Languages: Mock Test - 5 - CUET MCQ

Match the following phrasal verbs with their meanings :

In the given sentence, a word is given in brackets. Select the most appropriate ANTONYM of the word to fill in the blank.
The kids are feeling bored, but they are __________ (eager) to participate in the activities

Choose the option that means the same as the given sentence.

Read the given sentence and select the most appropriate ANTONYM of the word ‘Sane’ from the following options.

We started the day by going on a crazy ride, then we had a delicious lunch and then beautiful sightseeing to end the evening.

Select the most appropriate meaning of the given idiom.

Wear your heart on your sleeve

Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Which of the following is the meaning of 'splitting hairs', as used in the passage?

Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Which of the following held a low place in literature for a very long time?

Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. Which of the following can be said to be true about languages like Latin and Greek?

Modern science has provided us a universal method by which we may study and master any subject. As applied to an art, this method has proved highly successful in the case of music. It has not been applied to language because there was a well fixed method of language study in existence long before modern science was even dreamed of, and that ancient method has held on with wonderful tenacity. The great fault with it is that it was invented to apply to languages entirely different from our own. Latin grammar and Greek grammar were mechanical systems of endings by which the relationships of words were indicated. Of course the relationship of words was at bottom logical, but the mechanical form was the chief thing to be learned. Our language depends wholly (or very nearly so) on arrangement of words, and the key is the logical relationship. A man who knows all the forms of the Latin or Greek language can write it with substantial accuracy; but the man who would master the English language must go deeper, he must master the logic of sentence structure or word relations. We must begin our study at just the opposite end from the Latin or Greek; but our teachers of language have balked at a complete reversal of method, the power of custom and time has been too strong, and in the matter of grammar we are still the slaves of the ancient world. As for spelling, the irregularities of our language seem to have driven us to one sole method, memorizing: and to memorize every word in a language is an appalling task. Our rhetoric we have inherited from the middle ages, from scholiasts, refiners, and theological logicians, a race of men who got their living by inventing distinctions and splitting hairs. The fact is, prose has had a very low place in the literature of the world until within a century; all that was worth saying was said in poetry, which the rhetoricians were forced to leave severely alone, or in oratory, from which all their rules were derived; and since written prose language became a universal possession through the printing press and the newspaper we have been too busy to invent a new rhetoric.
Q. What has been described as a horrifying task in the passage?

India's foreign policy is undergoing a series of fundamental transformations in terms of its underlying narratives, processes and desired endgames. There is a conscious and consistent effort to break with the past, no matter how the outcomes might look eventually.

What could potentially make this change last longer than initially thought is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the mandate, the capability and the willingness to effect major changes and re-conceptualise the country's external security orientation. And yet, one must ask: Does this really mark a fundamental policy shift, or does it just amount to a slew of optics-friendly acts that are well-choreographed but not visionary?

One of the most striking features of the Modi government's foreign policy is its propensity for risk-taking - quite unlike most previous governments, barring perhaps that of Indira Gandhi. Armed with a clear majority, the government is keen to play offensive, undoing the decades-old defensive Indian strategic behaviour. New Delhi's actions at Doklam; its surgical strikes against Pakistan in 2016 after the Uri terror attacks; and the Balakot air strikes in the wake of Pulwama attacks this February - notwithstanding the questionable material outcomes in all these cases - are examples of this new-found offensive streak and risktaking tendency.

Q. The phrase "break with the past" refers to

India's foreign policy is undergoing a series of fundamental transformations in terms of its underlying narratives, processes and desired endgames. There is a conscious and consistent effort to break with the past, no matter how the outcomes might look eventually.

What could potentially make this change last longer than initially thought is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the mandate, the capability and the willingness to effect major changes and re-conceptualise the country's external security orientation. And yet, one must ask: Does this really mark a fundamental policy shift, or does it just amount to a slew of optics-friendly acts that are well-choreographed but not visionary?

One of the most striking features of the Modi government's foreign policy is its propensity for risk-taking - quite unlike most previous governments, barring perhaps that of Indira Gandhi. Armed with a clear majority, the government is keen to play offensive, undoing the decades-old defensive Indian strategic behaviour. New Delhi's actions at Doklam; its surgical strikes against Pakistan in 2016 after the Uri terror attacks; and the Balakot air strikes in the wake of Pulwama attacks this February - notwithstanding the questionable material outcomes in all these cases - are examples of this new-found offensive streak and risktaking tendency.

Q. What is the basic nature of the passage?

India's foreign policy is undergoing a series of fundamental transformations in terms of its underlying narratives, processes and desired endgames. There is a conscious and consistent effort to break with the past, no matter how the outcomes might look eventually.

What could potentially make this change last longer than initially thought is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the mandate, the capability and the willingness to effect major changes and re-conceptualise the country's external security orientation. And yet, one must ask: Does this really mark a fundamental policy shift, or does it just amount to a slew of optics-friendly acts that are well-choreographed but not visionary?

One of the most striking features of the Modi government's foreign policy is its propensity for risk-taking - quite unlike most previous governments, barring perhaps that of Indira Gandhi. Armed with a clear majority, the government is keen to play offensive, undoing the decades-old defensive Indian strategic behaviour. New Delhi's actions at Doklam; its surgical strikes against Pakistan in 2016 after the Uri terror attacks; and the Balakot air strikes in the wake of Pulwama attacks this February - notwithstanding the questionable material outcomes in all these cases - are examples of this new-found offensive streak and risktaking tendency.

Q. With reference to the change in character of our foreign policy, the mandate that our present PM enjoys is

India's foreign policy is undergoing a series of fundamental transformations in terms of its underlying narratives, processes and desired endgames. There is a conscious and consistent effort to break with the past, no matter how the outcomes might look eventually.

What could potentially make this change last longer than initially thought is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the mandate, the capability and the willingness to effect major changes and re-conceptualise the country's external security orientation. And yet, one must ask: Does this really mark a fundamental policy shift, or does it just amount to a slew of optics-friendly acts that are well-choreographed but not visionary?

One of the most striking features of the Modi government's foreign policy is its propensity for risk-taking - quite unlike most previous governments, barring perhaps that of Indira Gandhi. Armed with a clear majority, the government is keen to play offensive, undoing the decades-old defensive Indian strategic behaviour. New Delhi's actions at Doklam; its surgical strikes against Pakistan in 2016 after the Uri terror attacks; and the Balakot air strikes in the wake of Pulwama attacks this February - notwithstanding the questionable material outcomes in all these cases - are examples of this new-found offensive streak and risktaking tendency.

Q. The phrase "Optics-friendly" in the passage, means

In large part as a consequence of the feminist movement, historians have focused a great deal of attention in recent years on determining more accurately the status of women in various periods. Although much has been accomplished for the modern period, premodern cultures have proved more difficult: sources are restricted in number, fragmentary, difficult to interpret, and often contradictory. Thus it is not particularly surprising that some earlier scholarship concerning such cultures has so far gone unchallenged. An example is Johann Bachofen's 1861 treatise on Amazons, women-ruled societies of questionable existence contemporary with ancient Greece.

Starting from the premise that mythology and legend preserve at least a nucleus of historical art, Bachofen argued that women were dominant in many ancient societies. His work was based on a comprehensive survey of references in the ancient sources to Amazonian and other societies with matrilineal customs - societies in which descent and property rights are traced through the female line. Some support for his theory can be found in evidence such as that drawn from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., who speaks of an Amazonian society, the Sauromatae, where the women hunted and fought in wars. A woman in this society was not allowed to marry until she had killed a person in battle.

Nonetheless, this assumption that the first recorders of ancient myths have preserved facts is problematic.

If one begins by examining why ancients refer to Amazons, it becomes clear that ancient Greek descriptions of such societies were meant not so much to represent observed historical fact - real Amazonian societies - but rather to offer moral lessons on the supposed outcome of women's rule in their own society.

The Amazons were often characterized, for example, as the equivalents of giants and centaurs, enemies to be slain by Greek heroes. Their customs were presented not as those of a respectable society, but as the very antithesis of ordinary Greek practices.

Thus I would argue, the purpose of accounts of the Amazons for their male Greek recorders is didactic, to teach both male and female Greeks that all-female groups, formed by withdrawal from traditional society, are destructive and dangerous. Myths about the Amazons were used in arguments for the male dominated status quo, in which groups composed exclusively of either sex were not permitted to segregate themselves permanently from society. Bachofen was thus misled in his reliance on myths for information about the status of women. Social documents like gravestones, wills and marriage contracts will probably tell contemporary historians most about women in the ancient world. Studies of such documents have already began to show how mistaken we are when we try to derive our picture of the ancient world exclusively from literary sources especially myths.

Q. The primary purpose of the passage is to

In large part as a consequence of the feminist movement, historians have focused a great deal of attention in recent years on determining more accurately the status of women in various periods. Although much has been accomplished for the modern period, premodern cultures have proved more difficult: sources are restricted in number, fragmentary, difficult to interpret, and often contradictory. Thus it is not particularly surprising that some earlier scholarship concerning such cultures has so far gone unchallenged. An example is Johann Bachofen's 1861 treatise on Amazons, women-ruled societies of questionable existence contemporary with ancient Greece.

Starting from the premise that mythology and legend preserve at least a nucleus of historical art, Bachofen argued that women were dominant in many ancient societies. His work was based on a comprehensive survey of references in the ancient sources to Amazonian and other societies with matrilineal customs - societies in which descent and property rights are traced through the female line. Some support for his theory can be found in evidence such as that drawn from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., who speaks of an Amazonian society, the Sauromatae, where the women hunted and fought in wars. A woman in this society was not allowed to marry until she had killed a person in battle.

Nonetheless, this assumption that the first recorders of ancient myths have preserved facts is problematic.

If one begins by examining why ancients refer to Amazons, it becomes clear that ancient Greek descriptions of such societies were meant not so much to represent observed historical fact - real Amazonian societies - but rather to offer moral lessons on the supposed outcome of women's rule in their own society.

The Amazons were often characterized, for example, as the equivalents of giants and centaurs, enemies to be slain by Greek heroes. Their customs were presented not as those of a respectable society, but as the very antithesis of ordinary Greek practices.

Thus I would argue, the purpose of accounts of the Amazons for their male Greek recorders is didactic, to teach both male and female Greeks that all-female groups, formed by withdrawal from traditional society, are destructive and dangerous. Myths about the Amazons were used in arguments for the male dominated status quo, in which groups composed exclusively of either sex were not permitted to segregate themselves permanently from society. Bachofen was thus misled in his reliance on myths for information about the status of women. Social documents like gravestones, wills and marriage contracts will probably tell contemporary historians most about women in the ancient world. Studies of such documents have already began to show how mistaken we are when we try to derive our picture of the ancient world exclusively from literary sources especially myths.

Q. Which of the following is presented in the passage as evidence supporting the author's view of the ancient Greek's description of the Amazons?

In large part as a consequence of the feminist movement, historians have focused a great deal of attention in recent years on determining more accurately the status of women in various periods. Although much has been accomplished for the modern period, premodern cultures have proved more difficult: sources are restricted in number, fragmentary, difficult to interpret, and often contradictory. Thus it is not particularly surprising that some earlier scholarship concerning such cultures has so far gone unchallenged. An example is Johann Bachofen's 1861 treatise on Amazons, women-ruled societies of questionable existence contemporary with ancient Greece.

Starting from the premise that mythology and legend preserve at least a nucleus of historical art, Bachofen argued that women were dominant in many ancient societies. His work was based on a comprehensive survey of references in the ancient sources to Amazonian and other societies with matrilineal customs - societies in which descent and property rights are traced through the female line. Some support for his theory can be found in evidence such as that drawn from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., who speaks of an Amazonian society, the Sauromatae, where the women hunted and fought in wars. A woman in this society was not allowed to marry until she had killed a person in battle.

Nonetheless, this assumption that the first recorders of ancient myths have preserved facts is problematic.

If one begins by examining why ancients refer to Amazons, it becomes clear that ancient Greek descriptions of such societies were meant not so much to represent observed historical fact - real Amazonian societies - but rather to offer moral lessons on the supposed outcome of women's rule in their own society.

The Amazons were often characterized, for example, as the equivalents of giants and centaurs, enemies to be slain by Greek heroes. Their customs were presented not as those of a respectable society, but as the very antithesis of ordinary Greek practices.

Thus I would argue, the purpose of accounts of the Amazons for their male Greek recorders is didactic, to teach both male and female Greeks that all-female groups, formed by withdrawal from traditional society, are destructive and dangerous. Myths about the Amazons were used in arguments for the male dominated status quo, in which groups composed exclusively of either sex were not permitted to segregate themselves permanently from society. Bachofen was thus misled in his reliance on myths for information about the status of women. Social documents like gravestones, wills and marriage contracts will probably tell contemporary historians most about women in the ancient world. Studies of such documents have already began to show how mistaken we are when we try to derive our picture of the ancient world exclusively from literary sources especially myths.

Q. The author suggests that the main reason for the persisting influence of Bachofen's work is that

In large part as a consequence of the feminist movement, historians have focused a great deal of attention in recent years on determining more accurately the status of women in various periods. Although much has been accomplished for the modern period, premodern cultures have proved more difficult: sources are restricted in number, fragmentary, difficult to interpret, and often contradictory. Thus it is not particularly surprising that some earlier scholarship concerning such cultures has so far gone unchallenged. An example is Johann Bachofen's 1861 treatise on Amazons, women-ruled societies of questionable existence contemporary with ancient Greece.

Starting from the premise that mythology and legend preserve at least a nucleus of historical art, Bachofen argued that women were dominant in many ancient societies. His work was based on a comprehensive survey of references in the ancient sources to Amazonian and other societies with matrilineal customs - societies in which descent and property rights are traced through the female line. Some support for his theory can be found in evidence such as that drawn from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., who speaks of an Amazonian society, the Sauromatae, where the women hunted and fought in wars. A woman in this society was not allowed to marry until she had killed a person in battle.

Nonetheless, this assumption that the first recorders of ancient myths have preserved facts is problematic.

If one begins by examining why ancients refer to Amazons, it becomes clear that ancient Greek descriptions of such societies were meant not so much to represent observed historical fact - real Amazonian societies - but rather to offer moral lessons on the supposed outcome of women's rule in their own society.

The Amazons were often characterized, for example, as the equivalents of giants and centaurs, enemies to be slain by Greek heroes. Their customs were presented not as those of a respectable society, but as the very antithesis of ordinary Greek practices.

Thus I would argue, the purpose of accounts of the Amazons for their male Greek recorders is didactic, to teach both male and female Greeks that all-female groups, formed by withdrawal from traditional society, are destructive and dangerous. Myths about the Amazons were used in arguments for the male dominated status quo, in which groups composed exclusively of either sex were not permitted to segregate themselves permanently from society. Bachofen was thus misled in his reliance on myths for information about the status of women. Social documents like gravestones, wills and marriage contracts will probably tell contemporary historians most about women in the ancient world. Studies of such documents have already began to show how mistaken we are when we try to derive our picture of the ancient world exclusively from literary sources especially myths.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about the myths recorded by the ancient Greeks?

I. They sometimes included portrayals of women holding positions of power.

II. They some times contained elaborate explanations of inheritance customs.

III. They comprised almost all of the material available to historians about ancient Greece.

In large part as a consequence of the feminist movement, historians have focused a great deal of attention in recent years on determining more accurately the status of women in various periods. Although much has been accomplished for the modern period, premodern cultures have proved more difficult: sources are restricted in number, fragmentary, difficult to interpret, and often contradictory. Thus it is not particularly surprising that some earlier scholarship concerning such cultures has so far gone unchallenged. An example is Johann Bachofen's 1861 treatise on Amazons, women-ruled societies of questionable existence contemporary with ancient Greece.

Starting from the premise that mythology and legend preserve at least a nucleus of historical art, Bachofen argued that women were dominant in many ancient societies. His work was based on a comprehensive survey of references in the ancient sources to Amazonian and other societies with matrilineal customs - societies in which descent and property rights are traced through the female line. Some support for his theory can be found in evidence such as that drawn from Herodotus, the Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., who speaks of an Amazonian society, the Sauromatae, where the women hunted and fought in wars. A woman in this society was not allowed to marry until she had killed a person in battle.

Nonetheless, this assumption that the first recorders of ancient myths have preserved facts is problematic.

If one begins by examining why ancients refer to Amazons, it becomes clear that ancient Greek descriptions of such societies were meant not so much to represent observed historical fact - real Amazonian societies - but rather to offer moral lessons on the supposed outcome of women's rule in their own society.

The Amazons were often characterized, for example, as the equivalents of giants and centaurs, enemies to be slain by Greek heroes. Their customs were presented not as those of a respectable society, but as the very antithesis of ordinary Greek practices.

Thus I would argue, the purpose of accounts of the Amazons for their male Greek recorders is didactic, to teach both male and female Greeks that all-female groups, formed by withdrawal from traditional society, are destructive and dangerous. Myths about the Amazons were used in arguments for the male dominated status quo, in which groups composed exclusively of either sex were not permitted to segregate themselves permanently from society. Bachofen was thus misled in his reliance on myths for information about the status of women. Social documents like gravestones, wills and marriage contracts will probably tell contemporary historians most about women in the ancient world. Studies of such documents have already began to show how mistaken we are when we try to derive our picture of the ancient world exclusively from literary sources especially myths.

Q. It can be inferred that the probable reactions of many males in ancient Greece to the idea of a society ruled by women could best be characterized as

In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.

The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.

In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.

Q. What issues, according to the passage, should form the basis for the Left to rise and be counted?

In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.

The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.

In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.

Q. Why have remedial measures been taken in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela?

In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.

The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.

In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.

Q. Hegemony means

In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.

The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.

In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.

Q. What do you feel is the political ideology of leaders like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales?

In the wake of the varying forms which the idea of the end of history has taken, the intellectual history of disillusionment and resignation has been countered with a Leftist framework. But, with almost 10 million nonwhite people in the EU, the rising number of impoverished masses in Brazil, or in South Asia, as well as the problems of health and illiteracy, the Left has a formidable task before it; issues concerning economic deprivation, the brutalisation of workers, increasing spending on nuclear enhancement and the need for all ethnic minorities to explicitly feature in a pluralistic vision needs to be the foundation of any reinvention of the Left.

The long drawn out economic and political tensions, for instance, in Latin America have moved the Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Evo Morales trio towards an international agenda for social reconstruction within which socialism does not need to be replaced but must be put forward as a programme to salvage a world from inequality and the abuse of power, especially the hegemony of the White House. They have together constructed a progressive alliance, insisting on a collective leadership that endorses the rich diversity of radical and socialist traditions.

In a drastically damaged world in which received political ideologies have been exhausted, anti-imperialist agenda and far-reaching remedies have been initiated in Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela to check the erratic play of market forces. Chavez has been particularly hard hitting through his move of cutting off oil supplies to the US and his unquestionable allegiance with Castro. He has not hesitated to build trade relations with China and to back Iran's nuclear ambitions. The dream of an anti-imperialist union has finally come true by the induction of Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Chile into the club headed by Castro and Chavez, and underpinned by the age-old vision for a strong Leftist opposition to the interventionist policies of the U.S. Inspired by great heroes like Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara, Chavez has been fighting for regional integration and a society that bases itself on the ideology of the new South American Left.

Q. What has Chavez been struggling for?

While the rhetoric of collective responsibility to achieve "ambitious outcomes" in terms of climate action to address the "climate emergency" stands questioned in the 25th Conference of Parties, the grim realities of the inequalities between countries and the evasion of responsibilities and commitments by the developed countries point towards the fundamental role and continued importance of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change that remains wider in its scope and broader in its vision than the Paris Agreement.

The developed countries are also seeking to manipulate the science policy interface in an attempt to sideline the equity and climate justice-related perspectives of the developing countries.

The 25th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the annual climate summit of the countries that are signatories to the Convention, recently concluded at Madrid in December 2019. Instead of being hailed as a milestone, almost universally, it has been held to be a failure. A remarkable range of opinions appears to concur on this view, from the United Nations Secretary General to a number of governments, including the European Union and some of the small island states, and a range of nongovernmental organizations, including some of the biggest international players.

Referring to the year-long wave of public action preceding COP25, especially by students and youth in the developed countries, this narrative of failure has held all countries responsible for the lack of "ambitious" outcomes adequate to dealing with the "climate emergency." While some accounts have justifiably noted the role of the United States in the overall outcome, others have also targeted Brazil, and China, and even India by innuendo. This narrative of collective responsibility for the outcome has dominated the global media too and has been uncritically echoed in the national media in countries like India.

But if COP25 was indeed the failure it is perhaps justifiably held to be, why indeed did it fail and what precisely was the anatomy of the failure? Despite the incessant rhetoric of "ambition" to face the "climate emergency," why indeed were the outcomes so meagre, and where does the responsibility lie?

Unfortunately, the understanding of the challenge of global warming has been made considerably more difficult by the widespread tendency to ignore the reality of the grossly unequal world in which we live. The UNFCCC recognizes this in its explicit articulation of the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities as the basis for climate action, and thus, calls on the developed countries to take the lead. However, all too often the argument is made that these principles and their implementation in the differentiation between developed and developing countries in climate action has somehow become outdated.

Q. Which of the following did not hail the 25th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a failure?