Practice Test for AILET - 7 - CLAT MCQ

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. Advocates of managed capitalism, differing from socialists, believe that

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. The existence of Russia and China has made Marxism

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. Favouring capitalism with the qualification that monopolies should be carefully supervised are the

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. The Marxists believe in

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. According to the author, socialists believe in

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. The Right of Centre advocates believe

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

Thus, at the extreme left stand the Marxists, whose prediction of the ultimate undoing of our system is little changed from the days of Karl Marx himself. Their prophecy we know; their persuasion is that we should line up on the side of the future which the Marxists try to sell us, but a sense of historical participation, of joining the winning team, of riding the ‘wave of the future’. If Russia or China were not there as an object lession in applied Marxism, their urgings might be a more formidable competitor for our belief. As things now stand, the rigours which are the price of rapid collectivist growth have an appeal only to the most miserable people in the world— those who have never known anything but a beggar’s lot. Perhaps, our task is to understand with genuine compassion the hard choice that history has enjoined on the poor— and to attempt in every way to facilitate their escape from poverty.To the right of the Marxists are the socialists. Many of them are Marxian in their prognosis of capitalism’s end, but they are not Marxian in their prediction of things to come. The Marxists extol the inevitability of history; the socialists extol the idea of liberty inherent in social change. The Marxists are not so much interested in what comes next, but this is the very heart and essence of the socialist persuaders. Whether the society of the future is to be centralized or built on old-fashioned guilds; whether it is to be entirely planned, or only partially so; the extent to which the consumer should have a voice, and the extent to which the producer should be hard—these are the burning questions of socialism—but not of communal. While the Marxists hold out the prospect of blindly and trustingly enlisting oneself with the inexorable process of history, the socialists ask us to join them in shaping history as they wish it.Next on the spectrum of prophecy and persuasion are the advocates of managed capitalism. Unlike the socialists, they do not believe that capitalism must disappear, and unlike the socialists they do not want to displace the institution of private ownership with public-owner-ship. Their central philosophy is something else again; they feel that capitalism can be maintained if we intervene sufficiently to make it viable. Left to itself, they say, capitalism may run off the rails—if not its economic rails, then its moral rails. Given a strong policy of guidance, it can continue to prosper. Hence, we are asked to ensure our futures with a strong pillar of government investment, with active enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, with the encouragement of public activity as well as private. This road to the future lies in making capitalism work—rather than in relying on its inner stability. Not so, say the next group of public counsellors, the protagonists of the Right-of-Center. Capitalism can work only in an atmosphere of hands-off. While liberal aims may be commendable, the liberal means are incompatible with the essence of a market economy itself. Leave the system alone and it will fare well; try to patch it up and you will only succeed in hopelessly paralyzing it. It is some such spectrum of prophecy and persuasion that we face.As we listen to the debates which now surround us—and which will command our attention as long as our society survives—we can recognize the voices of the past. Adam Smith still speaks to us from the platform to the Right; Karl Marx seeks to enroll us in the legions of the Left. We can distinguish the voice of John Stuart Mill in the words of the socialists, and that of John Maynard Keynes in the arguments of Malthus, the vision of the more utopian Utopians, the complacency of the Victorians, the disqu of the underworld, the shrewd skepticism of Veblen—they are all there.

Q. The author classifies John Stuart Mill among the

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college.

Q. The author’s attitude is

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college.

Q. Which of the following is the most significant feature of the scheme of autonomous colleges?

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. The author does believe that

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. The teacher-student ratio for manageable proportions in a college should be

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. What according to the situation, would be the result by granting autonomy to some college?

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. The author’s chief concern seems to be

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. How, according to the situation, can the number of students taking college education be reduced?

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. What, according to the situations, are required to improve the education standards?

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. To which of the following does the author give precedence?

Directions : In view of the passage given below, choose the best option for question.

The education system is breeding more and more frustration among both students and teachers. And yet no one seems too clear about what can be done to make it more meaningful. Many reforms have been discussed at length but have come to nothing for one reason or another. The authorities are now peddling the idea of autonomous colleges as a means of toning up teaching standards. They argue that by allowing certain colleges to introduce their own courses, to hold seminars, and above all, to evolve their won method of assessing students, students will get a better deal. Indeed they made out that such colleges will have a free hand in nearly everything except granting degree. In theory, all this sounds attractive enough. But there is little to show that the management concerned are keen on such reforms. Even today, nothing prevents a college from inviting guest speakers on specialized subjects or holding courses in English for vernacular students. But not a single one of those who are now clamouring for autonomy has bothered to do so. It is no secret that colleges which may be freed to an extent from university control are highly elitist. In Mumbai, for example, there is a big cultural gulf between city colleges and suburban colleges. If some of the former are now given a degree of autonomy, it will only heighten this disparity.The answer to the vexed problem of declining standards in higher education does not lie in encouraging the growth of model institutions but in improving overall standards. This is, of course, easier said than done, since more young people are seeking degrees. The only solution however unpalatable it may sound, is to drastically reduce the number of those who are admitted to colleges. Even though there is political pressure on many State Government to build new colleges and to reserve more seats for backward classes, it will be sheer folly to expand such facilities recklessly without giving any thought to the quality of education imparted. If admissions are made far more selective, it will automatically reduce the number of entrants. This should apply particularly to new colleges, many of which are little more than degree factories. Only then can the authorities hope to bring down the teacher-student ratio to manageable proportions, say one to twenty. What is more, teacher should be given refresher courses every summer vacation to brush up their knowledge. Besides, if college staff and the students a great deal. The library can subscribe internet journals and books. At the same time, however, it will be unfair to deny college education to thousands of young men and women unless employers stop insisting on degrees even for clerical jobs. For a start, why can not the Government disqualify graduates from securing certain jobs – say class III and class IV posts? Once the link between degrees and jobs is served at least in some important departments, it will make young think twice before joining college. 

Q. Which of the following is main difficulty in the way of improving standards?

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. Rajiv has won a prize of (a) / two million dollars which (b) / has to be shared with all his team members (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. I do not understand (a)/ about how the payment (b)/ was made without the manager’s permission (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. The company has (a) / decided to sell half of it shares (b) / to a Chinese firm (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. By opening so many (a) / branches in such a (b) / short time, they have used the wrong strategy (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. During the interview with General Manager (a) / I asked her what challenges (b)/ she was faced (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. We have an account (a)/ with this bank and find the staff much (b)/ helpful and knowledgeable (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. The scheme has been implemented only in these (a) / part of the country and the (b) / Prime Minister will visit it shortly (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. Today we are closer (a ) / to reaching an agreement than we were (b) / a few months ago (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. We have been telling them to (a) / drive carefully but (b) / they are never listening (c) / No error (d)

Directions : Read the sentence to find out whether there is any grammatical error or idiomatic error in it. The error, if any, will be in one part of the sentence. The number of that part is the answer. If there is no error, the answer is (d). (ignore errors of punctuation, is any.)

Q. There is all sorts (a) / of regulations that have to be met before (b) / we get a license (c) / No error (d)