career, which is where Doris Lessing now stands, the years of solid achievement command maximum respect. ­

A survey of critical responses to Lessing's books might reveal curious strata of social history. It is hard to remember now that she was once considered very daring and very militant (she insisted that relations between the sexes were difficult and unequal). She has been accused of being a feminist, and then accused by feminists of not being feminist enough. She has been a communist, but then moved on from a belief in simplistic political solutions to interest in deeper psychological change, touching on themes of madness and of mystical and extrasensory states of consciousness.

Lessing has written clearly into all her work the conviction that we are moving blindly and inevitably toward global catastrophe. Her message seems to be our complete moral and social bankruptcy, particularly in the relations between men and women. Hers is not an angry feminism, though her men are rather poor creatures compared to her bruised but gritty women. Anger may imply a hope that things could be better if only some sense could be knocked into somebody's head, a hope for a time after the revolution. One does not feel that Lessing sees any hope, only perpetual deadlock.

Certainly Lessing has earned the respect accorded to a writer of her stature and productivity. Doggedly she has been writing into her fiction signposts and warnings that we need desperately to be reminded of and writing in a way that has been more persuasive and imaginative than if she had been a pure polemicist. But the critic has the problem of distinguishing between what an author says and the way she says it. The moralist in Lessing, struggling with the very skilled writer, at times has made her writing prolix, clogged, slow - though in her latest novels she has successfully introduced a leavening of fantasy. The fact is that there are writers who in an economical page or two can make us feel our dilemmas more piercingly than she does in a leisurely fictional experience. Missing from her work is that sense of time and space gathered up for a moment between the hands, that sudden shift from understanding to seeing directly, that we expect at rare moments from our storytellers.

Q. The passage suggests that the author admires writers

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the following question.

While several discoveries in science, ever since people started engaging in organised research activity, have led to a better life for the average human being, it cannot be gainsaid that some have been used to cause untold misery to vast sections. The developments in science and technology have proved to be a mixed blessing - marvellous medical discoveries like penicillin and antibiotics have cured diseases whereas the fabrication of the atom bomb has resulted in wiping out entire towns and populations. It all goes to show that science is a double-edged weapon because it can be used both for good and evil purposes. Herein comes a crucial question of ethics. Is it not possible for a scientist to say no when asked to take up research that may one day lead to destruction? This poser has been troubling the participants in research activity for decades. Noelle Lenoir, who has served as a chairperson on the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and is now heading the European Commission's Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implication of Biotechnology, has done well to highlight several related issues in the World Science Report.

While bitter disputes followed the dropping of the atom bombs over the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there was no organised reaction as such. But the developments in biology like genetic engineering, which is nothing but a process of modifying living organisms, led to an ethics movement even three decades ago. Significantly enough, a conference of geneticists meeting at Azilomar in the U.S. declared a moratorium on research for one year, providing a pause for understanding the possible risks to human health and the environment as a result of using genetically-modified organisms. During the 1960s, ethics panels were set up in several countries but France was the first country to establish a national consultative committee for ethics in the life and health sciences. A survey made three years ago by the UNESCO Bioethics Unit pointed to the functioning of more than 200 national ethics committees all over the world. It is interesting to learn that there is now a discernible movement from ethics to law with the aim of protecting human rights faced with the challenge of science and technology. Again, it is worth noting that the Ubter Parliamentary Union placed the issue of the links between bioethics and human rights on its agenda. Essentially, the objective of these efforts is to affirm that the human being is not a mere object for science.

Q. Why did scientists declare a moratorium on research for one year?

I. It was done to study the risks to human health.

II. It was done to study the risks to environment.

III. It was done to debate about ethical issues.

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the following question.

While several discoveries in science, ever since people started engaging in organised research activity, have led to a better life for the average human being, it cannot be gainsaid that some have been used to cause untold misery to vast sections. The developments in science and technology have proved to be a mixed blessing - marvellous medical discoveries like penicillin and antibiotics have cured diseases whereas the fabrication of the atom bomb has resulted in wiping out entire towns and populations. It all goes to show that science is a double-edged weapon because it can be used both for good and evil purposes. Herein comes a crucial question of ethics. Is it not possible for a scientist to say no when asked to take up research that may one day lead to destruction? This poser has been troubling the participants in research activity for decades. Noelle Lenoir, who has served as a chairperson on the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and is now heading the European Commission's Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implication of Biotechnology, has done well to highlight several related issues in the World Science Report.

While bitter disputes followed the dropping of the atom bombs over the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there was no organised reaction as such. But the developments in biology like genetic engineering, which is nothing but a process of modifying living organisms, led to an ethics movement even three decades ago. Significantly enough, a conference of geneticists meeting at Azilomar in the U.S. declared a moratorium on research for one year, providing a pause for understanding the possible risks to human health and the environment as a result of using genetically-modified organisms. During the 1960s, ethics panels were set up in several countries but France was the first country to establish a national consultative committee for ethics in the life and health sciences. A survey made three years ago by the UNESCO Bioethics Unit pointed to the functioning of more than 200 national ethics committees all over the world. It is interesting to learn that there is now a discernible movement from ethics to law with the aim of protecting human rights faced with the challenge of science and technology. Again, it is worth noting that the Ubter Parliamentary Union placed the issue of the links between bioethics and human rights on its agenda. Essentially, the objective of these efforts is to affirm that the human being is not a mere object for science.

Q. The tone of the article is

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In 1787, the twenty-eighth year of the reign of King George III, the British Government sent a fleet to colonize Australia. Never had a colony been founded so far from its parent state, or in such ignorance of the land it occupied. There had been no reconnaissance. In 1770 Captain James Cook had made landfall on the unexplored east coast of this utterly enigmatic continent, stopped for a short while at a place named 'Botany Bay' and gone north again. Since then, no ship had called - not a word, not an observation, for 17 years, each one of which was exactly like the thousands that had preceded it, locked in its historical immensity of blue heat, blush, sandstone and the measured booming of glassy pacific rollers.

Now this coast was to witness a new colonial experiment, never tried before, not repeated since, an unexplored continent would become a jail. The space around it, the very air and sea, the whole transparent labyrinth of the South pacific, would become a wall 14,000 miles thick.

The late 18th century abounded in schemes of social goodness thrown off by its burgeoning sense of revolution. But here, the process was to be reversed: not Utopia, but Dystopia; not Rousseau's natural man moving in moral grace amid free social contracts, but man coerced, exiled, deracinated, in chains. Other parts of the Pacific, especially Tahiti, might seem to confirm Rousseau. But the intellectual patrons of Australia, in its first colonial years, were Hobbes and Sade.

In their most sanguine moments, the authorities hoped that it would eventually swallow a whole class - the "criminal class", whose existence was one of the prime sociological beliefs of late Georgian and early Victorian England. Australia was settled to defend English property not from the frog-eating invader across the Channel but from the marauder within. English lawmakers wished not only to get rid of the "Criminal class" but if possible to forget about it. Australia was a cloaca, invisible, its contents filthy and unnamable.

To most Englishmen this place seemed not just a mutant society but another planet - an exiled world, summed up in its popular name, "Botany Bay". It was remote and anomalous to its white creators. It was strange but close, as the unconscious to the conscious mind. There was as yet no such thing as "Australian" history or culture. For its first forty years, everything that happened in the thief-colony was English. In the whole period of convict transportation, the Crown shipped more than 160,000 men, women and children (due to defects in the records, the true number will never be precisely known) in bondage to Australia. This was the largest forced exile of citizens at the behest of a European government in pre-modern history. Nothing in earlier penology compares with it. In Australia, England drew the sketch for our own century's vaster and more terrible fresco of repression the Gulag. No other country had such a birth, and its pangs may be said to have begun on the afternoon of January 26, 1788, when a fleet of eleven vessels carrying 1,030 people, including 548 male and 188 female convicts, under the command of captain Arthur Phillip in his flagship Sirius, entered Port Jackson or, as it would presently be called, Sydney Harbor.

Q. Elsewhere, according to the author, the late eighteenth century saw a plethora of:

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

In 1787, the twenty-eighth year of the reign of King George III, the British Government sent a fleet to colonize Australia. Never had a colony been founded so far from its parent state, or in such ignorance of the land it occupied. There had been no reconnaissance. In 1770 Captain James Cook had made landfall on the unexplored east coast of this utterly enigmatic continent, stopped for a short while at a place named 'Botany Bay' and gone north again. Since then, no ship had called - not a word, not an observation, for 17 years, each one of which was exactly like the thousands that had preceded it, locked in its historical immensity of blue heat, blush, sandstone and the measured booming of glassy pacific rollers.

Now this coast was to witness a new colonial experiment, never tried before, not repeated since, an unexplored continent would become a jail. The space around it, the very air and sea, the whole transparent labyrinth of the South pacific, would become a wall 14,000 miles thick.

The late 18th century abounded in schemes of social goodness thrown off by its burgeoning sense of revolution. But here, the process was to be reversed: not Utopia, but Dystopia; not Rousseau's natural man moving in moral grace amid free social contracts, but man coerced, exiled, deracinated, in chains. Other parts of the Pacific, especially Tahiti, might seem to confirm Rousseau. But the intellectual patrons of Australia, in its first colonial years, were Hobbes and Sade.

In their most sanguine moments, the authorities hoped that it would eventually swallow a whole class - the "criminal class", whose existence was one of the prime sociological beliefs of late Georgian and early Victorian England. Australia was settled to defend English property not from the frog-eating invader across the Channel but from the marauder within. English lawmakers wished not only to get rid of the "Criminal class" but if possible to forget about it. Australia was a cloaca, invisible, its contents filthy and unnamable.

To most Englishmen this place seemed not just a mutant society but another planet - an exiled world, summed up in its popular name, "Botany Bay". It was remote and anomalous to its white creators. It was strange but close, as the unconscious to the conscious mind. There was as yet no such thing as "Australian" history or culture. For its first forty years, everything that happened in the thief-colony was English. In the whole period of convict transportation, the Crown shipped more than 160,000 men, women and children (due to defects in the records, the true number will never be precisely known) in bondage to Australia. This was the largest forced exile of citizens at the behest of a European government in pre-modern history. Nothing in earlier penology compares with it. In Australia, England drew the sketch for our own century's vaster and more terrible fresco of repression the Gulag. No other country had such a birth, and its pangs may be said to have begun on the afternoon of January 26, 1788, when a fleet of eleven vessels carrying 1,030 people, including 548 male and 188 female convicts, under the command of captain Arthur Phillip in his flagship Sirius, entered Port Jackson or, as it would presently be called, Sydney Harbor.

Q. When the author refers to the marauder within, he is referring to

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Early in the careers of most novelists, the critics nag and carp; later, the cold eye of reassessment is cast over their life's work at the peak of a writing career, which is where Doris Lessing now stands, the years of solid achievement command maximum respect. ­

A survey of critical responses to Lessing's books might reveal curious strata of social history. It is hard to remember now that she was once considered very daring and very militant (she insisted that relations between the sexes were difficult and unequal). She has been accused of being a feminist, and then accused by feminists of not being feminist enough. She has been a communist, but then moved on from a belief in simplistic political solutions to interest in deeper psychological change, touching on themes of madness and of mystical and extrasensory states of consciousness.

Lessing has written clearly into all her work the conviction that we are moving blindly and inevitably toward global catastrophe. Her message seems to be our complete moral and social bankruptcy, particularly in the relations between men and women. Hers is not an angry feminism, though her men are rather poor creatures compared to her bruised but gritty women. Anger may imply a hope that things could be better if only some sense could be knocked into somebody's head, a hope for a time after the revolution. One does not feel that Lessing sees any hope, only perpetual deadlock.

Certainly Lessing has earned the respect accorded to a writer of her stature and productivity. Doggedly she has been writing into her fiction signposts and warnings that we need desperately to be reminded of and writing in a way that has been more persuasive and imaginative than if she had been a pure polemicist. But the critic has the problem of distinguishing between what an author says and the way she says it. The moralist in Lessing, struggling with the very skilled writer, at times has made her writing prolix, clogged, slow - though in her latest novels she has successfully introduced a leavening of fantasy. The fact is that there are writers who in an economical page or two can make us feel our dilemmas more piercingly than she does in a leisurely fictional experience. Missing from her work is that sense of time and space gathered up for a moment between the hands, that sudden shift from understanding to seeing directly, that we expect at rare moments from our storytellers.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following can be attributed to Lessing's concern with warning society of its deterioration?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Early in the careers of most novelists, the critics nag and carp; later, the cold eye of reassessment is cast over their life's work at the peak of a writing career, which is where Doris Lessing now stands, the years of solid achievement command maximum respect. ­

A survey of critical responses to Lessing's books might reveal curious strata of social history. It is hard to remember now that she was once considered very daring and very militant (she insisted that relations between the sexes were difficult and unequal). She has been accused of being a feminist, and then accused by feminists of not being feminist enough. She has been a communist, but then moved on from a belief in simplistic political solutions to interest in deeper psychological change, touching on themes of madness and of mystical and extrasensory states of consciousness.

Lessing has written clearly into all her work the conviction that we are moving blindly and inevitably toward global catastrophe. Her message seems to be our complete moral and social bankruptcy, particularly in the relations between men and women. Hers is not an angry feminism, though her men are rather poor creatures compared to her bruised but gritty women. Anger may imply a hope that things could be better if only some sense could be knocked into somebody's head, a hope for a time after the revolution. One does not feel that Lessing sees any hope, only perpetual deadlock.

Certainly Lessing has earned the respect accorded to a writer of her stature and productivity. Doggedly she has been writing into her fiction signposts and warnings that we need desperately to be reminded of and writing in a way that has been more persuasive and imaginative than if she had been a pure polemicist. But the critic has the problem of distinguishing between what an author says and the way she says it. The moralist in Lessing, struggling with the very skilled writer, at times has made her writing prolix, clogged, slow - though in her latest novels she has successfully introduced a leavening of fantasy. The fact is that there are writers who in an economical page or two can make us feel our dilemmas more piercingly than she does in a leisurely fictional experience. Missing from her work is that sense of time and space gathered up for a moment between the hands, that sudden shift from understanding to seeing directly, that we expect at rare moments from our storytellers.

Q. The passage implies that the author views communism as an ideology that

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the following question.

While several discoveries in science, ever since people started engaging in organised research activity, have led to a better life for the average human being, it cannot be gainsaid that some have been used to cause untold misery to vast sections. The developments in science and technology have proved to be a mixed blessing - marvellous medical discoveries like penicillin and antibiotics have cured diseases whereas the fabrication of the atom bomb has resulted in wiping out entire towns and populations. It all goes to show that science is a double-edged weapon because it can be used both for good and evil purposes. Herein comes a crucial question of ethics. Is it not possible for a scientist to say no when asked to take up research that may one day lead to destruction? This poser has been troubling the participants in research activity for decades. Noelle Lenoir, who has served as a chairperson on the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and is now heading the European Commission's Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implication of Biotechnology, has done well to highlight several related issues in the World Science Report.

While bitter disputes followed the dropping of the atom bombs over the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there was no organised reaction as such. But the developments in biology like genetic engineering, which is nothing but a process of modifying living organisms, led to an ethics movement even three decades ago. Significantly enough, a conference of geneticists meeting at Azilomar in the U.S. declared a moratorium on research for one year, providing a pause for understanding the possible risks to human health and the environment as a result of using genetically-modified organisms. During the 1960s, ethics panels were set up in several countries but France was the first country to establish a national consultative committee for ethics in the life and health sciences. A survey made three years ago by the UNESCO Bioethics Unit pointed to the functioning of more than 200 national ethics committees all over the world. It is interesting to learn that there is now a discernible movement from ethics to law with the aim of protecting human rights faced with the challenge of science and technology. Again, it is worth noting that the Ubter Parliamentary Union placed the issue of the links between bioethics and human rights on its agenda. Essentially, the objective of these efforts is to affirm that the human being is not a mere object for science.

Q. The article is most probably written by a

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the following question.

While several discoveries in science, ever since people started engaging in organised research activity, have led to a better life for the average human being, it cannot be gainsaid that some have been used to cause untold misery to vast sections. The developments in science and technology have proved to be a mixed blessing - marvellous medical discoveries like penicillin and antibiotics have cured diseases whereas the fabrication of the atom bomb has resulted in wiping out entire towns and populations. It all goes to show that science is a double-edged weapon because it can be used both for good and evil purposes. Herein comes a crucial question of ethics. Is it not possible for a scientist to say no when asked to take up research that may one day lead to destruction? This poser has been troubling the participants in research activity for decades. Noelle Lenoir, who has served as a chairperson on the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO and is now heading the European Commission's Group of Advisers on the Ethical Implication of Biotechnology, has done well to highlight several related issues in the World Science Report.

While bitter disputes followed the dropping of the atom bombs over the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there was no organised reaction as such. But the developments in biology like genetic engineering, which is nothing but a process of modifying living organisms, led to an ethics movement even three decades ago. Significantly enough, a conference of geneticists meeting at Azilomar in the U.S. declared a moratorium on research for one year, providing a pause for understanding the possible risks to human health and the environment as a result of using genetically-modified organisms. During the 1960s, ethics panels were set up in several countries but France was the first country to establish a national consultative committee for ethics in the life and health sciences. A survey made three years ago by the UNESCO Bioethics Unit pointed to the functioning of more than 200 national ethics committees all over the world. It is interesting to learn that there is now a discernible movement from ethics to law with the aim of protecting human rights faced with the challenge of science and technology. Again, it is worth noting that the Ubter Parliamentary Union placed the issue of the links between bioethics and human rights on its agenda. Essentially, the objective of these efforts is to affirm that the human being is not a mere object for science.

What was India's position in the 58th edition of EY's 'Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index' (RECAI) released in 2021?

What is the name of India's first manned ocean mission launched in 2021?

NASA in 2021 launched a spacecraft with one simple mission: Smash into an asteroid. Name the mission.

Which among the following was/were the theme(s) of Aadhaar Hackathon 2021?

(a) Identity and Authentication

(b) Security and Validation

(c) Enrolment and Update

Which of the following commissions was appointed for creation of new states on the basis of language?

The Folio Prize is associated with

In October 2021, which state's Chief Minister announced a free education scheme in state, under the state's 'Super 100 Programme'?

Proba-1 mini satellite which completed 20 years of operation in October 2021, belonged to which space agency?

__________ won the 'Earth Guardian Award' in 2021, which was instituted by the NatWest Group.

Which state in 2021 launched temple gold monetisation scheme to melt into 24 carat gold bars, the unutilised jewellery in the possession of the temples in the state?

Who was the first woman to become a High Court judge in India?

Who was the Prime Minister of Britain when India got independence?