Languages: Mock Test - 2 - CUET MCQ

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?

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. Why did the French fans gather to welcome their team despite its defeat in World Cup 2006?

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. Choose the most appropriate title for the given passage:

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. What does the word 'tarnished' mean in the context of the passage?

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. Which of the following is incorrect with respect to the passage?

1. Zidane was excluded from the football team before the final match got over.

2. France mourned over a not-so-glorious end of Zidane's career.

3. Italy has lost a match against France.

4. Italy triumphed over France twice in World Cup 2006

The hardest substance in the human body is the white enamel of the teeth. With age, it wears away nonetheless, allowing the softer, darker layers underneath to show through. Meanwhile, the blood supply to the pulp and the roots of the teeth atrophies, and the flow of saliva diminishes; the gums tend to become inflamed and pull away from the teeth, exposing the base, making them unstable and elongating their appearance, especially the lower ones. Experts say they can gauge a person's age to within five years from the examination of a single tooth if the person has any teeth left to examine.

Scrupulous dental care can help avert tooth loss, but growing old gets in the way. Arthritis, tremors, and small strokes, for example, make it difficult to brush and floss, and, because nerves become less sensitive with age, people may not realize that they have cavity and gum problems until it's too late. In the course of a normal lifetime, the muscles of the jaw lose about forty per cent of their mass and the bones of the mandible lose about twenty per cent, becoming porous and weak. The ability to chew declines, and people shift to softer foods, which are generally higher in fermentable carbohydrates and more likely to cause cavities. By the age of sixty, Americans have lost, on average, a third of their teeth.

After eighty-five, almost forty per cent have no teeth at all.

Even as our bones and teeth soften, the rest of our body hardens. Blood vessels, joints, the muscle and valves of the heart, and even the lungs pick up substantial deposits of calcium and turn stiff. Under a microscope, the vessels and soft tissues display the same form of calcium that you find in bone. When you reach inside an elderly patient during surgery, the aorta and other major vessels often feel crunchy under your fingers. A recent study has found that loss of bone density may be an even better predictor of death from atherosclerotic disease than cholesterol levels. As we age, it's as if the calcium flows out of our skeletons and into our tissues.

To maintain the same volume of blood flow through narrowed and stiffened blood vessels, the heart has to generate increased pressure. As a result, more than half of us develop hypertension by the age of sixty-five. The heart becomes thicker-walled from having to pump against the pressure, and less able to respond to the demands of exertion. The peak output of the heart decreases steadily from the age of thirty. People become gradually less able to run as far or as fast as they used to, or to climb a flight of stairs without becoming short of breath.

Q. The passage is most likely an extract from.

The hardest substance in the human body is the white enamel of the teeth. With age, it wears away nonetheless, allowing the softer, darker layers underneath to show through. Meanwhile, the blood supply to the pulp and the roots of the teeth atrophies, and the flow of saliva diminishes; the gums tend to become inflamed and pull away from the teeth, exposing the base, making them unstable and elongating their appearance, especially the lower ones. Experts say they can gauge a person's age to within five years from the examination of a single tooth if the person has any teeth left to examine.

Scrupulous dental care can help avert tooth loss, but growing old gets in the way. Arthritis, tremors, and small strokes, for example, make it difficult to brush and floss, and, because nerves become less sensitive with age, people may not realize that they have cavity and gum problems until it's too late. In the course of a normal lifetime, the muscles of the jaw lose about forty per cent of their mass and the bones of the mandible lose about twenty per cent, becoming porous and weak. The ability to chew declines, and people shift to softer foods, which are generally higher in fermentable carbohydrates and more likely to cause cavities. By the age of sixty, Americans have lost, on average, a third of their teeth.

After eighty-five, almost forty per cent have no teeth at all.

Even as our bones and teeth soften, the rest of our body hardens. Blood vessels, joints, the muscle and valves of the heart, and even the lungs pick up substantial deposits of calcium and turn stiff. Under a microscope, the vessels and soft tissues display the same form of calcium that you find in bone. When you reach inside an elderly patient during surgery, the aorta and other major vessels often feel crunchy under your fingers. A recent study has found that loss of bone density may be an even better predictor of death from atherosclerotic disease than cholesterol levels. As we age, it's as if the calcium flows out of our skeletons and into our tissues.

To maintain the same volume of blood flow through narrowed and stiffened blood vessels, the heart has to generate increased pressure. As a result, more than half of us develop hypertension by the age of sixty-five. The heart becomes thicker-walled from having to pump against the pressure, and less able to respond to the demands of exertion. The peak output of the heart decreases steadily from the age of thirty. People become gradually less able to run as far or as fast as they used to, or to climb a flight of stairs without becoming short of breath.

Q. Which of the following example will find resonance in what the author says?

The hardest substance in the human body is the white enamel of the teeth. With age, it wears away nonetheless, allowing the softer, darker layers underneath to show through. Meanwhile, the blood supply to the pulp and the roots of the teeth atrophies, and the flow of saliva diminishes; the gums tend to become inflamed and pull away from the teeth, exposing the base, making them unstable and elongating their appearance, especially the lower ones. Experts say they can gauge a person's age to within five years from the examination of a single tooth if the person has any teeth left to examine.

Scrupulous dental care can help avert tooth loss, but growing old gets in the way. Arthritis, tremors, and small strokes, for example, make it difficult to brush and floss, and, because nerves become less sensitive with age, people may not realize that they have cavity and gum problems until it's too late. In the course of a normal lifetime, the muscles of the jaw lose about forty per cent of their mass and the bones of the mandible lose about twenty per cent, becoming porous and weak. The ability to chew declines, and people shift to softer foods, which are generally higher in fermentable carbohydrates and more likely to cause cavities. By the age of sixty, Americans have lost, on average, a third of their teeth.

After eighty-five, almost forty per cent have no teeth at all.

Even as our bones and teeth soften, the rest of our body hardens. Blood vessels, joints, the muscle and valves of the heart, and even the lungs pick up substantial deposits of calcium and turn stiff. Under a microscope, the vessels and soft tissues display the same form of calcium that you find in bone. When you reach inside an elderly patient during surgery, the aorta and other major vessels often feel crunchy under your fingers. A recent study has found that loss of bone density may be an even better predictor of death from atherosclerotic disease than cholesterol levels. As we age, it's as if the calcium flows out of our skeletons and into our tissues.

To maintain the same volume of blood flow through narrowed and stiffened blood vessels, the heart has to generate increased pressure. As a result, more than half of us develop hypertension by the age of sixty-five. The heart becomes thicker-walled from having to pump against the pressure, and less able to respond to the demands of exertion. The peak output of the heart decreases steadily from the age of thirty. People become gradually less able to run as far or as fast as they used to, or to climb a flight of stairs without becoming short of breath.

Q. Which of the following statement is definitely false?

The hardest substance in the human body is the white enamel of the teeth. With age, it wears away nonetheless, allowing the softer, darker layers underneath to show through. Meanwhile, the blood supply to the pulp and the roots of the teeth atrophies, and the flow of saliva diminishes; the gums tend to become inflamed and pull away from the teeth, exposing the base, making them unstable and elongating their appearance, especially the lower ones. Experts say they can gauge a person's age to within five years from the examination of a single tooth if the person has any teeth left to examine.

Scrupulous dental care can help avert tooth loss, but growing old gets in the way. Arthritis, tremors, and small strokes, for example, make it difficult to brush and floss, and, because nerves become less sensitive with age, people may not realize that they have cavity and gum problems until it's too late. In the course of a normal lifetime, the muscles of the jaw lose about forty per cent of their mass and the bones of the mandible lose about twenty per cent, becoming porous and weak. The ability to chew declines, and people shift to softer foods, which are generally higher in fermentable carbohydrates and more likely to cause cavities. By the age of sixty, Americans have lost, on average, a third of their teeth.

After eighty-five, almost forty per cent have no teeth at all.

Even as our bones and teeth soften, the rest of our body hardens. Blood vessels, joints, the muscle and valves of the heart, and even the lungs pick up substantial deposits of calcium and turn stiff. Under a microscope, the vessels and soft tissues display the same form of calcium that you find in bone. When you reach inside an elderly patient during surgery, the aorta and other major vessels often feel crunchy under your fingers. A recent study has found that loss of bone density may be an even better predictor of death from atherosclerotic disease than cholesterol levels. As we age, it's as if the calcium flows out of our skeletons and into our tissues.

To maintain the same volume of blood flow through narrowed and stiffened blood vessels, the heart has to generate increased pressure. As a result, more than half of us develop hypertension by the age of sixty-five. The heart becomes thicker-walled from having to pump against the pressure, and less able to respond to the demands of exertion. The peak output of the heart decreases steadily from the age of thirty. People become gradually less able to run as far or as fast as they used to, or to climb a flight of stairs without becoming short of breath.

Q. What could be the purpose of writing the above passage?

Images are the core of society today; they have become the means of massive communication and, therefore, the essence of daily life. Humans have become homus photographicus. Almost every person has a camera, whether it is in a cellphone, iPad, tablet, point and shoot or any other device. People have learned to express emotions, ideas and concepts through images regardless of its complexity. Photos may be digital images but not every image is a photograph. In general, the image is defined as a figure, the representation of something. That is, the copy of an object, a mental representation is subject to cognition and interpretation.

The material images, under their production scheme, are prone to depict the world on a canvas, the medium determines how people look, read, sing and tell stories.

Additionally, the narratives are considered to be truthful because, in order to photograph an object, it has to exist; it has a referent, contrary to painting, where the artist may create chimeras based on imagination. Nonetheless, the veracity of a picture may be questioned since it could be staged or transformed into something else, even something that is not as it appears in reality. For example, a portrait may be an idealistic version of a person, an alter ego or simply not the subject as known in daily life. To illustrate further, the case of Hippolyte Bayard becomes interesting to mention. In 1840, Bayard photographed himself as a drowned man, and people who saw the picture believed it was real. At the time, these images were believed to be real because a mechanic device, a camera, had taken them. In this way, Bayard created an alternative reality, where he was found dead.

Q. What is the most important message conveyed by the passage?

Images are the core of society today; they have become the means of massive communication and, therefore, the essence of daily life. Humans have become homus photographicus. Almost every person has a camera, whether it is in a cellphone, iPad, tablet, point and shoot or any other device. People have learned to express emotions, ideas and concepts through images regardless of its complexity. Photos may be digital images but not every image is a photograph. In general, the image is defined as a figure, the representation of something. That is, the copy of an object, a mental representation is subject to cognition and interpretation.

The material images, under their production scheme, are prone to depict the world on a canvas, the medium determines how people look, read, sing and tell stories.

Additionally, the narratives are considered to be truthful because, in order to photograph an object, it has to exist; it has a referent, contrary to painting, where the artist may create chimeras based on imagination. Nonetheless, the veracity of a picture may be questioned since it could be staged or transformed into something else, even something that is not as it appears in reality. For example, a portrait may be an idealistic version of a person, an alter ego or simply not the subject as known in daily life. To illustrate further, the case of Hippolyte Bayard becomes interesting to mention. In 1840, Bayard photographed himself as a drowned man, and people who saw the picture believed it was real. At the time, these images were believed to be real because a mechanic device, a camera, had taken them. In this way, Bayard created an alternative reality, where he was found dead.

Q. As per the passage, which of the following can possibly be a limitation of a photographic image?