Languages: Mock Test - 2 - CUET MCQ

Rearrange the phrases to make a meaningful sentence:

A. type of ray that could

B. in 1895, Wilhelm Rontgen

C. penetrate objects, including human tissue

D. discovered a new

Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

Rearrange the given phrases to form a sentence with superlative degree of comparison:

of all the metals | Iron | is the | most useful.

Pick the correct Indirect Speech for the given sentence :

Rakesh said to Mahesh, "Go away".

Direction: A sentence has been given with a blank to be filled with an appropriate option. Choose the correct alternative.

The water from the river was ________ cold for me to drink directly.

There is an underlined segment in the given sentence. Select the most appropriate option to substitute the segment. If there is no need to substitute it, select 'No substitution required'.

The parking spot next to your car is our car's.

Direction: Pick out the clause in the following sentence:

My mom asked me to call her as soon as I boarded the bus.

Select the most appropriate synonym of the given word.

Disseminate

There have been 11 earls of Sandwich. The first, bestowed the title in 1660, was a celebrated British naval commander. Others have been politicians, statesmen, authors, and supporters of the arts. They were important people.

But even now, all anyone seems to know about this proud lineage is that one of them as it turns out, the fourth one, born in 1718 apparently had a liking for meat and bread, or maybe cheese and bread, and he ate it while playing poker because he was a degenerate gambler unable to stop for a meal, or he ate it because he was so busy being a war hero that he had no time for a knife and fork, or he instructed his soldiers to eat it because it traveled well, or you know what? It doesn't matter. Nobody is quite sure what happened, but we can all agree that, although meat and bread were entered into the historical record as far back as Babylon, humankind's greatest lazy meal became known as the Earl of Sandwich's domain, and so it's been sandwiches all the way down.

Everyone has to be known for something. But the earls busied themselves with more stately things, until the current earl, whose actual name is John Edward Hollister Montagu, needed money to maintain the old family estate, because carrying a fancy title today doesn't pay nearly as much as it did 300 years ago, and a previous earl gave away much of the family wealth. And so hold your noses, ye ghosts of olde: It was time to cash in on the family name, to finally cede history to the hoi polloi.

It was time to open up a sandwich shop, and call it Earl of Sandwich.

Q. Which of the following definitions best explains the word 'lineage', as used in the passage?

There have been 11 earls of Sandwich. The first, bestowed the title in 1660, was a celebrated British naval commander. Others have been politicians, statesmen, authors, and supporters of the arts. They were important people.

But even now, all anyone seems to know about this proud lineage is that one of them as it turns out, the fourth one, born in 1718 apparently had a liking for meat and bread, or maybe cheese and bread, and he ate it while playing poker because he was a degenerate gambler unable to stop for a meal, or he ate it because he was so busy being a war hero that he had no time for a knife and fork, or he instructed his soldiers to eat it because it traveled well, or you know what? It doesn't matter. Nobody is quite sure what happened, but we can all agree that, although meat and bread were entered into the historical record as far back as Babylon, humankind's greatest lazy meal became known as the Earl of Sandwich's domain, and so it's been sandwiches all the way down.

Everyone has to be known for something. But the earls busied themselves with more stately things, until the current earl, whose actual name is John Edward Hollister Montagu, needed money to maintain the old family estate, because carrying a fancy title today doesn't pay nearly as much as it did 300 years ago, and a previous earl gave away much of the family wealth. And so hold your noses, ye ghosts of olde: It was time to cash in on the family name, to finally cede history to the hoi polloi.

It was time to open up a sandwich shop, and call it Earl of Sandwich.

Q. What kind of people used to be given the title of earl, other than naval commanders?

There have been 11 earls of Sandwich. The first, bestowed the title in 1660, was a celebrated British naval commander. Others have been politicians, statesmen, authors, and supporters of the arts. They were important people.

But even now, all anyone seems to know about this proud lineage is that one of them as it turns out, the fourth one, born in 1718 apparently had a liking for meat and bread, or maybe cheese and bread, and he ate it while playing poker because he was a degenerate gambler unable to stop for a meal, or he ate it because he was so busy being a war hero that he had no time for a knife and fork, or he instructed his soldiers to eat it because it traveled well, or you know what? It doesn't matter. Nobody is quite sure what happened, but we can all agree that, although meat and bread were entered into the historical record as far back as Babylon, humankind's greatest lazy meal became known as the Earl of Sandwich's domain, and so it's been sandwiches all the way down.

Everyone has to be known for something. But the earls busied themselves with more stately things, until the current earl, whose actual name is John Edward Hollister Montagu, needed money to maintain the old family estate, because carrying a fancy title today doesn't pay nearly as much as it did 300 years ago, and a previous earl gave away much of the family wealth. And so hold your noses, ye ghosts of olde: It was time to cash in on the family name, to finally cede history to the hoi polloi.

It was time to open up a sandwich shop, and call it Earl of Sandwich.

Q. What can be said about the exact point of time 'meat and bread' came to be called a Sandwich?

There have been 11 earls of Sandwich. The first, bestowed the title in 1660, was a celebrated British naval commander. Others have been politicians, statesmen, authors, and supporters of the arts. They were important people.

But even now, all anyone seems to know about this proud lineage is that one of them as it turns out, the fourth one, born in 1718 apparently had a liking for meat and bread, or maybe cheese and bread, and he ate it while playing poker because he was a degenerate gambler unable to stop for a meal, or he ate it because he was so busy being a war hero that he had no time for a knife and fork, or he instructed his soldiers to eat it because it traveled well, or you know what? It doesn't matter. Nobody is quite sure what happened, but we can all agree that, although meat and bread were entered into the historical record as far back as Babylon, humankind's greatest lazy meal became known as the Earl of Sandwich's domain, and so it's been sandwiches all the way down.

Everyone has to be known for something. But the earls busied themselves with more stately things, until the current earl, whose actual name is John Edward Hollister Montagu, needed money to maintain the old family estate, because carrying a fancy title today doesn't pay nearly as much as it did 300 years ago, and a previous earl gave away much of the family wealth. And so hold your noses, ye ghosts of olde: It was time to cash in on the family name, to finally cede history to the hoi polloi.

It was time to open up a sandwich shop, and call it Earl of Sandwich.

Q. What is 'humankind's greatest lazy meal'?

With an aim to check flow of black money and evasion of taxes through stock market, market regulator SEBI has decided to impose hefty penalty on brokers facilitating such transactions from tomorrow. The regulator recently came across a loophole in its existing regulations, which was being abused by stock brokers for facilitating tax evasion and flow of black money through fictitious trades in lieu of hefty commissions. To remove this anomaly, SEBI has asked stock exchanges to penalise the brokers transferring trades from one trading account to another after terming them as ‘punching’ errors. The penalty could be as high as 2% of the value of shares traded in the ‘wrong’ account, as per new rules coming into effect from August 1.

In a widely-prevalent, but secretly operated practice, the people looking to evade taxes approach certain brokers to show losses in their stock trading accounts, so that their earnings from other sources are not taxed. These brokers are also approached by people looking to show their black money as earnings made through stock market. In exchange for a commission, generally 5-10% of the total amount, these brokers show desired profits or losses in the accounts of their clients after transferring trades from other accounts, created for such purposes only.

The brokers generally keep conducting both ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ trades in these fictitious accounts so that they can be used accordingly when approached by such clients.

In the market parlance, these deals are known as profit or loss shopping. While profit is purchased to show black money as earnings from the market, the losses are purchased to avoid tax on earnings from other sources.

As the transfer of trades is not allowed from one account to the other in general cases, the brokers show the trades conducted in their own fictitious accounts as ‘punching’ errors. The regulations allow transfer of trades in the cases of genuine errors, as at times ‘punching’ or placing of orders can be made for a wrong client. To check any abuse of this rule, SEBI has asked the bourses to put in place a robust mechanism to identify whether the errors are genuine or not. At the same time, the bourses have been asked to levy penalty on the brokers transferring their non-institutional trades from one account to the other. The penalty would be 1% of the traded value in wrong account, if such trades are up to 5% of the broker’s total non-institutional turnover in a month. The penalty would be 2% of trade value in wrong account, if such transactions exceed 5% of total monthly turnover in a month.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that

With an aim to check flow of black money and evasion of taxes through stock market, market regulator SEBI has decided to impose hefty penalty on brokers facilitating such transactions from tomorrow. The regulator recently came across a loophole in its existing regulations, which was being abused by stock brokers for facilitating tax evasion and flow of black money through fictitious trades in lieu of hefty commissions. To remove this anomaly, SEBI has asked stock exchanges to penalise the brokers transferring trades from one trading account to another after terming them as ‘punching’ errors. The penalty could be as high as 2% of the value of shares traded in the ‘wrong’ account, as per new rules coming into effect from August 1.

In a widely-prevalent, but secretly operated practice, the people looking to evade taxes approach certain brokers to show losses in their stock trading accounts, so that their earnings from other sources are not taxed. These brokers are also approached by people looking to show their black money as earnings made through stock market. In exchange for a commission, generally 5-10% of the total amount, these brokers show desired profits or losses in the accounts of their clients after transferring trades from other accounts, created for such purposes only.

The brokers generally keep conducting both ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ trades in these fictitious accounts so that they can be used accordingly when approached by such clients.

In the market parlance, these deals are known as profit or loss shopping. While profit is purchased to show black money as earnings from the market, the losses are purchased to avoid tax on earnings from other sources.

As the transfer of trades is not allowed from one account to the other in general cases, the brokers show the trades conducted in their own fictitious accounts as ‘punching’ errors. The regulations allow transfer of trades in the cases of genuine errors, as at times ‘punching’ or placing of orders can be made for a wrong client. To check any abuse of this rule, SEBI has asked the bourses to put in place a robust mechanism to identify whether the errors are genuine or not. At the same time, the bourses have been asked to levy penalty on the brokers transferring their non-institutional trades from one account to the other. The penalty would be 1% of the traded value in wrong account, if such trades are up to 5% of the broker’s total non-institutional turnover in a month. The penalty would be 2% of trade value in wrong account, if such transactions exceed 5% of total monthly turnover in a month.

Q. What is a ‘punching error' as per the passage?

With an aim to check flow of black money and evasion of taxes through stock market, market regulator SEBI has decided to impose hefty penalty on brokers facilitating such transactions from tomorrow. The regulator recently came across a loophole in its existing regulations, which was being abused by stock brokers for facilitating tax evasion and flow of black money through fictitious trades in lieu of hefty commissions. To remove this anomaly, SEBI has asked stock exchanges to penalise the brokers transferring trades from one trading account to another after terming them as ‘punching’ errors. The penalty could be as high as 2% of the value of shares traded in the ‘wrong’ account, as per new rules coming into effect from August 1.

In a widely-prevalent, but secretly operated practice, the people looking to evade taxes approach certain brokers to show losses in their stock trading accounts, so that their earnings from other sources are not taxed. These brokers are also approached by people looking to show their black money as earnings made through stock market. In exchange for a commission, generally 5-10% of the total amount, these brokers show desired profits or losses in the accounts of their clients after transferring trades from other accounts, created for such purposes only.

The brokers generally keep conducting both ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ trades in these fictitious accounts so that they can be used accordingly when approached by such clients.

In the market parlance, these deals are known as profit or loss shopping. While profit is purchased to show black money as earnings from the market, the losses are purchased to avoid tax on earnings from other sources.

As the transfer of trades is not allowed from one account to the other in general cases, the brokers show the trades conducted in their own fictitious accounts as ‘punching’ errors. The regulations allow transfer of trades in the cases of genuine errors, as at times ‘punching’ or placing of orders can be made for a wrong client. To check any abuse of this rule, SEBI has asked the bourses to put in place a robust mechanism to identify whether the errors are genuine or not. At the same time, the bourses have been asked to levy penalty on the brokers transferring their non-institutional trades from one account to the other. The penalty would be 1% of the traded value in wrong account, if such trades are up to 5% of the broker’s total non-institutional turnover in a month. The penalty would be 2% of trade value in wrong account, if such transactions exceed 5% of total monthly turnover in a month.

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

With an aim to check flow of black money and evasion of taxes through stock market, market regulator SEBI has decided to impose hefty penalty on brokers facilitating such transactions from tomorrow. The regulator recently came across a loophole in its existing regulations, which was being abused by stock brokers for facilitating tax evasion and flow of black money through fictitious trades in lieu of hefty commissions. To remove this anomaly, SEBI has asked stock exchanges to penalise the brokers transferring trades from one trading account to another after terming them as ‘punching’ errors. The penalty could be as high as 2% of the value of shares traded in the ‘wrong’ account, as per new rules coming into effect from August 1.

In a widely-prevalent, but secretly operated practice, the people looking to evade taxes approach certain brokers to show losses in their stock trading accounts, so that their earnings from other sources are not taxed. These brokers are also approached by people looking to show their black money as earnings made through stock market. In exchange for a commission, generally 5-10% of the total amount, these brokers show desired profits or losses in the accounts of their clients after transferring trades from other accounts, created for such purposes only.

The brokers generally keep conducting both ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ trades in these fictitious accounts so that they can be used accordingly when approached by such clients.

In the market parlance, these deals are known as profit or loss shopping. While profit is purchased to show black money as earnings from the market, the losses are purchased to avoid tax on earnings from other sources.

As the transfer of trades is not allowed from one account to the other in general cases, the brokers show the trades conducted in their own fictitious accounts as ‘punching’ errors. The regulations allow transfer of trades in the cases of genuine errors, as at times ‘punching’ or placing of orders can be made for a wrong client. To check any abuse of this rule, SEBI has asked the bourses to put in place a robust mechanism to identify whether the errors are genuine or not. At the same time, the bourses have been asked to levy penalty on the brokers transferring their non-institutional trades from one account to the other. The penalty would be 1% of the traded value in wrong account, if such trades are up to 5% of the broker’s total non-institutional turnover in a month. The penalty would be 2% of trade value in wrong account, if such transactions exceed 5% of total monthly turnover in a month.

Q. In the light of the second paragraph what do people who intend to evade taxes do?

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertus burg.) Every major power inEurope participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £ 1,072, 783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Q. Which one(s) of the following would possibly NOT be reason(s) for the prosperity of British colonies in America?

1. The colonies produced more ships and steel than Britain.

2. Transfer of large sums of money from Britain to the colonies.

3. The colonies contributed money and troops to the war effort.

4. Britain imposed tax on import of tea into the colonies.

5. Britain had a very high public debt at the end of the war.

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertus burg.) Every major power inEurope participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £ 1,072, 783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Q. The use of the word 'specie' in the passage denotes

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertus burg.) Every major power inEurope participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £ 1,072, 783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

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

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertus burg.) Every major power inEurope participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £ 1,072, 783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

Q. "Gipson described this British largesse…" What is the largesse that Gipson is referring to?

When the "Great War for the Empire" (often incorrectly referred to as the "Seven Years War") ended in 1763, Great Britain was deeply in debt, but was ceded some first rate real estate, namely Canada. The war itself had been conducted on a global scale, including the French and Indian Wars in North America, and it took two separate treaties to terminate hostilities (the treaty of Paris and the treaty of Hubertus burg.) Every major power inEurope participated in the war, and on a vast geographical scale that included hostilities along the African Coast, in Central and North America, India and the Philippines, all at great expense to the participants.

The explanations of the origins of the War are exceptionally intricate and unmemorable.

The Great War included our French and Indian War, which pitted Britain against France in the New World.

The colonists, especially from Massachusetts and Connecticut, contributed money and troops to the effort and after the war Britain reimbursed the colonies £ 1,072, 783, a third of which went to Massachusetts in light of its proportionately greater contribution. This roughly halved the war debts of the Colonies. Gipson described this British largesse as “unprecedented” in the sense that it was apparently the first time in modern history that a parent state reimbursed its colonies for such expenditures. On the other hand, Britain evidently imposed a one shilling per pound tax on tea imported into the American colonies.

When the smoke of war cleared, Britain's public debt was a then staggering sum of £146,000,000, and called for annual interest payments of £4,700,000 which left the British citizenry “with little prospect of reducing the heavy load of taxation.” On the other hand, the War had brought “unprecedented prosperity” to the colonies, even great fortunes, because of the “shipment of vast sums of . . . specie from England to America, not only as pay for the soldiers, teamsters, army pioneers, bateau-men, and others, but also for the purchase at good prices of enormous quantities of food, supplies and other things needed for carrying on the war.”

There were other effects as well, all of which presented some peril for Britain; the American colonies soon emerged as an economic powerhouse, soon out producing Britain in, ships and steel because of its natural advantages. In Great Britain, in the 1760’s there was almost a 100% face value tax on imported tea.

This was comprised of a 25% import tax on face value plus an additional excise of 25% plus 1 shilling per pound for tea sold for domestic consumption.

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

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.

Q. What does the word 'precipice' as used in the passage mean?

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.

Q. Which one of the following CANNOT be inferred from the information given in the fifth paragraph?

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.

Q. Which one of the following best expresses the main idea of the passage?

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.

Q. Why does the author believe that the heightened tension (fourth paragraph) could jeopardise jobs of Indian working abroad?

India really cannot handle tension in West Asia right now.

That may seem obvious: after all, any escalation in hostilities between Iran and the United States, after the latter killed top Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, will have a huge impact across the region and beyond. It's not for nothing that "World War 3" trended on Twitter on Friday.

There are two primary dangers for India, other than the extremely destabilising effects of any outright war in the region.

One, there are 8 million Indians living and working in West Asia, the vast majority of whom live in the Arabian Gulf. Conflict would put them all in danger, as it did at the start of the 1990s, when the US went to war with Iraq and New Delhi had to arrange an airlift of more than 110,000 Indian citizens.

But even if there isn't all-out conflict, heightened tensions could hurt the economies of the region, and endanger the jobs of many Indians. Already the events of the last few years, including inter-regional conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, employment nationalisation drives in a number of countries and Dubai's struggles to recover from economic crisis, have hurt the diaspora.

Kerala has already begun coming to terms with the idea that many more will return. A sudden jolt would put pressure on the places Indians return to, and also endanger the $40 billion in remittances India receives from West Asia - more than 50% of all remittances to the country, a key source of foreign exchange.

Then there is the question of oil prices. Though international prices have gone up by 4% since the strike on Soleimani, analysts do not currently expect them to get much higher - presuming it is in no one's interests for that to happen and that both the US and Iran will back down from outright conflict.

Yet if that presumption is wrong, India will face some difficult times. Although India does not now import much oil from Iran, it is still heavily reliant on the Strait of Hormuz - the tiny span of water through which a quarter of the world's oil and a third of its natural gas travels. Higher oil prices would automatically mean inflation in India, where analysts are already worried about rising food prices.

Even if India's economy were on a more stable footing, conflict in the region would be dangerous. But the current tensions, coming as they do when the Indian economy seems poised on a precipice, should be even more alarming for policymakers.

Q. Why do the analysts expect that the international price of oil will not increase substantially?

Ever since the final whistle brought World Cup 2006 to a close, the atmosphere in the two neighbouring capitals could not be more different. In Rome, there were scenes of euphoria over Italy's victory. Ecstatic Italian demonstrators partied into the early hours of the morning.

The victorious team was given a rapturous welcome both at the airport and in Rome's Circolo Massimo, where over a million fans braved the Roman sun to greet the returning heroes. The great expanse of the Circolo Massimo was strewn with red, white and green flags, while the air was thick with the crowd's hooting, chanting and music-making. Late on Monday the winning team was expected to be greeted by Prime Minister Romano Prodi. Then, a parade through the streets of Rome, with the solid gold trophy in an open top bus.

In Paris, the Champs Elysees, which had seen crowds of up to 5,00,000 when France entered the quarterfinals and then the semifinals, had barely 50,000 fans who felt they had to tell their team it had been heroic despite the defeat. But their heart was not in it. A special TV show organised to celebrate victory turned into a virtual wake. [Mournful faces were trying to mask a sense of overwhelming sorrow, not least because superstar Zidane's final match had been tarnished by his expulsion from the game.]

There will be no parade down the Champs Elysees as had been planned. The players had lunch with President Jacques Chirac on their return. But a tight-lipped Raymond Domenech said brusquely: "I am the manager, I decide. There will be no parade." Instead, fans had a glimpse of their favourite stars from a balcony of the chic Crillon Hotel at the Place de la Concorde. In Italy, on the other hand, the victory was experienced as a double triumph, with the feeling that Italians had avenged their Euro 2000 defeat at the hands of the French. The Italian press was lavish in its praise for the squadra azzura with headlines like "The world Belongs to Us" or simply, "Champions." Newspapers hoped this victory would augur a new era of hope and economic recovery for Italy.

Q. In the first line of the passage, which are the two capitals that the author is referring to?