XAT Mock Test - 6 (New Pattern) - CAT MCQ

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Anthropology is the whole history of man as fired and pervaded by the idea of evolution. Man in evolution - that is the subject in its full reach. Anthropology studies man as he occurs at all known times. It studies him as he occurs in all known parts of the world. It studies him body and soul together - as a bodily organism, subject to conditions operating in time and space, which bodily organism is in intimate relation with a soul-life, also subject to those same conditions. Having an eye to such conditions from first to last, it seeks to plot out the general series of the changes, bodily and mental together, undergone by man in the course of his history. Its business is simply to describe. But, without exceeding the limits of its scope, it can and must proceed from the particular to the general; aiming at nothing less than a descriptive formula that shall sum up the whole series of changes in which the evolution of man consists.

That will do, perhaps, as a short account of the ideal scope of anthropology. Being short, it is bound to be rather formal and colourless. To put some body into it, however, it is necessary to breathe but a single word. That word is: Darwin.

Anthropology is the child of Darwin. Darwinism makes it possible. Reject the Darwinian point of view, and you must reject anthropology also. What, then, is Darwinism? Not a cut-and-dried doctrine. Not a dogma. Darwinism is a working hypothesis. You suppose something to be true, and work away to see whether, in the light of that supposed truth, certain facts fit together better than they do on any other supposition. What is the truth that Darwinism supposes? Simply that all the forms of life in the world are related together; and that the relations manifested in time and space between the different lives are sufficiently uniform to be described under a general formula, or law of evolution.

This means that man must, for certain purposes of science, toe the line with the rest of living things. And at first, naturally enough, man did not like it. He was too lordly. For a long time, therefore, he pretended to be fighting for the Bible, when he was really fighting for his own dignity. This was rather hard on the Bible, which has nothing to do with the Aristotelian theory of the fixity of species; though it might seem possible to read back something of the kind into the primitive creation-stories preserved in Genesis. Now-a-days, however, we have mostly got over the first shock to our family pride. We are all Darwinians in a passive kind of way. But we need to darwinize actively. In the sciences that have to do with plants, and with the rest of the animals besides man, naturalists have been so active in their darwinizing that the pre-Darwinian stuff is once for all laid by on the shelf. When man, however, engages on the subject of his noble self, the tendency still is to say: We accept Darwinism so long as it is not allowed to count, so long as we may go on believing the same old stuff in the same old way.

How do we anthropologists propose to combat this tendency? By working away at our subject, and persuading people to have a look at our results. Once people take up anthropology, they may be trusted not to drop it again. It is like learning to sleep with your window open. What could be more stupefying than to shut yourself up in a closet and swallow your own gas? But is it any less stupefying to shut yourself up within the last few thousand years of the history of your own corner of the world, and suck in the stale atmosphere of its own self-generated prejudices? Or, to vary the metaphor, anthropology is like travel. Everyone starts by thinking that there is nothing so perfect as his own parish. But let a man go aboard ship to visit foreign parts, and, when he returns home, he will cause that parish to wake up.

Which one of the following is correct as per the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Anthropology is the whole history of man as fired and pervaded by the idea of evolution. Man in evolution - that is the subject in its full reach. Anthropology studies man as he occurs at all known times. It studies him as he occurs in all known parts of the world. It studies him body and soul together - as a bodily organism, subject to conditions operating in time and space, which bodily organism is in intimate relation with a soul-life, also subject to those same conditions. Having an eye to such conditions from first to last, it seeks to plot out the general series of the changes, bodily and mental together, undergone by man in the course of his history. Its business is simply to describe. But, without exceeding the limits of its scope, it can and must proceed from the particular to the general; aiming at nothing less than a descriptive formula that shall sum up the whole series of changes in which the evolution of man consists.

That will do, perhaps, as a short account of the ideal scope of anthropology. Being short, it is bound to be rather formal and colourless. To put some body into it, however, it is necessary to breathe but a single word. That word is: Darwin.

Anthropology is the child of Darwin. Darwinism makes it possible. Reject the Darwinian point of view, and you must reject anthropology also. What, then, is Darwinism? Not a cut-and-dried doctrine. Not a dogma. Darwinism is a working hypothesis. You suppose something to be true, and work away to see whether, in the light of that supposed truth, certain facts fit together better than they do on any other supposition. What is the truth that Darwinism supposes? Simply that all the forms of life in the world are related together; and that the relations manifested in time and space between the different lives are sufficiently uniform to be described under a general formula, or law of evolution.

This means that man must, for certain purposes of science, toe the line with the rest of living things. And at first, naturally enough, man did not like it. He was too lordly. For a long time, therefore, he pretended to be fighting for the Bible, when he was really fighting for his own dignity. This was rather hard on the Bible, which has nothing to do with the Aristotelian theory of the fixity of species; though it might seem possible to read back something of the kind into the primitive creation-stories preserved in Genesis. Now-a-days, however, we have mostly got over the first shock to our family pride. We are all Darwinians in a passive kind of way. But we need to darwinize actively. In the sciences that have to do with plants, and with the rest of the animals besides man, naturalists have been so active in their darwinizing that the pre-Darwinian stuff is once for all laid by on the shelf. When man, however, engages on the subject of his noble self, the tendency still is to say: We accept Darwinism so long as it is not allowed to count, so long as we may go on believing the same old stuff in the same old way.

How do we anthropologists propose to combat this tendency? By working away at our subject, and persuading people to have a look at our results. Once people take up anthropology, they may be trusted not to drop it again. It is like learning to sleep with your window open. What could be more stupefying than to shut yourself up in a closet and swallow your own gas? But is it any less stupefying to shut yourself up within the last few thousand years of the history of your own corner of the world, and suck in the stale atmosphere of its own self-generated prejudices? Or, to vary the metaphor, anthropology is like travel. Everyone starts by thinking that there is nothing so perfect as his own parish. But let a man go aboard ship to visit foreign parts, and, when he returns home, he will cause that parish to wake up.

Which of the following is NOT true according to the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Anthropology is the whole history of man as fired and pervaded by the idea of evolution. Man in evolution - that is the subject in its full reach. Anthropology studies man as he occurs at all known times. It studies him as he occurs in all known parts of the world. It studies him body and soul together - as a bodily organism, subject to conditions operating in time and space, which bodily organism is in intimate relation with a soul-life, also subject to those same conditions. Having an eye to such conditions from first to last, it seeks to plot out the general series of the changes, bodily and mental together, undergone by man in the course of his history. Its business is simply to describe. But, without exceeding the limits of its scope, it can and must proceed from the particular to the general; aiming at nothing less than a descriptive formula that shall sum up the whole series of changes in which the evolution of man consists.

That will do, perhaps, as a short account of the ideal scope of anthropology. Being short, it is bound to be rather formal and colourless. To put some body into it, however, it is necessary to breathe but a single word. That word is: Darwin.

Anthropology is the child of Darwin. Darwinism makes it possible. Reject the Darwinian point of view, and you must reject anthropology also. What, then, is Darwinism? Not a cut-and-dried doctrine. Not a dogma. Darwinism is a working hypothesis. You suppose something to be true, and work away to see whether, in the light of that supposed truth, certain facts fit together better than they do on any other supposition. What is the truth that Darwinism supposes? Simply that all the forms of life in the world are related together; and that the relations manifested in time and space between the different lives are sufficiently uniform to be described under a general formula, or law of evolution.

This means that man must, for certain purposes of science, toe the line with the rest of living things. And at first, naturally enough, man did not like it. He was too lordly. For a long time, therefore, he pretended to be fighting for the Bible, when he was really fighting for his own dignity. This was rather hard on the Bible, which has nothing to do with the Aristotelian theory of the fixity of species; though it might seem possible to read back something of the kind into the primitive creation-stories preserved in Genesis. Now-a-days, however, we have mostly got over the first shock to our family pride. We are all Darwinians in a passive kind of way. But we need to darwinize actively. In the sciences that have to do with plants, and with the rest of the animals besides man, naturalists have been so active in their darwinizing that the pre-Darwinian stuff is once for all laid by on the shelf. When man, however, engages on the subject of his noble self, the tendency still is to say: We accept Darwinism so long as it is not allowed to count, so long as we may go on believing the same old stuff in the same old way.

How do we anthropologists propose to combat this tendency? By working away at our subject, and persuading people to have a look at our results. Once people take up anthropology, they may be trusted not to drop it again. It is like learning to sleep with your window open. What could be more stupefying than to shut yourself up in a closet and swallow your own gas? But is it any less stupefying to shut yourself up within the last few thousand years of the history of your own corner of the world, and suck in the stale atmosphere of its own self-generated prejudices? Or, to vary the metaphor, anthropology is like travel. Everyone starts by thinking that there is nothing so perfect as his own parish. But let a man go aboard ship to visit foreign parts, and, when he returns home, he will cause that parish to wake up.

Why, according to the passage, was Darwinism opposed by man in the beginning?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle from the larder of the Home of the Street Sweepers. We shall be sentenced to ten years in the Palace of Corrective Detention if it be discovered. But this matters not. It matters only that the light is precious and we should not waste it to write when we need it for that work which is our crime. Nothing matters save the work, our secret, our evil, our precious work. Still, we must also write, for - may the Council have mercy upon us! - we wish to speak for once to no ears but our own. Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body. We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.

In the given passage, the author repeatedly uses the plural pronoun 'we' to refer to his own singular person. Why does he do so?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle from the larder of the Home of the Street Sweepers. We shall be sentenced to ten years in the Palace of Corrective Detention if it be discovered. But this matters not. It matters only that the light is precious and we should not waste it to write when we need it for that work which is our crime. Nothing matters save the work, our secret, our evil, our precious work. Still, we must also write, for - may the Council have mercy upon us! - we wish to speak for once to no ears but our own. Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body. We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.

It can be inferred from the passage the punishments given to people who dissent the laws of the land described in the passage are generally:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle from the larder of the Home of the Street Sweepers. We shall be sentenced to ten years in the Palace of Corrective Detention if it be discovered. But this matters not. It matters only that the light is precious and we should not waste it to write when we need it for that work which is our crime. Nothing matters save the work, our secret, our evil, our precious work. Still, we must also write, for - may the Council have mercy upon us! - we wish to speak for once to no ears but our own. Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body. We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.

When the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to the author that his body had grown beyond the bodies of his brothers, they meant to point out:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle from the larder of the Home of the Street Sweepers. We shall be sentenced to ten years in the Palace of Corrective Detention if it be discovered. But this matters not. It matters only that the light is precious and we should not waste it to write when we need it for that work which is our crime. Nothing matters save the work, our secret, our evil, our precious work. Still, we must also write, for - may the Council have mercy upon us! - we wish to speak for once to no ears but our own. Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body. We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.

The world described in the passage is a world which is:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle from the larder of the Home of the Street Sweepers. We shall be sentenced to ten years in the Palace of Corrective Detention if it be discovered. But this matters not. It matters only that the light is precious and we should not waste it to write when we need it for that work which is our crime. Nothing matters save the work, our secret, our evil, our precious work. Still, we must also write, for - may the Council have mercy upon us! - we wish to speak for once to no ears but our own. Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body. We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.

Why does the author believe that it is a sin to write what he has been writing?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see. It is base and evil. It is as if we were speaking alone to no ears but our own. And we know well that there is no transgression blacker than to do or think alone. We have broken the laws. The laws say that men may not write unless the Council of Vocations bid them so. May we be forgiven!

But this is not the only sin upon us. We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name. What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for it.

It is dark here. The flame of the candle stands still in the air. Nothing moves in this tunnel save our hand on the paper. We are alone here under the earth. It is a fearful word, alone. The laws say that none among men may be alone, ever and at any time, for this is the great transgression and the root of all evil. But we have broken many laws. And now there is nothing here save our one body, and it is strange to see only two legs stretched on the ground, and on the wall before us the shadow of our one head. The walls are cracked and water runs upon them in thin threads without sound, black and glistening as blood. We stole the candle from the larder of the Home of the Street Sweepers. We shall be sentenced to ten years in the Palace of Corrective Detention if it be discovered. But this matters not. It matters only that the light is precious and we should not waste it to write when we need it for that work which is our crime. Nothing matters save the work, our secret, our evil, our precious work. Still, we must also write, for - may the Council have mercy upon us! - we wish to speak for once to no ears but our own. Our name is Equality 7-2521, as it is written on the iron bracelet which all men wear on their left wrists with their names upon it. We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said: "There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers." But we cannot change our bones nor our body. We were born with a curse. It has always driven us to thoughts which are forbidden. It has always given us wishes which men may not wish. We know that we are evil, but there is no will in us and no power to resist it. This is our wonder and our secret fear, that we know and do not resist.

It can be inferred from the passage that:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Left to their own devices, relations between Japan and China are bound to improve. Both economies need each other. China is Japan's single largest trading partner and bilateral trade hit a record $345bn last year. But things in the East China Sea are rarely left to their own devices. A move by the Japanese government to defuse an attempt by nationalists to buy disputed islands in fish- and gas-rich seas, by buying them itself, has led to six days of demonstrations in China. Japanese cars and car dealerships have been attacked, factories have been torched or broken into. Hundreds of Japanese companies and offices have been forced to suspend operation. And the biggest wave of protest since the two countries normalised relations in 1972 - there were demonstrations in 70 Chinese cities - is not over yet.

Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is - in Chinese eyes - nothing short of provocation. As 1,000 fishing boats were on their way to the islands the Chinese know as Diaoyu and the Japanese call the Senkaku, the People's Daily warned on Monday that the incident could lead to a full-blown trade boycott.

Below the surface, the politics of these mass demonstrations are a good deal more complex. They are undoubtedly officially sanctioned and serve as a useful outlet for popular rage. But whether the protests are more than just diversionary, whether they are an expression of some crisis going on in the transfer of power from one generation of leaders to another, cannot be said with any confidence. It is therefore hard to predict with any accuracy just how far China will take this. Thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic. Three Chinese marine surveillance ships entered Japan's territorial waters but withdrew again afterwards, and no landings were attempted.

In Japan, which is facing its own general election soon, there is a good deal of anxiety. On the one hand, history teaches them that similar anti-Japanese protests in China in 2005 and 2010 were short-lived. On the other, the current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, who is unpopular over tax increases, faces his own pressures from those who say Japan should be more forceful in defending its territorial rights. One of those is the son of the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, whose plan to buy the islands in April led to the crisis. Nobuteru Ishihara is one of five candidates for the leadership of the opposition Liberal Democratic party. What both Japan and China lack is a functional mechanism for dealing with these incidents. It is high time one was created.

It can be inferred that the purpose of the having two names for the same set of islands is:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Left to their own devices, relations between Japan and China are bound to improve. Both economies need each other. China is Japan's single largest trading partner and bilateral trade hit a record $345bn last year. But things in the East China Sea are rarely left to their own devices. A move by the Japanese government to defuse an attempt by nationalists to buy disputed islands in fish- and gas-rich seas, by buying them itself, has led to six days of demonstrations in China. Japanese cars and car dealerships have been attacked, factories have been torched or broken into. Hundreds of Japanese companies and offices have been forced to suspend operation. And the biggest wave of protest since the two countries normalised relations in 1972 - there were demonstrations in 70 Chinese cities - is not over yet.

Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is - in Chinese eyes - nothing short of provocation. As 1,000 fishing boats were on their way to the islands the Chinese know as Diaoyu and the Japanese call the Senkaku, the People's Daily warned on Monday that the incident could lead to a full-blown trade boycott.

Below the surface, the politics of these mass demonstrations are a good deal more complex. They are undoubtedly officially sanctioned and serve as a useful outlet for popular rage. But whether the protests are more than just diversionary, whether they are an expression of some crisis going on in the transfer of power from one generation of leaders to another, cannot be said with any confidence. It is therefore hard to predict with any accuracy just how far China will take this. Thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic. Three Chinese marine surveillance ships entered Japan's territorial waters but withdrew again afterwards, and no landings were attempted.

In Japan, which is facing its own general election soon, there is a good deal of anxiety. On the one hand, history teaches them that similar anti-Japanese protests in China in 2005 and 2010 were short-lived. On the other, the current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, who is unpopular over tax increases, faces his own pressures from those who say Japan should be more forceful in defending its territorial rights. One of those is the son of the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, whose plan to buy the islands in April led to the crisis. Nobuteru Ishihara is one of five candidates for the leadership of the opposition Liberal Democratic party. What both Japan and China lack is a functional mechanism for dealing with these incidents. It is high time one was created.

The most apt title for the passage is:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Left to their own devices, relations between Japan and China are bound to improve. Both economies need each other. China is Japan's single largest trading partner and bilateral trade hit a record $345bn last year. But things in the East China Sea are rarely left to their own devices. A move by the Japanese government to defuse an attempt by nationalists to buy disputed islands in fish- and gas-rich seas, by buying them itself, has led to six days of demonstrations in China. Japanese cars and car dealerships have been attacked, factories have been torched or broken into. Hundreds of Japanese companies and offices have been forced to suspend operation. And the biggest wave of protest since the two countries normalised relations in 1972 - there were demonstrations in 70 Chinese cities - is not over yet.

Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is - in Chinese eyes - nothing short of provocation. As 1,000 fishing boats were on their way to the islands the Chinese know as Diaoyu and the Japanese call the Senkaku, the People's Daily warned on Monday that the incident could lead to a full-blown trade boycott.

Below the surface, the politics of these mass demonstrations are a good deal more complex. They are undoubtedly officially sanctioned and serve as a useful outlet for popular rage. But whether the protests are more than just diversionary, whether they are an expression of some crisis going on in the transfer of power from one generation of leaders to another, cannot be said with any confidence. It is therefore hard to predict with any accuracy just how far China will take this. Thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic. Three Chinese marine surveillance ships entered Japan's territorial waters but withdrew again afterwards, and no landings were attempted.

In Japan, which is facing its own general election soon, there is a good deal of anxiety. On the one hand, history teaches them that similar anti-Japanese protests in China in 2005 and 2010 were short-lived. On the other, the current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, who is unpopular over tax increases, faces his own pressures from those who say Japan should be more forceful in defending its territorial rights. One of those is the son of the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, whose plan to buy the islands in April led to the crisis. Nobuteru Ishihara is one of five candidates for the leadership of the opposition Liberal Democratic party. What both Japan and China lack is a functional mechanism for dealing with these incidents. It is high time one was created.

It can be inferred from the passage that:

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Left to their own devices, relations between Japan and China are bound to improve. Both economies need each other. China is Japan's single largest trading partner and bilateral trade hit a record $345bn last year. But things in the East China Sea are rarely left to their own devices. A move by the Japanese government to defuse an attempt by nationalists to buy disputed islands in fish- and gas-rich seas, by buying them itself, has led to six days of demonstrations in China. Japanese cars and car dealerships have been attacked, factories have been torched or broken into. Hundreds of Japanese companies and offices have been forced to suspend operation. And the biggest wave of protest since the two countries normalised relations in 1972 - there were demonstrations in 70 Chinese cities - is not over yet.

Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is - in Chinese eyes - nothing short of provocation. As 1,000 fishing boats were on their way to the islands the Chinese know as Diaoyu and the Japanese call the Senkaku, the People's Daily warned on Monday that the incident could lead to a full-blown trade boycott.

Below the surface, the politics of these mass demonstrations are a good deal more complex. They are undoubtedly officially sanctioned and serve as a useful outlet for popular rage. But whether the protests are more than just diversionary, whether they are an expression of some crisis going on in the transfer of power from one generation of leaders to another, cannot be said with any confidence. It is therefore hard to predict with any accuracy just how far China will take this. Thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic. Three Chinese marine surveillance ships entered Japan's territorial waters but withdrew again afterwards, and no landings were attempted.

In Japan, which is facing its own general election soon, there is a good deal of anxiety. On the one hand, history teaches them that similar anti-Japanese protests in China in 2005 and 2010 were short-lived. On the other, the current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, who is unpopular over tax increases, faces his own pressures from those who say Japan should be more forceful in defending its territorial rights. One of those is the son of the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, whose plan to buy the islands in April led to the crisis. Nobuteru Ishihara is one of five candidates for the leadership of the opposition Liberal Democratic party. What both Japan and China lack is a functional mechanism for dealing with these incidents. It is high time one was created.

What does the author means when he says ''thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic.'?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Left to their own devices, relations between Japan and China are bound to improve. Both economies need each other. China is Japan's single largest trading partner and bilateral trade hit a record $345bn last year. But things in the East China Sea are rarely left to their own devices. A move by the Japanese government to defuse an attempt by nationalists to buy disputed islands in fish- and gas-rich seas, by buying them itself, has led to six days of demonstrations in China. Japanese cars and car dealerships have been attacked, factories have been torched or broken into. Hundreds of Japanese companies and offices have been forced to suspend operation. And the biggest wave of protest since the two countries normalised relations in 1972 - there were demonstrations in 70 Chinese cities - is not over yet.

Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is - in Chinese eyes - nothing short of provocation. As 1,000 fishing boats were on their way to the islands the Chinese know as Diaoyu and the Japanese call the Senkaku, the People's Daily warned on Monday that the incident could lead to a full-blown trade boycott.

Below the surface, the politics of these mass demonstrations are a good deal more complex. They are undoubtedly officially sanctioned and serve as a useful outlet for popular rage. But whether the protests are more than just diversionary, whether they are an expression of some crisis going on in the transfer of power from one generation of leaders to another, cannot be said with any confidence. It is therefore hard to predict with any accuracy just how far China will take this. Thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic. Three Chinese marine surveillance ships entered Japan's territorial waters but withdrew again afterwards, and no landings were attempted.

In Japan, which is facing its own general election soon, there is a good deal of anxiety. On the one hand, history teaches them that similar anti-Japanese protests in China in 2005 and 2010 were short-lived. On the other, the current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, who is unpopular over tax increases, faces his own pressures from those who say Japan should be more forceful in defending its territorial rights. One of those is the son of the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, whose plan to buy the islands in April led to the crisis. Nobuteru Ishihara is one of five candidates for the leadership of the opposition Liberal Democratic party. What both Japan and China lack is a functional mechanism for dealing with these incidents. It is high time one was created.

Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions.

Left to their own devices, relations between Japan and China are bound to improve. Both economies need each other. China is Japan's single largest trading partner and bilateral trade hit a record $345bn last year. But things in the East China Sea are rarely left to their own devices. A move by the Japanese government to defuse an attempt by nationalists to buy disputed islands in fish- and gas-rich seas, by buying them itself, has led to six days of demonstrations in China. Japanese cars and car dealerships have been attacked, factories have been torched or broken into. Hundreds of Japanese companies and offices have been forced to suspend operation. And the biggest wave of protest since the two countries normalised relations in 1972 - there were demonstrations in 70 Chinese cities - is not over yet.

Tuesday is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on China in 1931 that led to the invasion and occupation lasting 14 years. That Japan should use this date above all others to reassert its sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islands is - in Chinese eyes - nothing short of provocation. As 1,000 fishing boats were on their way to the islands the Chinese know as Diaoyu and the Japanese call the Senkaku, the People's Daily warned on Monday that the incident could lead to a full-blown trade boycott.

Below the surface, the politics of these mass demonstrations are a good deal more complex. They are undoubtedly officially sanctioned and serve as a useful outlet for popular rage. But whether the protests are more than just diversionary, whether they are an expression of some crisis going on in the transfer of power from one generation of leaders to another, cannot be said with any confidence. It is therefore hard to predict with any accuracy just how far China will take this. Thus far, the flag-waving on the high seas has been ritualistic. Three Chinese marine surveillance ships entered Japan's territorial waters but withdrew again afterwards, and no landings were attempted.

In Japan, which is facing its own general election soon, there is a good deal of anxiety. On the one hand, history teaches them that similar anti-Japanese protests in China in 2005 and 2010 were short-lived. On the other, the current prime minister, Yoshihiko Noda, who is unpopular over tax increases, faces his own pressures from those who say Japan should be more forceful in defending its territorial rights. One of those is the son of the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, whose plan to buy the islands in April led to the crisis. Nobuteru Ishihara is one of five candidates for the leadership of the opposition Liberal Democratic party. What both Japan and China lack is a functional mechanism for dealing with these incidents. It is high time one was created.

What is the primary purpose of the passage?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice.

Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and greater distinction, for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king had enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs had a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR'S is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

In the given passage, the primary purpose of the author of the passage is to:

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice.

Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and greater distinction, for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king had enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs had a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR'S is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

The author of the passage clearly implies all of the above except:

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for, and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice.

Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE, but seldom or never the MEANS of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.

But there is another and greater distinction, for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth inquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king had enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs had a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.

Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!

As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by kings. All anti-monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly glossed over in monarchical governments, but they undoubtedly merit the attention of countries which have their governments yet to form. RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS WHICH ARE CAESAR'S is the scripture doctrine of courts, yet it is no support of monarchical government, for the Jews at that time were without a king, and in a state of vassalage to the Romans.

What does the author mean when he says 'Antiquity favours the same remark'?

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions with the most appropriate choice.

Elected officials may have more power to shape public opinion than they realize. Two political scientists, David Broockman of the University of California, Berkeley, and Daniel Butler of Washington University in St. Louis, tested this in a series of experiments in how citizens reacted to issue-oriented letters from lawmakers.

The two academics secured the agreement of eight Democratic state legislators from an unidentified Midwestern state to conduct two experiments using official letters sent from the lawmakers to their constituents and verifying the recipients' opinions before and after the letters using surveys. The results show that in both cases lawmakers who took positions opposed by their constituents, even on contested political topics, suffered no penalty for doing so, and even helped build support for those policies as constituents adopted them.

This suggests that, at least at the state legislative level, elected officials holding back from communicating their stances on controversial issues might be better off making their views known. "We don't know the full effects, but this points to the ability to help build support for policies they care about," Mr. Butler said of lawmakers in an interview.

In the first experiment, a single state legislator sent some constituents a letter taking a stance on an issue that the recipient had not agreed with during the initial survey, while other constituents got no letter. The issue was one of four covering regulation of mining in the lawmaker's district, government funding of school vouchers, a reduction in state income tax and permitting school districts to raise property taxes.

More than half the constituents who got a letter recalled receiving mail from their representative in the follow-up survey, but there was no backlash against the lawmaker for taking an opposing stance, the researchers found. Just the act of receiving a personal letter from an elected official might have affected how a constituent viewed the sender, so the researchers designed a second experiment.

They expanded the pool to seven state legislators. Again, letters expressing a policy position were sent to some constituents who disagreed with that stance, while others got a standard letter that did not express any policy positions. The researchers added an additional factor: Some of the policy letters included extensive justifications for taking the stance, while others had only a brief explanation. The letters, which did not mention the partisan affiliation of the sender, also covered a broader range of subjects, from the minimum wage to marijuana legalization to government-sponsored pensions.

Again, the researchers found that constituents did not think less of their representatives when they voiced opposite view; in some cases, a constituent's opinion of the lawmaker improved and he or she embraced the policy. The length of lawmakers' arguments had very little effect. "Legislators appeared able to move constituents' opinions by stating their own positions with minimal justification; adding additional arguments did not make them more persuasive," the researchers said.

The primary purpose of the passage is: