CLAT Practice Test - 15 - CLAT MCQ

With #BoycottNetflix trending on Twitter and the Netizens' calls for justice against the seemingly Hindu-phobic content being showcased with streams such as the recent 'Krishna and his Leela', curiosity about the influence of movies and TV shows on the general public and trends of 'film-criticism' have been raised to their peak, begging the question of 'where exactly are we headed with this?

The purpose of movies and TV shows, as it was supposed to be, consisted of a world of fantasies created factoring in immersive cinematography, screenwriting and soundscapes along with a great extent of creative liberty which diverted people from their day to day lives for those 2 or 3 hours and provided them with a place of mental rest. Movies and TV shows are synonymous with practices of passing time and a leisurely, tension-free practice of 'being', where all a viewer is supposed to do is to sit and consume the prepared content being played in front of her/his eyes.

With the advent of films, somewhere down the line came the need for film-criticism and reviews. With the need for film-criticism and reviews came the need to watch films academically instead of leisurely. With the need for academic and analytical viewing of films, that were by default supposed to be viewed applying the least bit of our own brains, came the greed of a bunch of business-minded men who stopped at nothing in turning it into a prospectively prosperous field of study. The unwavering pursuit of excellence in the then newfound film-studies for a few became an obsession which led to unwanted lengths of dissection of even the simplest of films.

The consumers were now being delivered colossal amounts of free desserts with their limited main course, and a long-standing saturation of information led us all into turning a blind eye towards the true purpose of this creative industry. The haze that surrounded the idea of a layman's own opinion about films after watching them diverted everyone else's attention towards these unwanted research journals created over a bedrock of an oftentimes entirely fictitious world, solely pushed into being for the purpose of mindless entertainment.

Now the world is pissed off, the Hindus demand for their gods to not be demeaned the way they have been, Americans demand for their country to be showcased as the King of the Jungle with the most vibrant and richest historical value the world has ever seen, the Congress party demands for their past leaders to be sensationalized, the B.J.P. demands for their present leaders to be sensationalized, and so on and so forth.

What does the author mean by “that were by default supposed to be viewed applying the least bit of our own brains”?

With #BoycottNetflix trending on Twitter and the Netizens' calls for justice against the seemingly Hindu-phobic content being showcased with streams such as the recent 'Krishna and his Leela', curiosity about the influence of movies and TV shows on the general public and trends of 'film-criticism' have been raised to their peak, begging the question of 'where exactly are we headed with this?

The purpose of movies and TV shows, as it was supposed to be, consisted of a world of fantasies created factoring in immersive cinematography, screenwriting and soundscapes along with a great extent of creative liberty which diverted people from their day to day lives for those 2 or 3 hours and provided them with a place of mental rest. Movies and TV shows are synonymous with practices of passing time and a leisurely, tension-free practice of 'being', where all a viewer is supposed to do is to sit and consume the prepared content being played in front of her/his eyes.

With the advent of films, somewhere down the line came the need for film-criticism and reviews. With the need for film-criticism and reviews came the need to watch films academically instead of leisurely. With the need for academic and analytical viewing of films, that were by default supposed to be viewed applying the least bit of our own brains, came the greed of a bunch of business-minded men who stopped at nothing in turning it into a prospectively prosperous field of study. The unwavering pursuit of excellence in the then newfound film-studies for a few became an obsession which led to unwanted lengths of dissection of even the simplest of films.

The consumers were now being delivered colossal amounts of free desserts with their limited main course, and a long-standing saturation of information led us all into turning a blind eye towards the true purpose of this creative industry. The haze that surrounded the idea of a layman's own opinion about films after watching them diverted everyone else's attention towards these unwanted research journals created over a bedrock of an oftentimes entirely fictitious world, solely pushed into being for the purpose of mindless entertainment.

Now the world is pissed off, the Hindus demand for their gods to not be demeaned the way they have been, Americans demand for their country to be showcased as the King of the Jungle with the most vibrant and richest historical value the world has ever seen, the Congress party demands for their past leaders to be sensationalized, the B.J.P. demands for their present leaders to be sensationalized, and so on and so forth.

Why is the world pissed off as per the author in the current times while watching movies?

With #BoycottNetflix trending on Twitter and the Netizens' calls for justice against the seemingly Hindu-phobic content being showcased with streams such as the recent 'Krishna and his Leela', curiosity about the influence of movies and TV shows on the general public and trends of 'film-criticism' have been raised to their peak, begging the question of 'where exactly are we headed with this?

The purpose of movies and TV shows, as it was supposed to be, consisted of a world of fantasies created factoring in immersive cinematography, screenwriting and soundscapes along with a great extent of creative liberty which diverted people from their day to day lives for those 2 or 3 hours and provided them with a place of mental rest. Movies and TV shows are synonymous with practices of passing time and a leisurely, tension-free practice of 'being', where all a viewer is supposed to do is to sit and consume the prepared content being played in front of her/his eyes.

With the advent of films, somewhere down the line came the need for film-criticism and reviews. With the need for film-criticism and reviews came the need to watch films academically instead of leisurely. With the need for academic and analytical viewing of films, that were by default supposed to be viewed applying the least bit of our own brains, came the greed of a bunch of business-minded men who stopped at nothing in turning it into a prospectively prosperous field of study. The unwavering pursuit of excellence in the then newfound film-studies for a few became an obsession which led to unwanted lengths of dissection of even the simplest of films.

The consumers were now being delivered colossal amounts of free desserts with their limited main course, and a long-standing saturation of information led us all into turning a blind eye towards the true purpose of this creative industry. The haze that surrounded the idea of a layman's own opinion about films after watching them diverted everyone else's attention towards these unwanted research journals created over a bedrock of an oftentimes entirely fictitious world, solely pushed into being for the purpose of mindless entertainment.

Now the world is pissed off, the Hindus demand for their gods to not be demeaned the way they have been, Americans demand for their country to be showcased as the King of the Jungle with the most vibrant and richest historical value the world has ever seen, the Congress party demands for their past leaders to be sensationalized, the B.J.P. demands for their present leaders to be sensationalized, and so on and so forth.

Choose the antonyms of the following words in order - “Advent, Colossal, Demean”.

The chair of the judging panel, Margaret Busby, announced the selection of 13 novels for the 2020 Booker Prize longlist (the “Booker dozen”) one of the most interesting and diverse we’ve seen in a long time.

The inclusion of Hilary Mantel’s latest book, and the final in her Wolf Hall trilogy, The Mirror & the Light. Both the two previous books in the trilogy – Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies – won the Booker Prize, in 2009 and 2012 respectively. If Mantel was to win the 2020 Booker Prize for The Mirror & the Light she would be the first author to ever win three Bookers.

Second, nearly half of the longlist is made up of debut novels, which even the literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation, Gaby Wood, has admitted is an “unusually high proportion”. This is certainly something the Booker Prize and its judging panel should be commended for.

Like all other creative industries, publishing has been hit hard by the worldwide pandemic. From the cancellation of major events, including the London Book Fair in March and the closing of bookshops, to the postponement of major releases, including Ruth Jones’ second novel Us Three, the 2020 publishing calendar has been turned upside down.

The celebration of debut novels in the Booker Prize longlist, then, is particularly fortuitous, since many debut writers have lost the opportunity to go through the usual new book tours, literary event circuits and bookshop signings.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the kinds of themes and issues dealt with in the longlisted books. The books examine race, homosexuality, gender and gender identity, poverty, class (and in some cases, intersections of them all), homelessness, and climate change.

The subjects foregrounded by many of the longlisted books, therefore, not only speak to current socio-political movements and conflict – most notably Black Lives Matter and the call for active anti-racism. But they also foreshadow the kinds of issues we will undoubtedly come up against (and, in some circumstances, already are) in a post-coronavirus world. In other words, more so than ever before, this longlist feels both born from, and representative of, the very particular moment in history in which we are in.

But only time will tell if this will be reflected in the final shortlist which will be announced on September 15, with the winner being announced in November. If Mantel were to be crowned the winner – receiving her third Booker Prize in just over a decade – it would arguably prove that yet again the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

Which of the following were the problems faced by the publication houses or novelists due to Covid-19?

The chair of the judging panel, Margaret Busby, announced the selection of 13 novels for the 2020 Booker Prize longlist (the “Booker dozen”) one of the most interesting and diverse we’ve seen in a long time.

The inclusion of Hilary Mantel’s latest book, and the final in her Wolf Hall trilogy, The Mirror & the Light. Both the two previous books in the trilogy – Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies – won the Booker Prize, in 2009 and 2012 respectively. If Mantel was to win the 2020 Booker Prize for The Mirror & the Light she would be the first author to ever win three Bookers.

Second, nearly half of the longlist is made up of debut novels, which even the literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation, Gaby Wood, has admitted is an “unusually high proportion”. This is certainly something the Booker Prize and its judging panel should be commended for.

Like all other creative industries, publishing has been hit hard by the worldwide pandemic. From the cancellation of major events, including the London Book Fair in March and the closing of bookshops, to the postponement of major releases, including Ruth Jones’ second novel Us Three, the 2020 publishing calendar has been turned upside down.

The celebration of debut novels in the Booker Prize longlist, then, is particularly fortuitous, since many debut writers have lost the opportunity to go through the usual new book tours, literary event circuits and bookshop signings.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the kinds of themes and issues dealt with in the longlisted books. The books examine race, homosexuality, gender and gender identity, poverty, class (and in some cases, intersections of them all), homelessness, and climate change.

The subjects foregrounded by many of the longlisted books, therefore, not only speak to current socio-political movements and conflict – most notably Black Lives Matter and the call for active anti-racism. But they also foreshadow the kinds of issues we will undoubtedly come up against (and, in some circumstances, already are) in a post-coronavirus world. In other words, more so than ever before, this longlist feels both born from, and representative of, the very particular moment in history in which we are in.

But only time will tell if this will be reflected in the final shortlist which will be announced on September 15, with the winner being announced in November. If Mantel were to be crowned the winner – receiving her third Booker Prize in just over a decade – it would arguably prove that yet again the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

Who would be the first author to win three bookers if their nomination won in 2020?

The chair of the judging panel, Margaret Busby, announced the selection of 13 novels for the 2020 Booker Prize longlist (the “Booker dozen”) one of the most interesting and diverse we’ve seen in a long time.

The inclusion of Hilary Mantel’s latest book, and the final in her Wolf Hall trilogy, The Mirror & the Light. Both the two previous books in the trilogy – Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies – won the Booker Prize, in 2009 and 2012 respectively. If Mantel was to win the 2020 Booker Prize for The Mirror & the Light she would be the first author to ever win three Bookers.

Second, nearly half of the longlist is made up of debut novels, which even the literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation, Gaby Wood, has admitted is an “unusually high proportion”. This is certainly something the Booker Prize and its judging panel should be commended for.

Like all other creative industries, publishing has been hit hard by the worldwide pandemic. From the cancellation of major events, including the London Book Fair in March and the closing of bookshops, to the postponement of major releases, including Ruth Jones’ second novel Us Three, the 2020 publishing calendar has been turned upside down.

The celebration of debut novels in the Booker Prize longlist, then, is particularly fortuitous, since many debut writers have lost the opportunity to go through the usual new book tours, literary event circuits and bookshop signings.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the kinds of themes and issues dealt with in the longlisted books. The books examine race, homosexuality, gender and gender identity, poverty, class (and in some cases, intersections of them all), homelessness, and climate change.

The subjects foregrounded by many of the longlisted books, therefore, not only speak to current socio-political movements and conflict – most notably Black Lives Matter and the call for active anti-racism. But they also foreshadow the kinds of issues we will undoubtedly come up against (and, in some circumstances, already are) in a post-coronavirus world. In other words, more so than ever before, this longlist feels both born from, and representative of, the very particular moment in history in which we are in.

But only time will tell if this will be reflected in the final shortlist which will be announced on September 15, with the winner being announced in November. If Mantel were to be crowned the winner – receiving her third Booker Prize in just over a decade – it would arguably prove that yet again the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

As per the author what should the Booker Prize and its judging panel be commended for?

The chair of the judging panel, Margaret Busby, announced the selection of 13 novels for the 2020 Booker Prize longlist (the “Booker dozen”) one of the most interesting and diverse we’ve seen in a long time.

The inclusion of Hilary Mantel’s latest book, and the final in her Wolf Hall trilogy, The Mirror & the Light. Both the two previous books in the trilogy – Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies – won the Booker Prize, in 2009 and 2012 respectively. If Mantel was to win the 2020 Booker Prize for The Mirror & the Light she would be the first author to ever win three Bookers.

Second, nearly half of the longlist is made up of debut novels, which even the literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation, Gaby Wood, has admitted is an “unusually high proportion”. This is certainly something the Booker Prize and its judging panel should be commended for.

Like all other creative industries, publishing has been hit hard by the worldwide pandemic. From the cancellation of major events, including the London Book Fair in March and the closing of bookshops, to the postponement of major releases, including Ruth Jones’ second novel Us Three, the 2020 publishing calendar has been turned upside down.

The celebration of debut novels in the Booker Prize longlist, then, is particularly fortuitous, since many debut writers have lost the opportunity to go through the usual new book tours, literary event circuits and bookshop signings.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the kinds of themes and issues dealt with in the longlisted books. The books examine race, homosexuality, gender and gender identity, poverty, class (and in some cases, intersections of them all), homelessness, and climate change.

The subjects foregrounded by many of the longlisted books, therefore, not only speak to current socio-political movements and conflict – most notably Black Lives Matter and the call for active anti-racism. But they also foreshadow the kinds of issues we will undoubtedly come up against (and, in some circumstances, already are) in a post-coronavirus world. In other words, more so than ever before, this longlist feels both born from, and representative of, the very particular moment in history in which we are in.

But only time will tell if this will be reflected in the final shortlist which will be announced on September 15, with the winner being announced in November. If Mantel were to be crowned the winner – receiving her third Booker Prize in just over a decade – it would arguably prove that yet again the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

The chair of the judging panel, Margaret Busby, announced the selection of 13 novels for the 2020 Booker Prize longlist (the “Booker dozen”) one of the most interesting and diverse we’ve seen in a long time.

The inclusion of Hilary Mantel’s latest book, and the final in her Wolf Hall trilogy, The Mirror & the Light. Both the two previous books in the trilogy – Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies – won the Booker Prize, in 2009 and 2012 respectively. If Mantel was to win the 2020 Booker Prize for The Mirror & the Light she would be the first author to ever win three Bookers.

Second, nearly half of the longlist is made up of debut novels, which even the literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation, Gaby Wood, has admitted is an “unusually high proportion”. This is certainly something the Booker Prize and its judging panel should be commended for.

Like all other creative industries, publishing has been hit hard by the worldwide pandemic. From the cancellation of major events, including the London Book Fair in March and the closing of bookshops, to the postponement of major releases, including Ruth Jones’ second novel Us Three, the 2020 publishing calendar has been turned upside down.

The celebration of debut novels in the Booker Prize longlist, then, is particularly fortuitous, since many debut writers have lost the opportunity to go through the usual new book tours, literary event circuits and bookshop signings.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the kinds of themes and issues dealt with in the longlisted books. The books examine race, homosexuality, gender and gender identity, poverty, class (and in some cases, intersections of them all), homelessness, and climate change.

The subjects foregrounded by many of the longlisted books, therefore, not only speak to current socio-political movements and conflict – most notably Black Lives Matter and the call for active anti-racism. But they also foreshadow the kinds of issues we will undoubtedly come up against (and, in some circumstances, already are) in a post-coronavirus world. In other words, more so than ever before, this longlist feels both born from, and representative of, the very particular moment in history in which we are in.

But only time will tell if this will be reflected in the final shortlist which will be announced on September 15, with the winner being announced in November. If Mantel were to be crowned the winner – receiving her third Booker Prize in just over a decade – it would arguably prove that yet again the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

As per the author, what would arguably prove that the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

The chair of the judging panel, Margaret Busby, announced the selection of 13 novels for the 2020 Booker Prize longlist (the “Booker dozen”) one of the most interesting and diverse we’ve seen in a long time.

The inclusion of Hilary Mantel’s latest book, and the final in her Wolf Hall trilogy, The Mirror & the Light. Both the two previous books in the trilogy – Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies – won the Booker Prize, in 2009 and 2012 respectively. If Mantel was to win the 2020 Booker Prize for The Mirror & the Light she would be the first author to ever win three Bookers.

Second, nearly half of the longlist is made up of debut novels, which even the literary director of the Booker Prize Foundation, Gaby Wood, has admitted is an “unusually high proportion”. This is certainly something the Booker Prize and its judging panel should be commended for.

Like all other creative industries, publishing has been hit hard by the worldwide pandemic. From the cancellation of major events, including the London Book Fair in March and the closing of bookshops, to the postponement of major releases, including Ruth Jones’ second novel Us Three, the 2020 publishing calendar has been turned upside down.

The celebration of debut novels in the Booker Prize longlist, then, is particularly fortuitous, since many debut writers have lost the opportunity to go through the usual new book tours, literary event circuits and bookshop signings.

Finally, it is worth highlighting the kinds of themes and issues dealt with in the longlisted books. The books examine race, homosexuality, gender and gender identity, poverty, class (and in some cases, intersections of them all), homelessness, and climate change.

The subjects foregrounded by many of the longlisted books, therefore, not only speak to current socio-political movements and conflict – most notably Black Lives Matter and the call for active anti-racism. But they also foreshadow the kinds of issues we will undoubtedly come up against (and, in some circumstances, already are) in a post-coronavirus world. In other words, more so than ever before, this longlist feels both born from, and representative of, the very particular moment in history in which we are in.

But only time will tell if this will be reflected in the final shortlist which will be announced on September 15, with the winner being announced in November. If Mantel were to be crowned the winner – receiving her third Booker Prize in just over a decade – it would arguably prove that yet again the Booker Prize acts only to reinforce, as opposed to disrupting as hoped, the systemic inequalities and imbalances of contemporary publishing culture.

Which of the following is not true as per the passage?

The worst time to discover you’re out of cough medicine is when you wake up in the middle of the night hacking and barking. And when your child is fretful with a fever there is no time to rifle through the supply bin and wonder if it’s okay to use expired Tylenol. Be prepared for your next health incident by knowing what you have and what you don’t so you can stock up as necessary. Medicine—like good health itself—is one of those things you rarely think about until you need it. But when you need it, you really need it right that minute. Going through your medicine closet is also a matter of safety. Medication poses a risk to animals and children when it’s accessible; the less you have around, the better. Check out the guidelines from the National Library of Medicine for proper storage of medication. Go through your medicine and medical supplies, discard what’s too old, and make a list of what you need to replenish. Here’s what to do:

Open the medicine cabinet, unpack the drawers, and pull down those storage baskets. Look for used and unused medication, but also other supplies such as bandages and antiseptic so you can see what needs restocking. Once you have everything together, check expiration dates and decide whether you will keep or discard those items. For those items you’re keeping, place them back into your cabinets and drawers. If there’s anything you need to toss and/or restock, add it to a list of things to buy next time you’re at the store. For everything you decided to toss, dispose of your medication safely. The best way to dispose of your unused or unwanted medicine is through a drug take back program. Check out DisposeMyMeds.com to find a location near you. This applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medication. If a drug takes back location is not readily available, check the FDA flush list for medication that should be flushed in order to avoid a deadly risk to children and pets. When a drug takes back program is not available, medication not on the flush list may be disposed of according to the instructions from the FDA, which recommend mixing medicine with dirt, cat litter, or coffee grounds, then disposing of them inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash.

Why is it so that the less you have the medications around, the better?

The worst time to discover you’re out of cough medicine is when you wake up in the middle of the night hacking and barking. And when your child is fretful with a fever there is no time to rifle through the supply bin and wonder if it’s okay to use expired Tylenol. Be prepared for your next health incident by knowing what you have and what you don’t so you can stock up as necessary. Medicine—like good health itself—is one of those things you rarely think about until you need it. But when you need it, you really need it right that minute. Going through your medicine closet is also a matter of safety. Medication poses a risk to animals and children when it’s accessible; the less you have around, the better. Check out the guidelines from the National Library of Medicine for proper storage of medication. Go through your medicine and medical supplies, discard what’s too old, and make a list of what you need to replenish. Here’s what to do:

Open the medicine cabinet, unpack the drawers, and pull down those storage baskets. Look for used and unused medication, but also other supplies such as bandages and antiseptic so you can see what needs restocking. Once you have everything together, check expiration dates and decide whether you will keep or discard those items. For those items you’re keeping, place them back into your cabinets and drawers. If there’s anything you need to toss and/or restock, add it to a list of things to buy next time you’re at the store. For everything you decided to toss, dispose of your medication safely. The best way to dispose of your unused or unwanted medicine is through a drug take back program. Check out DisposeMyMeds.com to find a location near you. This applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medication. If a drug takes back location is not readily available, check the FDA flush list for medication that should be flushed in order to avoid a deadly risk to children and pets. When a drug takes back program is not available, medication not on the flush list may be disposed of according to the instructions from the FDA, which recommend mixing medicine with dirt, cat litter, or coffee grounds, then disposing of them inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash.

Choose the option with correct order:

The worst time to discover you’re out of cough medicine is when you wake up in the middle of the night hacking and barking. And when your child is fretful with a fever there is no time to rifle through the supply bin and wonder if it’s okay to use expired Tylenol. Be prepared for your next health incident by knowing what you have and what you don’t so you can stock up as necessary. Medicine—like good health itself—is one of those things you rarely think about until you need it. But when you need it, you really need it right that minute. Going through your medicine closet is also a matter of safety. Medication poses a risk to animals and children when it’s accessible; the less you have around, the better. Check out the guidelines from the National Library of Medicine for proper storage of medication. Go through your medicine and medical supplies, discard what’s too old, and make a list of what you need to replenish. Here’s what to do:

Open the medicine cabinet, unpack the drawers, and pull down those storage baskets. Look for used and unused medication, but also other supplies such as bandages and antiseptic so you can see what needs restocking. Once you have everything together, check expiration dates and decide whether you will keep or discard those items. For those items you’re keeping, place them back into your cabinets and drawers. If there’s anything you need to toss and/or restock, add it to a list of things to buy next time you’re at the store. For everything you decided to toss, dispose of your medication safely. The best way to dispose of your unused or unwanted medicine is through a drug take back program. Check out DisposeMyMeds.com to find a location near you. This applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medication. If a drug takes back location is not readily available, check the FDA flush list for medication that should be flushed in order to avoid a deadly risk to children and pets. When a drug takes back program is not available, medication not on the flush list may be disposed of according to the instructions from the FDA, which recommend mixing medicine with dirt, cat litter, or coffee grounds, then disposing of them inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash.

Which of the following is the best way to dispose of unwanted medicine?

The worst time to discover you’re out of cough medicine is when you wake up in the middle of the night hacking and barking. And when your child is fretful with a fever there is no time to rifle through the supply bin and wonder if it’s okay to use expired Tylenol. Be prepared for your next health incident by knowing what you have and what you don’t so you can stock up as necessary. Medicine—like good health itself—is one of those things you rarely think about until you need it. But when you need it, you really need it right that minute. Going through your medicine closet is also a matter of safety. Medication poses a risk to animals and children when it’s accessible; the less you have around, the better. Check out the guidelines from the National Library of Medicine for proper storage of medication. Go through your medicine and medical supplies, discard what’s too old, and make a list of what you need to replenish. Here’s what to do:

Open the medicine cabinet, unpack the drawers, and pull down those storage baskets. Look for used and unused medication, but also other supplies such as bandages and antiseptic so you can see what needs restocking. Once you have everything together, check expiration dates and decide whether you will keep or discard those items. For those items you’re keeping, place them back into your cabinets and drawers. If there’s anything you need to toss and/or restock, add it to a list of things to buy next time you’re at the store. For everything you decided to toss, dispose of your medication safely. The best way to dispose of your unused or unwanted medicine is through a drug take back program. Check out DisposeMyMeds.com to find a location near you. This applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medication. If a drug takes back location is not readily available, check the FDA flush list for medication that should be flushed in order to avoid a deadly risk to children and pets. When a drug takes back program is not available, medication not on the flush list may be disposed of according to the instructions from the FDA, which recommend mixing medicine with dirt, cat litter, or coffee grounds, then disposing of them inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash.

When can we be needed to dispose of the medicines inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash?

The worst time to discover you’re out of cough medicine is when you wake up in the middle of the night hacking and barking. And when your child is fretful with a fever there is no time to rifle through the supply bin and wonder if it’s okay to use expired Tylenol. Be prepared for your next health incident by knowing what you have and what you don’t so you can stock up as necessary. Medicine—like good health itself—is one of those things you rarely think about until you need it. But when you need it, you really need it right that minute. Going through your medicine closet is also a matter of safety. Medication poses a risk to animals and children when it’s accessible; the less you have around, the better. Check out the guidelines from the National Library of Medicine for proper storage of medication. Go through your medicine and medical supplies, discard what’s too old, and make a list of what you need to replenish. Here’s what to do:

Open the medicine cabinet, unpack the drawers, and pull down those storage baskets. Look for used and unused medication, but also other supplies such as bandages and antiseptic so you can see what needs restocking. Once you have everything together, check expiration dates and decide whether you will keep or discard those items. For those items you’re keeping, place them back into your cabinets and drawers. If there’s anything you need to toss and/or restock, add it to a list of things to buy next time you’re at the store. For everything you decided to toss, dispose of your medication safely. The best way to dispose of your unused or unwanted medicine is through a drug take back program. Check out DisposeMyMeds.com to find a location near you. This applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medication. If a drug takes back location is not readily available, check the FDA flush list for medication that should be flushed in order to avoid a deadly risk to children and pets. When a drug takes back program is not available, medication not on the flush list may be disposed of according to the instructions from the FDA, which recommend mixing medicine with dirt, cat litter, or coffee grounds, then disposing of them inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash.

Which of the following is the suitable title for the passage?

The worst time to discover you’re out of cough medicine is when you wake up in the middle of the night hacking and barking. And when your child is fretful with a fever there is no time to rifle through the supply bin and wonder if it’s okay to use expired Tylenol. Be prepared for your next health incident by knowing what you have and what you don’t so you can stock up as necessary. Medicine—like good health itself—is one of those things you rarely think about until you need it. But when you need it, you really need it right that minute. Going through your medicine closet is also a matter of safety. Medication poses a risk to animals and children when it’s accessible; the less you have around, the better. Check out the guidelines from the National Library of Medicine for proper storage of medication. Go through your medicine and medical supplies, discard what’s too old, and make a list of what you need to replenish. Here’s what to do:

Open the medicine cabinet, unpack the drawers, and pull down those storage baskets. Look for used and unused medication, but also other supplies such as bandages and antiseptic so you can see what needs restocking. Once you have everything together, check expiration dates and decide whether you will keep or discard those items. For those items you’re keeping, place them back into your cabinets and drawers. If there’s anything you need to toss and/or restock, add it to a list of things to buy next time you’re at the store. For everything you decided to toss, dispose of your medication safely. The best way to dispose of your unused or unwanted medicine is through a drug take back program. Check out DisposeMyMeds.com to find a location near you. This applies to both prescription and over-the-counter medication. If a drug takes back location is not readily available, check the FDA flush list for medication that should be flushed in order to avoid a deadly risk to children and pets. When a drug takes back program is not available, medication not on the flush list may be disposed of according to the instructions from the FDA, which recommend mixing medicine with dirt, cat litter, or coffee grounds, then disposing of them inside a zippered plastic bag in the trash.

Find the odd one out:

Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.

The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.

From the reading of the passage, which of the following could be ascribed as the author's viewpoint?

Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.

The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.

Which of the following ways could be employed for recording the votes of the members in the parliament?

1.Through voice

2.Through automatic vote recorder

3. By means of members going to the lobbies

Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.

The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.

Which of the following is the synonym for skulduggery?

Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.

The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.

As per the passage, which of the following could be inferred regarding the voting on the bills in the Parliament?

1. The members can demand for the division of votes

2. It is the first instance of its kind where the members were denied the opportunity of division of votes

3. The decision on allowance regarding the division of votes rests with the Chairman/ Deputy Chairman

Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.

The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.

On the basis of the passage, which of the following is the minimum number of members required to change the voting procedure over a bill in the house of the Parliament?

Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh’s refusal to conduct a division of votes on two controversial pieces of legislation on Sunday, despite persistent demands from members, was unprecedented in its sheer brazenness. The Bills in question have been challenged on constitutional and practical grounds, but that is a different point. The rules of procedure regarding voting are unambiguous that if a voice vote is challenged, “votes shall be taken by operating the automatic vote recorder or by the members going into the Lobbies”. Even if a single member demands a division, it is required to be carried out. Quite often, a division of vote is demanded even when the outcome is predictable, in order to bring on record the positions of parties and members on a particular bill. The explanation that members were not demanding a division from their seats and the House was not in order is disingenuous. To begin with, the disorder was triggered by the Chair’s refusal to order a division. And curiously, the Chair went on to declare the Bills passed amid the din, this time unaffected by disorder. Significant amendments were sought and several parties had demanded that they be referred to a parliamentary select committee. The government’s claim that it had the numbers to pass the Bills is dubious in the wake of the skulduggery it deployed for their passage. In any case, regardless of which side has the majority, procedure is sacrosanct and voting is the foremost tool of establishing parliamentary authority. It cannot be reduced to an act of benevolence by the Chair or the executive.

The chaos that followed in the Upper House, though not unprecedented, was unsavoury. Parliament is a deliberative forum and not a theatre for protest demonstration. Regardless of the provocation, the Opposition should have adhered to decorum while articulating its concerns. But, meaningful parliamentary discussions have become infrequent, and the voice of the Opposition is often ignored. Upper House functions have been significantly curtailed by the arbitrary labelling of money bills, which bypass it. The flat out denial of a division of votes was a new low in parliamentary history. Not stopping there, eight Opposition members were suspended for one week while notice for a no-confidence motion against the Deputy Chairman was rejected at the threshold by Chairman M. Venkaiah Naidu. Opposition parties have now petitioned President Ram Nath Kovind to not give assent to the two Bills passed by voice vote. There must be immediate efforts led by the executive to restore the effective and meaningful functioning of Parliament.

Which of the following is true for establishment of Parliamentary authority?

At a special session marking 75 years of the United Nations on Tuesday (September, 2020), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for reform of its “outdated structures”, pointing out that in the absence of comprehensive changes, the world body today faces a “crisis of confidence”. While the words appear harsh given the occasion, they can hardly be faulted. India has been at the forefront of demanding reform in the UN, particularly its principal organ, the Security Council, for decades, staking its claim as one of the world’s largest economies and most populous countries, with a track record in promoting a rules-based international order, and contributing to peacekeeping through UN forces. The UN was born in the crisis of the World War era, and the realities of that time can hardly be compared to the present. The UNSC’s permanent, veto-carrying members, chosen by virtue of being “winners” of World War II — the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and later China — can hardly claim adequate representation of the world’s leadership today. The UNSC does not include a permanent member from the African, Australian and South American continents, and the pillars of the multilateral order, such as the G-4 group of Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, have been ignored for long. Other, more representative options exist, and that has been the crux of the battle for change. Also, there is a deep polarisation within the UN’s membership, so decisions are either not taken, or not heeded. Frequent divisions within the UNSC P-5 end up blocking key decisions. These issues are underlined in a year where the coronavirus pandemic has brought the world to a standstill; yet, the UN, the UNSC, and WHO have failed to play an effective role in helping nations deal with the spread.

For India, what has been most frustrating is that despite the dysfunctional power balance that prevails, the UN’s reform process, held through Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) has not made progress over decades, despite commitments. The UN has chosen to “rollover” the discussions of the IGN, which are looking at five major issues: enlarging the Security Council, categories of membership, the question of the veto that five Permanent members of the UNSC wield, regional representation, and redistributing the Security Council-General Assembly power balance. It is some comfort that the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration passed by all member countries this week pledges to “upgrade the United Nations” with a commitment to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. Those words can only be realised if the UNSC’s permanent members recognise the deep peril the UN faces and support the reform process, an act that will require looking beyond their own interests for the greater good of the world and its peace-building

According to the passage, infer in which year was the UN established?

At a special session marking 75 years of the United Nations on Tuesday (September, 2020), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for reform of its “outdated structures”, pointing out that in the absence of comprehensive changes, the world body today faces a “crisis of confidence”. While the words appear harsh given the occasion, they can hardly be faulted. India has been at the forefront of demanding reform in the UN, particularly its principal organ, the Security Council, for decades, staking its claim as one of the world’s largest economies and most populous countries, with a track record in promoting a rules-based international order, and contributing to peacekeeping through UN forces. The UN was born in the crisis of the World War era, and the realities of that time can hardly be compared to the present. The UNSC’s permanent, veto-carrying members, chosen by virtue of being “winners” of World War II — the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and later China — can hardly claim adequate representation of the world’s leadership today. The UNSC does not include a permanent member from the African, Australian and South American continents, and the pillars of the multilateral order, such as the G-4 group of Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, have been ignored for long. Other, more representative options exist, and that has been the crux of the battle for change. Also, there is a deep polarisation within the UN’s membership, so decisions are either not taken, or not heeded. Frequent divisions within the UNSC P-5 end up blocking key decisions. These issues are underlined in a year where the coronavirus pandemic has brought the world to a standstill; yet, the UN, the UNSC, and WHO have failed to play an effective role in helping nations deal with the spread.

For India, what has been most frustrating is that despite the dysfunctional power balance that prevails, the UN’s reform process, held through Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) has not made progress over decades, despite commitments. The UN has chosen to “rollover” the discussions of the IGN, which are looking at five major issues: enlarging the Security Council, categories of membership, the question of the veto that five Permanent members of the UNSC wield, regional representation, and redistributing the Security Council-General Assembly power balance. It is some comfort that the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration passed by all member countries this week pledges to “upgrade the United Nations” with a commitment to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. Those words can only be realised if the UNSC’s permanent members recognise the deep peril the UN faces and support the reform process, an act that will require looking beyond their own interests for the greater good of the world and its peace-building

What does the author mean when he states “outdated structures”?

At a special session marking 75 years of the United Nations on Tuesday (September, 2020), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for reform of its “outdated structures”, pointing out that in the absence of comprehensive changes, the world body today faces a “crisis of confidence”. While the words appear harsh given the occasion, they can hardly be faulted. India has been at the forefront of demanding reform in the UN, particularly its principal organ, the Security Council, for decades, staking its claim as one of the world’s largest economies and most populous countries, with a track record in promoting a rules-based international order, and contributing to peacekeeping through UN forces. The UN was born in the crisis of the World War era, and the realities of that time can hardly be compared to the present. The UNSC’s permanent, veto-carrying members, chosen by virtue of being “winners” of World War II — the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and later China — can hardly claim adequate representation of the world’s leadership today. The UNSC does not include a permanent member from the African, Australian and South American continents, and the pillars of the multilateral order, such as the G-4 group of Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, have been ignored for long. Other, more representative options exist, and that has been the crux of the battle for change. Also, there is a deep polarisation within the UN’s membership, so decisions are either not taken, or not heeded. Frequent divisions within the UNSC P-5 end up blocking key decisions. These issues are underlined in a year where the coronavirus pandemic has brought the world to a standstill; yet, the UN, the UNSC, and WHO have failed to play an effective role in helping nations deal with the spread.

For India, what has been most frustrating is that despite the dysfunctional power balance that prevails, the UN’s reform process, held through Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) has not made progress over decades, despite commitments. The UN has chosen to “rollover” the discussions of the IGN, which are looking at five major issues: enlarging the Security Council, categories of membership, the question of the veto that five Permanent members of the UNSC wield, regional representation, and redistributing the Security Council-General Assembly power balance. It is some comfort that the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration passed by all member countries this week pledges to “upgrade the United Nations” with a commitment to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. Those words can only be realised if the UNSC’s permanent members recognise the deep peril the UN faces and support the reform process, an act that will require looking beyond their own interests for the greater good of the world and its peace-building

Which of the following organs of the UN does India wish to be a part of, as per the passage?

At a special session marking 75 years of the United Nations on Tuesday (September, 2020), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for reform of its “outdated structures”, pointing out that in the absence of comprehensive changes, the world body today faces a “crisis of confidence”. While the words appear harsh given the occasion, they can hardly be faulted. India has been at the forefront of demanding reform in the UN, particularly its principal organ, the Security Council, for decades, staking its claim as one of the world’s largest economies and most populous countries, with a track record in promoting a rules-based international order, and contributing to peacekeeping through UN forces. The UN was born in the crisis of the World War era, and the realities of that time can hardly be compared to the present. The UNSC’s permanent, veto-carrying members, chosen by virtue of being “winners” of World War II — the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and later China — can hardly claim adequate representation of the world’s leadership today. The UNSC does not include a permanent member from the African, Australian and South American continents, and the pillars of the multilateral order, such as the G-4 group of Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, have been ignored for long. Other, more representative options exist, and that has been the crux of the battle for change. Also, there is a deep polarisation within the UN’s membership, so decisions are either not taken, or not heeded. Frequent divisions within the UNSC P-5 end up blocking key decisions. These issues are underlined in a year where the coronavirus pandemic has brought the world to a standstill; yet, the UN, the UNSC, and WHO have failed to play an effective role in helping nations deal with the spread.

For India, what has been most frustrating is that despite the dysfunctional power balance that prevails, the UN’s reform process, held through Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) has not made progress over decades, despite commitments. The UN has chosen to “rollover” the discussions of the IGN, which are looking at five major issues: enlarging the Security Council, categories of membership, the question of the veto that five Permanent members of the UNSC wield, regional representation, and redistributing the Security Council-General Assembly power balance. It is some comfort that the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration passed by all member countries this week pledges to “upgrade the United Nations” with a commitment to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. Those words can only be realised if the UNSC’s permanent members recognise the deep peril the UN faces and support the reform process, an act that will require looking beyond their own interests for the greater good of the world and its peace-building

Which of the following factors seems to be the qualifying criteria for the present members of the security council, which got them to the security council in the first place?

1.They were the wealthiest of all the countries present in the world

2.The 5 countries won the World War II

3.The five countries have the world’s strongest security forces

At a special session marking 75 years of the United Nations on Tuesday (September, 2020), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for reform of its “outdated structures”, pointing out that in the absence of comprehensive changes, the world body today faces a “crisis of confidence”. While the words appear harsh given the occasion, they can hardly be faulted. India has been at the forefront of demanding reform in the UN, particularly its principal organ, the Security Council, for decades, staking its claim as one of the world’s largest economies and most populous countries, with a track record in promoting a rules-based international order, and contributing to peacekeeping through UN forces. The UN was born in the crisis of the World War era, and the realities of that time can hardly be compared to the present. The UNSC’s permanent, veto-carrying members, chosen by virtue of being “winners” of World War II — the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and later China — can hardly claim adequate representation of the world’s leadership today. The UNSC does not include a permanent member from the African, Australian and South American continents, and the pillars of the multilateral order, such as the G-4 group of Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, have been ignored for long. Other, more representative options exist, and that has been the crux of the battle for change. Also, there is a deep polarisation within the UN’s membership, so decisions are either not taken, or not heeded. Frequent divisions within the UNSC P-5 end up blocking key decisions. These issues are underlined in a year where the coronavirus pandemic has brought the world to a standstill; yet, the UN, the UNSC, and WHO have failed to play an effective role in helping nations deal with the spread.

For India, what has been most frustrating is that despite the dysfunctional power balance that prevails, the UN’s reform process, held through Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) has not made progress over decades, despite commitments. The UN has chosen to “rollover” the discussions of the IGN, which are looking at five major issues: enlarging the Security Council, categories of membership, the question of the veto that five Permanent members of the UNSC wield, regional representation, and redistributing the Security Council-General Assembly power balance. It is some comfort that the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration passed by all member countries this week pledges to “upgrade the United Nations” with a commitment to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. Those words can only be realised if the UNSC’s permanent members recognise the deep peril the UN faces and support the reform process, an act that will require looking beyond their own interests for the greater good of the world and its peace-building

Which of the following is the most appropriate title to the passage?

At a special session marking 75 years of the United Nations on Tuesday (September, 2020), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called for reform of its “outdated structures”, pointing out that in the absence of comprehensive changes, the world body today faces a “crisis of confidence”. While the words appear harsh given the occasion, they can hardly be faulted. India has been at the forefront of demanding reform in the UN, particularly its principal organ, the Security Council, for decades, staking its claim as one of the world’s largest economies and most populous countries, with a track record in promoting a rules-based international order, and contributing to peacekeeping through UN forces. The UN was born in the crisis of the World War era, and the realities of that time can hardly be compared to the present. The UNSC’s permanent, veto-carrying members, chosen by virtue of being “winners” of World War II — the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and later China — can hardly claim adequate representation of the world’s leadership today. The UNSC does not include a permanent member from the African, Australian and South American continents, and the pillars of the multilateral order, such as the G-4 group of Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, have been ignored for long. Other, more representative options exist, and that has been the crux of the battle for change. Also, there is a deep polarisation within the UN’s membership, so decisions are either not taken, or not heeded. Frequent divisions within the UNSC P-5 end up blocking key decisions. These issues are underlined in a year where the coronavirus pandemic has brought the world to a standstill; yet, the UN, the UNSC, and WHO have failed to play an effective role in helping nations deal with the spread.

For India, what has been most frustrating is that despite the dysfunctional power balance that prevails, the UN’s reform process, held through Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) has not made progress over decades, despite commitments. The UN has chosen to “rollover” the discussions of the IGN, which are looking at five major issues: enlarging the Security Council, categories of membership, the question of the veto that five Permanent members of the UNSC wield, regional representation, and redistributing the Security Council-General Assembly power balance. It is some comfort that the UN’s 75th anniversary declaration passed by all member countries this week pledges to “upgrade the United Nations” with a commitment to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. Those words can only be realised if the UNSC’s permanent members recognise the deep peril the UN faces and support the reform process, an act that will require looking beyond their own interests for the greater good of the world and its peace-building

Which of the following could be a suitable synonym for crux?