CAT Practice Test - 28 - CAT MCQ

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Even in our globalizing world, the question as to whether “human rights” is an essentially Western concept, which ignores the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the South, persists. Can the values of a consumer society be applied to societies with nothing to consume? At the risk of sounding frivolous: when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The fact is that a number of serious objections exist to the concept of universal human rights, which its defenders need to acknowledge-honestly-if only to refute them. The first objection argues that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions; there is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. Some philosophers object that the concept of human rights is founded on an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state, imbued, as it were, with the right to be left alone. Whereas non-Western societies often espouse a communitarian ethic that sees society as more than the sum of its individual members, and considers duties to be more important than rights.

Then there is the usual North/South argument, with “human rights” cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world. Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many. Others object to specific rights which they say reflect Western cultural bias, the most troublesome here being the women’s rights. How can women’s rights be universal when, in some societies, marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages, and when the permissible behavior of women is central to a societys perception of familial honor? In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on the transcendent values of their faith and are thus sanctioned by God. There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives. How to respond to these objections? Concepts of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppressive rule and participation in community affairs are found in every society; and the challenge facing human rights advocates, rather than throw up their hands at the impossibility of universalism, is to identify the common denominators. These objections reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramountcy of society. Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture whenever it suits them. Besides, which country can claim to be following its pure “traditional culture”? You cannot follow the model of a “modern” nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state’s human rights conduct. There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. Culture constantly evolves in any living society, responding to both internal and external stimuli, and much in every culture societies outgrow and reject. Let us concede that child marriage, female circumcision and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies; but let us also ask the victims of these practices about how they feel. Where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.

As for religion, every religion embodies certain verities that are applicable to all mankind-justice, truth, mercy, compassion and men often allow God to be blamed for their own sins. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, the problem is not with the faith, but with the faithful. As for the suspending human rights in the interests of development: authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change. Though there may be cases where authoritarian societies had success in achieving economic growth, but Botswana, an exemplar of African democracy, has grown faster than most authoritarian states. A number of developing countries-notably India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama played an active and influential part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by developing countries, so it is hardly fair to suggest they have been imposed on them. When one hears of the unsuitability or ethnocentricism of human rights, what are these human rights that someone in a developing country can do without? The right to life? Freedom from torture? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned or executed? No one actually advocates the abridgement of any of these rights. Objections to the applicability of human rights standards are all too frequently voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize violations that sustain them in power. Just as the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, Third World communitarianism can be the slogan of a deracinated tyrant trained, as in the case of Pol Pot, at the Sorbonne. The authentic voices of the South know how to cry out in pain. Those are the voices that must be heeded.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred to be the African or Asian approach to human rights?

Even in our globalizing world, the question as to whether “human rights” is an essentially Western concept, which ignores the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the South, persists. Can the values of a consumer society be applied to societies with nothing to consume? At the risk of sounding frivolous: when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The fact is that a number of serious objections exist to the concept of universal human rights, which its defenders need to acknowledge-honestly-if only to refute them. The first objection argues that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions; there is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. Some philosophers object that the concept of human rights is founded on an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state, imbued, as it were, with the right to be left alone. Whereas non-Western societies often espouse a communitarian ethic that sees society as more than the sum of its individual members, and considers duties to be more important than rights.

Then there is the usual North/South argument, with “human rights” cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world. Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many. Others object to specific rights which they say reflect Western cultural bias, the most troublesome here being the women’s rights. How can women’s rights be universal when, in some societies, marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages, and when the permissible behavior of women is central to a societys perception of familial honor? In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on the transcendent values of their faith and are thus sanctioned by God. There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives. How to respond to these objections? Concepts of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppressive rule and participation in community affairs are found in every society; and the challenge facing human rights advocates, rather than throw up their hands at the impossibility of universalism, is to identify the common denominators. These objections reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramountcy of society. Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture whenever it suits them. Besides, which country can claim to be following its pure “traditional culture”? You cannot follow the model of a “modern” nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state’s human rights conduct. There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. Culture constantly evolves in any living society, responding to both internal and external stimuli, and much in every culture societies outgrow and reject. Let us concede that child marriage, female circumcision and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies; but let us also ask the victims of these practices about how they feel. Where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.

As for religion, every religion embodies certain verities that are applicable to all mankind-justice, truth, mercy, compassion and men often allow God to be blamed for their own sins. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, the problem is not with the faith, but with the faithful. As for the suspending human rights in the interests of development: authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change. Though there may be cases where authoritarian societies had success in achieving economic growth, but Botswana, an exemplar of African democracy, has grown faster than most authoritarian states. A number of developing countries-notably India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama played an active and influential part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by developing countries, so it is hardly fair to suggest they have been imposed on them. When one hears of the unsuitability or ethnocentricism of human rights, what are these human rights that someone in a developing country can do without? The right to life? Freedom from torture? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned or executed? No one actually advocates the abridgement of any of these rights. Objections to the applicability of human rights standards are all too frequently voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize violations that sustain them in power. Just as the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, Third World communitarianism can be the slogan of a deracinated tyrant trained, as in the case of Pol Pot, at the Sorbonne. The authentic voices of the South know how to cry out in pain. Those are the voices that must be heeded.

Q. Which of the following best explains the meaning of ‘universality1 in the author’s concept of “universal human rights”?

Even in our globalizing world, the question as to whether “human rights” is an essentially Western concept, which ignores the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the South, persists. Can the values of a consumer society be applied to societies with nothing to consume? At the risk of sounding frivolous: when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The fact is that a number of serious objections exist to the concept of universal human rights, which its defenders need to acknowledge-honestly-if only to refute them. The first objection argues that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions; there is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. Some philosophers object that the concept of human rights is founded on an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state, imbued, as it were, with the right to be left alone. Whereas non-Western societies often espouse a communitarian ethic that sees society as more than the sum of its individual members, and considers duties to be more important than rights.

Then there is the usual North/South argument, with “human rights” cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world. Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many. Others object to specific rights which they say reflect Western cultural bias, the most troublesome here being the women’s rights. How can women’s rights be universal when, in some societies, marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages, and when the permissible behavior of women is central to a societys perception of familial honor? In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on the transcendent values of their faith and are thus sanctioned by God. There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives. How to respond to these objections? Concepts of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppressive rule and participation in community affairs are found in every society; and the challenge facing human rights advocates, rather than throw up their hands at the impossibility of universalism, is to identify the common denominators. These objections reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramountcy of society. Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture whenever it suits them. Besides, which country can claim to be following its pure “traditional culture”? You cannot follow the model of a “modern” nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state’s human rights conduct. There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. Culture constantly evolves in any living society, responding to both internal and external stimuli, and much in every culture societies outgrow and reject. Let us concede that child marriage, female circumcision and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies; but let us also ask the victims of these practices about how they feel. Where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.

As for religion, every religion embodies certain verities that are applicable to all mankind-justice, truth, mercy, compassion and men often allow God to be blamed for their own sins. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, the problem is not with the faith, but with the faithful. As for the suspending human rights in the interests of development: authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change. Though there may be cases where authoritarian societies had success in achieving economic growth, but Botswana, an exemplar of African democracy, has grown faster than most authoritarian states. A number of developing countries-notably India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama played an active and influential part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by developing countries, so it is hardly fair to suggest they have been imposed on them. When one hears of the unsuitability or ethnocentricism of human rights, what are these human rights that someone in a developing country can do without? The right to life? Freedom from torture? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned or executed? No one actually advocates the abridgement of any of these rights. Objections to the applicability of human rights standards are all too frequently voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize violations that sustain them in power. Just as the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, Third World communitarianism can be the slogan of a deracinated tyrant trained, as in the case of Pol Pot, at the Sorbonne. The authentic voices of the South know how to cry out in pain. Those are the voices that must be heeded.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following is not a serious objection to the “concept of universal human rights”?

Even in our globalizing world, the question as to whether “human rights” is an essentially Western concept, which ignores the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the South, persists. Can the values of a consumer society be applied to societies with nothing to consume? At the risk of sounding frivolous: when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The fact is that a number of serious objections exist to the concept of universal human rights, which its defenders need to acknowledge-honestly-if only to refute them. The first objection argues that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions; there is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. Some philosophers object that the concept of human rights is founded on an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state, imbued, as it were, with the right to be left alone. Whereas non-Western societies often espouse a communitarian ethic that sees society as more than the sum of its individual members, and considers duties to be more important than rights.

Then there is the usual North/South argument, with “human rights” cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world. Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many. Others object to specific rights which they say reflect Western cultural bias, the most troublesome here being the women’s rights. How can women’s rights be universal when, in some societies, marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages, and when the permissible behavior of women is central to a societys perception of familial honor? In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on the transcendent values of their faith and are thus sanctioned by God. There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives. How to respond to these objections? Concepts of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppressive rule and participation in community affairs are found in every society; and the challenge facing human rights advocates, rather than throw up their hands at the impossibility of universalism, is to identify the common denominators. These objections reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramountcy of society. Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture whenever it suits them. Besides, which country can claim to be following its pure “traditional culture”? You cannot follow the model of a “modern” nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state’s human rights conduct. There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. Culture constantly evolves in any living society, responding to both internal and external stimuli, and much in every culture societies outgrow and reject. Let us concede that child marriage, female circumcision and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies; but let us also ask the victims of these practices about how they feel. Where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.

As for religion, every religion embodies certain verities that are applicable to all mankind-justice, truth, mercy, compassion and men often allow God to be blamed for their own sins. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, the problem is not with the faith, but with the faithful. As for the suspending human rights in the interests of development: authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change. Though there may be cases where authoritarian societies had success in achieving economic growth, but Botswana, an exemplar of African democracy, has grown faster than most authoritarian states. A number of developing countries-notably India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama played an active and influential part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by developing countries, so it is hardly fair to suggest they have been imposed on them. When one hears of the unsuitability or ethnocentricism of human rights, what are these human rights that someone in a developing country can do without? The right to life? Freedom from torture? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned or executed? No one actually advocates the abridgement of any of these rights. Objections to the applicability of human rights standards are all too frequently voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize violations that sustain them in power. Just as the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, Third World communitarianism can be the slogan of a deracinated tyrant trained, as in the case of Pol Pot, at the Sorbonne. The authentic voices of the South know how to cry out in pain. Those are the voices that must be heeded.

Q. The passage supports the inference that:
A. ‘Cultural relativism’ Is not a valid argument made in order to deny claims of universality of human rights.
B. Universality of Women's rights is not a valid argument because of divergent or opposing perceptions about women's role in society.
C. Cultural diversity can be a valid argument against universality of human rights if those who cite their cultural attributes are doing so voluntarily.

Even in our globalizing world, the question as to whether “human rights” is an essentially Western concept, which ignores the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the South, persists. Can the values of a consumer society be applied to societies with nothing to consume? At the risk of sounding frivolous: when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The fact is that a number of serious objections exist to the concept of universal human rights, which its defenders need to acknowledge-honestly-if only to refute them. The first objection argues that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions; there is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. Some philosophers object that the concept of human rights is founded on an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state, imbued, as it were, with the right to be left alone. Whereas non-Western societies often espouse a communitarian ethic that sees society as more than the sum of its individual members, and considers duties to be more important than rights.

Then there is the usual North/South argument, with “human rights” cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world. Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many. Others object to specific rights which they say reflect Western cultural bias, the most troublesome here being the women’s rights. How can women’s rights be universal when, in some societies, marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages, and when the permissible behavior of women is central to a societys perception of familial honor? In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on the transcendent values of their faith and are thus sanctioned by God. There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives. How to respond to these objections? Concepts of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppressive rule and participation in community affairs are found in every society; and the challenge facing human rights advocates, rather than throw up their hands at the impossibility of universalism, is to identify the common denominators. These objections reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramountcy of society. Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture whenever it suits them. Besides, which country can claim to be following its pure “traditional culture”? You cannot follow the model of a “modern” nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state’s human rights conduct. There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. Culture constantly evolves in any living society, responding to both internal and external stimuli, and much in every culture societies outgrow and reject. Let us concede that child marriage, female circumcision and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies; but let us also ask the victims of these practices about how they feel. Where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.

As for religion, every religion embodies certain verities that are applicable to all mankind-justice, truth, mercy, compassion and men often allow God to be blamed for their own sins. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, the problem is not with the faith, but with the faithful. As for the suspending human rights in the interests of development: authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change. Though there may be cases where authoritarian societies had success in achieving economic growth, but Botswana, an exemplar of African democracy, has grown faster than most authoritarian states. A number of developing countries-notably India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama played an active and influential part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by developing countries, so it is hardly fair to suggest they have been imposed on them. When one hears of the unsuitability or ethnocentricism of human rights, what are these human rights that someone in a developing country can do without? The right to life? Freedom from torture? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned or executed? No one actually advocates the abridgement of any of these rights. Objections to the applicability of human rights standards are all too frequently voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize violations that sustain them in power. Just as the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, Third World communitarianism can be the slogan of a deracinated tyrant trained, as in the case of Pol Pot, at the Sorbonne. The authentic voices of the South know how to cry out in pain. Those are the voices that must be heeded.

Q. Which of the following questions will encapsulate the main purpose of the passage?

Even in our globalizing world, the question as to whether “human rights” is an essentially Western concept, which ignores the very different cultural, economic and political realities of the South, persists. Can the values of a consumer society be applied to societies with nothing to consume? At the risk of sounding frivolous: when you stop a man in traditional dress from beating his wife, are you upholding her human rights or violating his? The fact is that a number of serious objections exist to the concept of universal human rights, which its defenders need to acknowledge-honestly-if only to refute them. The first objection argues that all rights and values are defined and limited by cultural perceptions; there is no universal culture, therefore there are no universal human rights. Some philosophers object that the concept of human rights is founded on an individualistic view of man as an autonomous being whose greatest need is to be free from interference by the state, imbued, as it were, with the right to be left alone. Whereas non-Western societies often espouse a communitarian ethic that sees society as more than the sum of its individual members, and considers duties to be more important than rights.

Then there is the usual North/South argument, with “human rights” cast as a cover for Western intervention in the developing world. Developing countries, some also argue, cannot afford human rights, since the tasks of nation-building and economic development remain unfinished; suspending or limiting human rights thus sacrifices the few to benefit the many. Others object to specific rights which they say reflect Western cultural bias, the most troublesome here being the women’s rights. How can women’s rights be universal when, in some societies, marriage is seen not as a contract between two individuals but as an alliance between lineages, and when the permissible behavior of women is central to a societys perception of familial honor? In addition, some religious leaders argue that human rights can only be acceptable if they are founded on the transcendent values of their faith and are thus sanctioned by God. There is a built-in conflict between the universality of human rights and the particularity of religious perspectives. How to respond to these objections? Concepts of justice and law, legitimacy and dignity, protection from oppressive rule and participation in community affairs are found in every society; and the challenge facing human rights advocates, rather than throw up their hands at the impossibility of universalism, is to identify the common denominators. These objections reflect a false opposition between the primacy of the individual and the paramountcy of society. Culture is too often cited as a defence against human rights by authoritarians who crush culture whenever it suits them. Besides, which country can claim to be following its pure “traditional culture”? You cannot follow the model of a “modern” nation-state cutting across tribal boundaries and conventions, then argue that tribal traditions should be applied to judge the state’s human rights conduct. There is nothing sacrosanct about culture anyway. Culture constantly evolves in any living society, responding to both internal and external stimuli, and much in every culture societies outgrow and reject. Let us concede that child marriage, female circumcision and the like are not found reprehensible by many societies; but let us also ask the victims of these practices about how they feel. Where coercion exists, rights are violated, and these violations must be condemned whatever the traditional justification. Coercion, not culture, is the test.

As for religion, every religion embodies certain verities that are applicable to all mankind-justice, truth, mercy, compassion and men often allow God to be blamed for their own sins. As UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it, the problem is not with the faith, but with the faithful. As for the suspending human rights in the interests of development: authoritarianism promotes repression, not development. Development is about change, but repression prevents change. Though there may be cases where authoritarian societies had success in achieving economic growth, but Botswana, an exemplar of African democracy, has grown faster than most authoritarian states. A number of developing countries-notably India, China, Chile, Cuba, Lebanon and Panama played an active and influential part in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The principles of human rights have been widely adopted, imitated and ratified by developing countries, so it is hardly fair to suggest they have been imposed on them. When one hears of the unsuitability or ethnocentricism of human rights, what are these human rights that someone in a developing country can do without? The right to life? Freedom from torture? The right not to be enslaved, not to be physically assaulted, not to be arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned or executed? No one actually advocates the abridgement of any of these rights. Objections to the applicability of human rights standards are all too frequently voiced by authoritarian rulers and power elites to rationalize violations that sustain them in power. Just as the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, Third World communitarianism can be the slogan of a deracinated tyrant trained, as in the case of Pol Pot, at the Sorbonne. The authentic voices of the South know how to cry out in pain. Those are the voices that must be heeded.

Q. The writer cites the example of Botswana in order to:

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Before 1914, wars were not typically considered pointless, gratuitously violent enterprises; they could be foolish or misguided, but they were generally considered instrumental exercises of political power. Before 1914, wars were also not typically presumed to be suspect before proven necessary. Now, with few exceptions, they often are. Of course, nuclear weaponry contributed to this change. And other qualifications are needed: Some wars will inspire widespread support; some will even be broadly seen as necessary. But the premises have shifted, particularly in cultural life. What about World War I contributed to the shift? It wasn’t just the experience of trauma and death. In the United States, the Civil War provided plenty of both - with perhaps 750,000 dead in four years - without leading to anything comparable. Moreover, large-scale brutality is not a novelty in warfare’s history. The new attitudes seem to have arisen out of a growing sense of the war’s purposelessness, leading to broad disenchantment.

Much of this impression really did come from personal experience like the gruesome trench battles. Recent portrayals of the First World War in museums accept this view, even in such different institutions as the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Mo., and the Museum of the Great War in Meaux, France. They are taking the lead from historians; this is history written from “below” - through the lens of ordinary participants, not political leaders or military strategists. Now, World War I tends to be thought about as if it were the product of an out-of-control mechanism for which all governments were responsible, at the cost of the human victims. This is also the dominant literary interpretation that we see emerging in these manuscripts. As the critic Paul Fussell has pointed out, this was a war that, at least for its English-speaking participants, had an unusual connection to the British literary tradition. That tradition shaped interpretations, phrases and ideas, not just for the educated officers who became known for antiwar writings, like Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, but for ordinary soldiers; the quantity of English poetry inspired by the war is astounding.

Q. How did World War I change the general impression of wars?

Before 1914, wars were not typically considered pointless, gratuitously violent enterprises; they could be foolish or misguided, but they were generally considered instrumental exercises of political power. Before 1914, wars were also not typically presumed to be suspect before proven necessary. Now, with few exceptions, they often are. Of course, nuclear weaponry contributed to this change. And other qualifications are needed: Some wars will inspire widespread support; some will even be broadly seen as necessary. But the premises have shifted, particularly in cultural life. What about World War I contributed to the shift? It wasn’t just the experience of trauma and death. In the United States, the Civil War provided plenty of both - with perhaps 750,000 dead in four years - without leading to anything comparable. Moreover, large-scale brutality is not a novelty in warfare’s history. The new attitudes seem to have arisen out of a growing sense of the war’s purposelessness, leading to broad disenchantment.

Much of this impression really did come from personal experience like the gruesome trench battles. Recent portrayals of the First World War in museums accept this view, even in such different institutions as the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Mo., and the Museum of the Great War in Meaux, France. They are taking the lead from historians; this is history written from “below” - through the lens of ordinary participants, not political leaders or military strategists. Now, World War I tends to be thought about as if it were the product of an out-of-control mechanism for which all governments were responsible, at the cost of the human victims. This is also the dominant literary interpretation that we see emerging in these manuscripts. As the critic Paul Fussell has pointed out, this was a war that, at least for its English-speaking participants, had an unusual connection to the British literary tradition. That tradition shaped interpretations, phrases and ideas, not just for the educated officers who became known for antiwar writings, like Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, but for ordinary soldiers; the quantity of English poetry inspired by the war is astounding.

Q. Which among the following factors led to the altered perception of war post 1914?

Before 1914, wars were not typically considered pointless, gratuitously violent enterprises; they could be foolish or misguided, but they were generally considered instrumental exercises of political power. Before 1914, wars were also not typically presumed to be suspect before proven necessary. Now, with few exceptions, they often are. Of course, nuclear weaponry contributed to this change. And other qualifications are needed: Some wars will inspire widespread support; some will even be broadly seen as necessary. But the premises have shifted, particularly in cultural life. What about World War I contributed to the shift? It wasn’t just the experience of trauma and death. In the United States, the Civil War provided plenty of both - with perhaps 750,000 dead in four years - without leading to anything comparable. Moreover, large-scale brutality is not a novelty in warfare’s history. The new attitudes seem to have arisen out of a growing sense of the war’s purposelessness, leading to broad disenchantment.

Much of this impression really did come from personal experience like the gruesome trench battles. Recent portrayals of the First World War in museums accept this view, even in such different institutions as the National World War I Museum in Kansas City, Mo., and the Museum of the Great War in Meaux, France. They are taking the lead from historians; this is history written from “below” - through the lens of ordinary participants, not political leaders or military strategists. Now, World War I tends to be thought about as if it were the product of an out-of-control mechanism for which all governments were responsible, at the cost of the human victims. This is also the dominant literary interpretation that we see emerging in these manuscripts. As the critic Paul Fussell has pointed out, this was a war that, at least for its English-speaking participants, had an unusual connection to the British literary tradition. That tradition shaped interpretations, phrases and ideas, not just for the educated officers who became known for antiwar writings, like Wilfred Owen, Siegfried Sassoon and Robert Graves, but for ordinary soldiers; the quantity of English poetry inspired by the war is astounding.

Q. What does the author imply about war through the usage of the phrase “suspect before proven necessary”?

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

A century of debate over the social and aesthetic value of culture has been hollowed out. Not many observers of our commodity-based system of production pretend to care any longer about the dilemmas of art in a democratic society.
There seems no point in questioning whether a painting, book, or film is good or bad. A society that has lost hope of seeing itself reflected in its culture naturally loses interest in it. The erasure of the legacy of the worker’s strike demanding the right to pursue a culture of their own choosing in Lawrence bespeaks a definite migration of cultural power from the redoubts of society and government to unaccountable, unrepresentative, and inaccessible agencies of resource allocation : velvet-gloved foundations and debt-producing colleges and universities, mainly. The results have been boring and unreal, a culture for nobody’s sake, at once arbitrary and overdetermined. In the foundations and universities, as in the corporate marketing departments from which they borrow their strange notions, a class-specific fetish for creativity coincides with an invincible belief in meritocracy, while cartel-like techniques of managed competition muffle the contradiction. America’s stagnation proceeds directly from the assumption that cultural activity requires only enough funding to generate ratings, credentials, prizes, and tourist dollars. The managers ensure that nothing too interesting, idiosyncratic, or passionate reaches the public.
This brings you to a roll call of the inert, sterile, and depraved cultural leavings of our plutocratic age. Welcome to an America that offers up neither bread nor roses, but a thin philanthropic gruel that advertises the baronial status of business, and a luxury-grade higher education that emits a boosterish fog. You will read here of decomposing cities that glitter with “vibrancy,” TV moguls who stage fables of competitive individualism, and Very Serious novelists chasing Very Important literary prizes.

Q. Which of the following best articulates the central idea of the passage?

A century of debate over the social and aesthetic value of culture has been hollowed out. Not many observers of our commodity-based system of production pretend to care any longer about the dilemmas of art in a democratic society.
There seems no point in questioning whether a painting, book, or film is good or bad. A society that has lost hope of seeing itself reflected in its culture naturally loses interest in it. The erasure of the legacy of the worker’s strike demanding the right to pursue a culture of their own choosing in Lawrence bespeaks a definite migration of cultural power from the redoubts of society and government to unaccountable, unrepresentative, and inaccessible agencies of resource allocation : velvet-gloved foundations and debt-producing colleges and universities, mainly. The results have been boring and unreal, a culture for nobody’s sake, at once arbitrary and overdetermined. In the foundations and universities, as in the corporate marketing departments from which they borrow their strange notions, a class-specific fetish for creativity coincides with an invincible belief in meritocracy, while cartel-like techniques of managed competition muffle the contradiction. America’s stagnation proceeds directly from the assumption that cultural activity requires only enough funding to generate ratings, credentials, prizes, and tourist dollars. The managers ensure that nothing too interesting, idiosyncratic, or passionate reaches the public.
This brings you to a roll call of the inert, sterile, and depraved cultural leavings of our plutocratic age. Welcome to an America that offers up neither bread nor roses, but a thin philanthropic gruel that advertises the baronial status of business, and a luxury-grade higher education that emits a boosterish fog. You will read here of decomposing cities that glitter with “vibrancy,” TV moguls who stage fables of competitive individualism, and Very Serious novelists chasing Very Important literary prizes.

Q. The passage cites all of the following as reasons for America’s cultural stagnation except:

A century of debate over the social and aesthetic value of culture has been hollowed out. Not many observers of our commodity-based system of production pretend to care any longer about the dilemmas of art in a democratic society.
There seems no point in questioning whether a painting, book, or film is good or bad. A society that has lost hope of seeing itself reflected in its culture naturally loses interest in it. The erasure of the legacy of the worker’s strike demanding the right to pursue a culture of their own choosing in Lawrence bespeaks a definite migration of cultural power from the redoubts of society and government to unaccountable, unrepresentative, and inaccessible agencies of resource allocation : velvet-gloved foundations and debt-producing colleges and universities, mainly. The results have been boring and unreal, a culture for nobody’s sake, at once arbitrary and overdetermined. In the foundations and universities, as in the corporate marketing departments from which they borrow their strange notions, a class-specific fetish for creativity coincides with an invincible belief in meritocracy, while cartel-like techniques of managed competition muffle the contradiction. America’s stagnation proceeds directly from the assumption that cultural activity requires only enough funding to generate ratings, credentials, prizes, and tourist dollars. The managers ensure that nothing too interesting, idiosyncratic, or passionate reaches the public.
This brings you to a roll call of the inert, sterile, and depraved cultural leavings of our plutocratic age. Welcome to an America that offers up neither bread nor roses, but a thin philanthropic gruel that advertises the baronial status of business, and a luxury-grade higher education that emits a boosterish fog. You will read here of decomposing cities that glitter with “vibrancy,” TV moguls who stage fables of competitive individualism, and Very Serious novelists chasing Very Important literary prizes.

Q. In accordance with the line of thought pursued in the passage, which of the following is most likely to occur in modern day America?

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Social aesthetics starts with a consideration of the extent to which one’s membership in community - one’s social identity- shapes one’s approach to artmaking and art appreciation. This approach is exemplified by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s critical rebuttal of Kantian aesthetics on the grounds that “taste” is not a universal trait which identifies a single standard of artistic merit but is instead indexed to one’s class position. Bourdieu offers a detailed, finegrained argument for this hypothesis where he discusses the results of surveys of respondents from a cross-section of social classes in France of the 1970s. Contrasting working class, bourgeois, and elite preferences in entertaining, decorating, leisure activities, music, and film, Bourdieu argues that what we find beautiful is indeed demonstrably shaped by our class positions and trajectories. The net effect of Bourdieu’s intervention is repudiation of a universalist aesthetic hierarchy in which the cultural preferences of the elite class are judged as better than those of the working class, in favor of a relativist indexing of artistic productions to class positions.
While much of the research into musical tastes that explicitly engages the notion of class is being done in the European context, it is not hard to see how this discourse asserts itself in American accounts of taste. The concepts of “highbrow” music, Western art music, or “classical” and “lowbrow” music - popular, mass-marketed productions, from jazz in the 1930s to rock in the 1950s through 1980s and, most recently, hip-hop—link tastes to education and income levels, which appear in the American lexicon as stand-ins for the concept of class. Understanding this linguistic translation makes it possible for us to employ a social aesthetics reading of some of the claims in the history of American musical production that otherwise seem unmotivated. In particular, John Coltrane’s rejection of the label “jazz” for his music, and his preference for labeling jazz “America’s classical music” can, through this lens, be interpreted as a contestation of the class position to which jazz musicians and their art-making had been relegated. This contestation does not achieve the relativism of Bourdieu’s inventory, but it does underscore the connection between social identity, or community membership, and aesthetic taste.

Q. The author is likely to agree with which of the following?

Social aesthetics starts with a consideration of the extent to which one’s membership in community - one’s social identity- shapes one’s approach to artmaking and art appreciation. This approach is exemplified by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s critical rebuttal of Kantian aesthetics on the grounds that “taste” is not a universal trait which identifies a single standard of artistic merit but is instead indexed to one’s class position. Bourdieu offers a detailed, finegrained argument for this hypothesis where he discusses the results of surveys of respondents from a cross-section of social classes in France of the 1970s. Contrasting working class, bourgeois, and elite preferences in entertaining, decorating, leisure activities, music, and film, Bourdieu argues that what we find beautiful is indeed demonstrably shaped by our class positions and trajectories. The net effect of Bourdieu’s intervention is repudiation of a universalist aesthetic hierarchy in which the cultural preferences of the elite class are judged as better than those of the working class, in favor of a relativist indexing of artistic productions to class positions.
While much of the research into musical tastes that explicitly engages the notion of class is being done in the European context, it is not hard to see how this discourse asserts itself in American accounts of taste. The concepts of “highbrow” music, Western art music, or “classical” and “lowbrow” music - popular, mass-marketed productions, from jazz in the 1930s to rock in the 1950s through 1980s and, most recently, hip-hop—link tastes to education and income levels, which appear in the American lexicon as stand-ins for the concept of class. Understanding this linguistic translation makes it possible for us to employ a social aesthetics reading of some of the claims in the history of American musical production that otherwise seem unmotivated. In particular, John Coltrane’s rejection of the label “jazz” for his music, and his preference for labeling jazz “America’s classical music” can, through this lens, be interpreted as a contestation of the class position to which jazz musicians and their art-making had been relegated. This contestation does not achieve the relativism of Bourdieu’s inventory, but it does underscore the connection between social identity, or community membership, and aesthetic taste.

Q. What is the central idea of the passage?

Social aesthetics starts with a consideration of the extent to which one’s membership in community - one’s social identity- shapes one’s approach to artmaking and art appreciation. This approach is exemplified by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s critical rebuttal of Kantian aesthetics on the grounds that “taste” is not a universal trait which identifies a single standard of artistic merit but is instead indexed to one’s class position. Bourdieu offers a detailed, finegrained argument for this hypothesis where he discusses the results of surveys of respondents from a cross-section of social classes in France of the 1970s. Contrasting working class, bourgeois, and elite preferences in entertaining, decorating, leisure activities, music, and film, Bourdieu argues that what we find beautiful is indeed demonstrably shaped by our class positions and trajectories. The net effect of Bourdieu’s intervention is repudiation of a universalist aesthetic hierarchy in which the cultural preferences of the elite class are judged as better than those of the working class, in favor of a relativist indexing of artistic productions to class positions.
While much of the research into musical tastes that explicitly engages the notion of class is being done in the European context, it is not hard to see how this discourse asserts itself in American accounts of taste. The concepts of “highbrow” music, Western art music, or “classical” and “lowbrow” music - popular, mass-marketed productions, from jazz in the 1930s to rock in the 1950s through 1980s and, most recently, hip-hop—link tastes to education and income levels, which appear in the American lexicon as stand-ins for the concept of class. Understanding this linguistic translation makes it possible for us to employ a social aesthetics reading of some of the claims in the history of American musical production that otherwise seem unmotivated. In particular, John Coltrane’s rejection of the label “jazz” for his music, and his preference for labeling jazz “America’s classical music” can, through this lens, be interpreted as a contestation of the class position to which jazz musicians and their art-making had been relegated. This contestation does not achieve the relativism of Bourdieu’s inventory, but it does underscore the connection between social identity, or community membership, and aesthetic taste.

Q. The style of writing adopted by the author can be best described as

Group Question

The passage given below is followed by a set of questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.

Cloud storage is defined as “the storage of data online in the cloud,” wherein a company’s data is stored in and accessible from multiple distributed and connected resources that comprise a cloud. Cloud computing is on the rise. Consumers and businesses alike are relying on it for storage. The large scalability, reliability, global accessibility and a wide selection of prices, and security makes it a must-have when looking for off-site storage. It provides the benefits of strong protection for data backup, archival and disaster recovery purposes; and lower overall storage costs as a result of not having to purchase, manage and maintain expensive hardware. Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, most notable is file accessibility. Files stored in the cloud can be accessed at any time from any place so long as you have Internet access and login credentials. From different countries and different devices, you always have access to your storage. You do not have to worry about the possibility of losing data because of this.
Another benefit is that cloud storage provides organizations with off-site (remote) backups of data which reduces costs associated with disaster recovery. The cloud simply puts your storage somewhere else. Instead of keeping it on a local system, such as your own home computer, you have it available through an online storage system. The storage is in another system housed and maintained by a separate company. These companies make sure that data remains secure and accessible for their clients to avoid leaks or security risks if someone were to gain access to the system. You can keep all files, photos, and whatever else you upload on the cloud storage without fears.
There is no one size fits all with cloud storage. Even if everyone has the same cloud app, the available storage and pricing will differ. Some services provide business-specific cloud storage options that come at a price while others provide free services that target everyday consumers. Sometimes, consumer-targeted cloud storage will have premium options with monthly or yearly costs and a bigger storage capacity.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, however, cloud storage does have the potential for security and compliance concerns that are not associated with traditional storage systems. Unfortunately, the biggest disadvantage to cloud storage is that users are limited by bandwidth. If your Internet connection is slow or unstable, you might have problems accessing or sharing your files. Organizations that require a large amount of storage may also find costs increase significantly after the first few gigabytes of data stored.

Q. Which of the following options about cloud storage is not supported by the passage?

Cloud storage is defined as “the storage of data online in the cloud,” wherein a company’s data is stored in and accessible from multiple distributed and connected resources that comprise a cloud. Cloud computing is on the rise. Consumers and businesses alike are relying on it for storage. The large scalability, reliability, global accessibility and a wide selection of prices, and security makes it a must-have when looking for off-site storage. It provides the benefits of strong protection for data backup, archival and disaster recovery purposes; and lower overall storage costs as a result of not having to purchase, manage and maintain expensive hardware. Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, most notable is file accessibility. Files stored in the cloud can be accessed at any time from any place so long as you have Internet access and login credentials. From different countries and different devices, you always have access to your storage. You do not have to worry about the possibility of losing data because of this.
Another benefit is that cloud storage provides organizations with off-site (remote) backups of data which reduces costs associated with disaster recovery. The cloud simply puts your storage somewhere else. Instead of keeping it on a local system, such as your own home computer, you have it available through an online storage system. The storage is in another system housed and maintained by a separate company. These companies make sure that data remains secure and accessible for their clients to avoid leaks or security risks if someone were to gain access to the system. You can keep all files, photos, and whatever else you upload on the cloud storage without fears.
There is no one size fits all with cloud storage. Even if everyone has the same cloud app, the available storage and pricing will differ. Some services provide business-specific cloud storage options that come at a price while others provide free services that target everyday consumers. Sometimes, consumer-targeted cloud storage will have premium options with monthly or yearly costs and a bigger storage capacity.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, however, cloud storage does have the potential for security and compliance concerns that are not associated with traditional storage systems. Unfortunately, the biggest disadvantage to cloud storage is that users are limited by bandwidth. If your Internet connection is slow or unstable, you might have problems accessing or sharing your files. Organizations that require a large amount of storage may also find costs increase significantly after the first few gigabytes of data stored.

Q. A suitable title for the passage would be?

Cloud storage is defined as “the storage of data online in the cloud,” wherein a company’s data is stored in and accessible from multiple distributed and connected resources that comprise a cloud. Cloud computing is on the rise. Consumers and businesses alike are relying on it for storage. The large scalability, reliability, global accessibility and a wide selection of prices, and security makes it a must-have when looking for off-site storage. It provides the benefits of strong protection for data backup, archival and disaster recovery purposes; and lower overall storage costs as a result of not having to purchase, manage and maintain expensive hardware. Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, most notable is file accessibility. Files stored in the cloud can be accessed at any time from any place so long as you have Internet access and login credentials. From different countries and different devices, you always have access to your storage. You do not have to worry about the possibility of losing data because of this.
Another benefit is that cloud storage provides organizations with off-site (remote) backups of data which reduces costs associated with disaster recovery. The cloud simply puts your storage somewhere else. Instead of keeping it on a local system, such as your own home computer, you have it available through an online storage system. The storage is in another system housed and maintained by a separate company. These companies make sure that data remains secure and accessible for their clients to avoid leaks or security risks if someone were to gain access to the system. You can keep all files, photos, and whatever else you upload on the cloud storage without fears.
There is no one size fits all with cloud storage. Even if everyone has the same cloud app, the available storage and pricing will differ. Some services provide business-specific cloud storage options that come at a price while others provide free services that target everyday consumers. Sometimes, consumer-targeted cloud storage will have premium options with monthly or yearly costs and a bigger storage capacity.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, however, cloud storage does have the potential for security and compliance concerns that are not associated with traditional storage systems. Unfortunately, the biggest disadvantage to cloud storage is that users are limited by bandwidth. If your Internet connection is slow or unstable, you might have problems accessing or sharing your files. Organizations that require a large amount of storage may also find costs increase significantly after the first few gigabytes of data stored.

Q. What can be concluded from the passage?

Cloud storage is defined as “the storage of data online in the cloud,” wherein a company’s data is stored in and accessible from multiple distributed and connected resources that comprise a cloud. Cloud computing is on the rise. Consumers and businesses alike are relying on it for storage. The large scalability, reliability, global accessibility and a wide selection of prices, and security makes it a must-have when looking for off-site storage. It provides the benefits of strong protection for data backup, archival and disaster recovery purposes; and lower overall storage costs as a result of not having to purchase, manage and maintain expensive hardware. Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, most notable is file accessibility. Files stored in the cloud can be accessed at any time from any place so long as you have Internet access and login credentials. From different countries and different devices, you always have access to your storage. You do not have to worry about the possibility of losing data because of this.
Another benefit is that cloud storage provides organizations with off-site (remote) backups of data which reduces costs associated with disaster recovery. The cloud simply puts your storage somewhere else. Instead of keeping it on a local system, such as your own home computer, you have it available through an online storage system. The storage is in another system housed and maintained by a separate company. These companies make sure that data remains secure and accessible for their clients to avoid leaks or security risks if someone were to gain access to the system. You can keep all files, photos, and whatever else you upload on the cloud storage without fears.
There is no one size fits all with cloud storage. Even if everyone has the same cloud app, the available storage and pricing will differ. Some services provide business-specific cloud storage options that come at a price while others provide free services that target everyday consumers. Sometimes, consumer-targeted cloud storage will have premium options with monthly or yearly costs and a bigger storage capacity.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, however, cloud storage does have the potential for security and compliance concerns that are not associated with traditional storage systems. Unfortunately, the biggest disadvantage to cloud storage is that users are limited by bandwidth. If your Internet connection is slow or unstable, you might have problems accessing or sharing your files. Organizations that require a large amount of storage may also find costs increase significantly after the first few gigabytes of data stored.

Q. Which of the following weakens the concept of cloud storage?

A. Cloud storage is a rich resource for both hackers and national security agencies.
B. Companies are not permanent, thus services and products they provide can change.
C. Off-site backups of data is efficacious for archival and disaster recovery purposes.

Cloud storage is defined as “the storage of data online in the cloud,” wherein a company’s data is stored in and accessible from multiple distributed and connected resources that comprise a cloud. Cloud computing is on the rise. Consumers and businesses alike are relying on it for storage. The large scalability, reliability, global accessibility and a wide selection of prices, and security makes it a must-have when looking for off-site storage. It provides the benefits of strong protection for data backup, archival and disaster recovery purposes; and lower overall storage costs as a result of not having to purchase, manage and maintain expensive hardware. Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, most notable is file accessibility. Files stored in the cloud can be accessed at any time from any place so long as you have Internet access and login credentials. From different countries and different devices, you always have access to your storage. You do not have to worry about the possibility of losing data because of this.
Another benefit is that cloud storage provides organizations with off-site (remote) backups of data which reduces costs associated with disaster recovery. The cloud simply puts your storage somewhere else. Instead of keeping it on a local system, such as your own home computer, you have it available through an online storage system. The storage is in another system housed and maintained by a separate company. These companies make sure that data remains secure and accessible for their clients to avoid leaks or security risks if someone were to gain access to the system. You can keep all files, photos, and whatever else you upload on the cloud storage without fears.
There is no one size fits all with cloud storage. Even if everyone has the same cloud app, the available storage and pricing will differ. Some services provide business-specific cloud storage options that come at a price while others provide free services that target everyday consumers. Sometimes, consumer-targeted cloud storage will have premium options with monthly or yearly costs and a bigger storage capacity.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, however, cloud storage does have the potential for security and compliance concerns that are not associated with traditional storage systems. Unfortunately, the biggest disadvantage to cloud storage is that users are limited by bandwidth. If your Internet connection is slow or unstable, you might have problems accessing or sharing your files. Organizations that require a large amount of storage may also find costs increase significantly after the first few gigabytes of data stored.

Q. “Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.”

Which of the following can be assumed from the above statement?

Cloud storage is defined as “the storage of data online in the cloud,” wherein a company’s data is stored in and accessible from multiple distributed and connected resources that comprise a cloud. Cloud computing is on the rise. Consumers and businesses alike are relying on it for storage. The large scalability, reliability, global accessibility and a wide selection of prices, and security makes it a must-have when looking for off-site storage. It provides the benefits of strong protection for data backup, archival and disaster recovery purposes; and lower overall storage costs as a result of not having to purchase, manage and maintain expensive hardware. Individuals or businesses trying to expand or improve their storage can, and usually do, choose cloud above other options.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, most notable is file accessibility. Files stored in the cloud can be accessed at any time from any place so long as you have Internet access and login credentials. From different countries and different devices, you always have access to your storage. You do not have to worry about the possibility of losing data because of this.
Another benefit is that cloud storage provides organizations with off-site (remote) backups of data which reduces costs associated with disaster recovery. The cloud simply puts your storage somewhere else. Instead of keeping it on a local system, such as your own home computer, you have it available through an online storage system. The storage is in another system housed and maintained by a separate company. These companies make sure that data remains secure and accessible for their clients to avoid leaks or security risks if someone were to gain access to the system. You can keep all files, photos, and whatever else you upload on the cloud storage without fears.
There is no one size fits all with cloud storage. Even if everyone has the same cloud app, the available storage and pricing will differ. Some services provide business-specific cloud storage options that come at a price while others provide free services that target everyday consumers. Sometimes, consumer-targeted cloud storage will have premium options with monthly or yearly costs and a bigger storage capacity.
There are many benefits to using cloud storage, however, cloud storage does have the potential for security and compliance concerns that are not associated with traditional storage systems. Unfortunately, the biggest disadvantage to cloud storage is that users are limited by bandwidth. If your Internet connection is slow or unstable, you might have problems accessing or sharing your files. Organizations that require a large amount of storage may also find costs increase significantly after the first few gigabytes of data stored.

Q. What is the tone of the passage?

The following question consists of a set of labelled sentences. These sentences, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Choose the most logical order of sentences from the options.

1. Anecdotal evidence from East Asia suggests that children’s attention to classroom work is maximised when instructional periods are relatively short and followed by breaks.
2. In fact, experimental data supports the argument that what goes on during recess periods is “educational” in the traditional sense, i.e. children are more attentive to classroom tasks after recess than before recess.
3. In most East Asian primary schools, for example, children are given a 10- minute break every 40 minutes or so.
4. Far too many of the policies being recommended for primary schools have no scientific basis; for instance I am not aware of any data supporting the idea that eliminating recess maximises children’s attention to classroom tasks.
5. When children come back from these breaks, they seem more attentive and ready to work than before.

The question below consists of a set of labelled sentences. These sentences, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Choose the most logical order of sentences from the options.

1. Factory farms are not biologically secure either, they are frequently infested with mice, rats, and other animals that can bring in diseases.
2. In fact, birds that are reared by traditional methods are likely to have greater resistance to disease than the stressed, genetically similar birds kept in intensive confinement systems.
3. But what they don't know is that when the viruses enter a high-density poultry operation, they mutate into something far more virulent.
4. Supporters of factory farming often point out that bird flu can be spread by free-range flocks, or by wild ducks and other migrating birds, who may join the free-range birds to feed with them. 5. So far, a relatively small number of human beings have died from the current strain of avian influenza, and it appears that they have all been in contact with infected birds.

The following question consists of a set of labelled sentences. These sentences, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph. Choose the most logical order of sentences from the options.

1. In the "third culture" best seller The Blank Slate: The Modem Denial of Human Nature, Pinker says that we may need to admit a natural scientific basis for what humanists have for centuries called "fate."
2. After all, the social sciences historically offered empirical support and spiritual hope for just such reforms, which are increasingly dismissed as "utopian."
3. The configuration of our brains and genes may ultimately be out of our control, however deeply we come to understand them.
4. Pinker's message will appeal to those eager to avoid political reforms that would compel a greater sense of collective responsibility

Four sentences numbered 1,2, 3 and 4 are given in random order. Three of these sentences belong to the same paragraph, and can be arranged logically to form a coherent paragraph. One of the sentences does not fit into this paragraph. Choose the ODD sentence for your answer.

1. It's one of the great cultural phenomena of the 21st Century - the appetite for learning about famous people's lives, no matter how banal the details.
2. Celebrity worship is very different from what is taking place in the Cornwall cafe.
3. And for eight years, a seaside cafe in Cornwall has hosted an experiment exploring this obsession by displaying the food left behind by public figures.
4. Gossip magazines and newspapers are stuffed with information about such minutiae.

Four sentences numbered 1 ,2, 3 and 4 are given in random order. Three of these sentences belong to the same paragraph, and can be arranged logically to form a coherent paragraph. One of the sentences does not fit into this paragraph. Choose the ODD sentence for your answer.

1. The dependence on subsidies squeezes government spends on critical infrastructure, technology and credit, in the absence of which farmers use inefficient methods of cultivation.
2. India's current policies for the agriculture sector are geared towards short-term solutions and revenue expenditure rather than long-term capital investment solutions.
3. This pattern is typical of most of our farm commodities such as pulses and edible oilseeds whose demand has been rising faster than supply, adding to food inflation.
4. Rejuvenation of India's agricultural sector, which provides livelihood to nearly 60% of the workforce, needs to be made central to the inclusive growth endeavour.

The question has a base word that is used in the options given below.
Choose the option in which the usage of the word is inappropriate.
Reaction

1. Provocations can lead to fatal reactions.
2. The reaction of the teacher’s lecture on the student surprised us.
3. Reaction is a process in which substances interact causing physical or chemical change.
4. My immediate reaction to the events was shock.