All India CLAT Group

It is a truism that effective advertising must be built on an understanding of the consumer. Yet sometimes perceptions and assumptions about people and about countries prevent marketers from responding to the opportunities inherent in social change. There are two subjects about which everyone in the marketing and advertising communities has strong opinions and preconceptions. One of them is women. The other is international marketing.

It isn’t too many years ago that markets in the United States were clearly separated by gender.  The assumption was that the target for all the expensive, big-ticket products and services, such as cars, travel and financing services were men. On the other hand, women were sold food, household, fashion goods and cosmetics. It is remarkable to recall that at that time, working women were invisible in the marketing and advertising plans.

Most advertisers thought of women consumers as housewives. The usual target definition was “any housewife, 18 to 49”. Occasionally, they would recognize young, single women, who in those days described girls as natural targets for cosmetic and fashion targets. These two perceptions of women dominated marketing approaches to women in those days.

The surge of women entering the workforce has revolutionized the way we define the consumer market place. We find that men are crossing over into the supermarkets and shopping for food and household products that used to be the exclusive responsibility of the housewives.

We find women crossing over into big-ticket product categories. They have become good customers for financial services, travel and cars. We find that not all working women are young, single girls, and not all housewives are married.

In short, our perception of the total consumer marketplace has turned upside down as a result of this one single demographic fact. The concept of effective advertising and marketing must be built on an understanding of the consumer, particularly relevant to the international market-place.

Four alternative summaries are given below the text. Choose the option that best captures the essence of the text.

Physically, inertia is a feeling that you just can’t move; mentally, it is a sluggish mind. Even if you try to be sensitive, if your mind is sluggish, you just don’t feel anything intensely. You may even see a tragedy enacted in front of your eyes and not be able to respond meaningfully. You may see one person exploiting another, one group persecuting another, and not be able to get angry. Your energy is frozen. You are not deliberately refusing to act; you just don’t have the capacity.

Inertia makes your body and mind sluggish. They become insensitive to tragedies, exploitation, and persecution because it freezes your energy and decapacitates it.

When you have inertia you don’t act although you see one person exploiting another or one group persecuting another. You don’t get angry because you are incapable.

Inertia is of two types - physical and mental. Physical inertia restricts bodily movements. Mental inertia prevents response to events enacted in front of your eyes.

Physical inertia stops your body from moving; mental inertia freezes your energy and stops your mind from responding meaningfully to events, even tragedies, in front of you.

Passage: In 2017, a group called Human Rights Network, decided to collect and collate a set of state laws which imposed a blanket ban on cow slaughter. These laws, they believed, violated the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). In addition to that, they argued that such laws were often a potent tool to justify mob–lynching of butchers, or people who consumed beef as a part of their diet. Another group called Cow Savers decided to argue that the laws were formulated in line with the directive state policy, specifically Article 48, and thus could not be challenged before any Court as violative of fundamental rights. The Cow Savers further asked the Court to enforce Article 48 across states where no ban on cow slaughter existed. HRN argued that DPSPs are not justiciable.
The HRN cited the case of Irreligious Society v. State of Kerala. Here, there was a clash between a policy enforcing the DPSP of enforcing the Uniform Civil Code and the fundamental right to religion. The Court attempted to read the two together, and wherever there was no compatibility, the right to religion prevailed. 
After the Supreme Court admitted the petition filed by HRN, Cow Savers intervened in the matter. 
While the case was going on, the government of Gau Land decided to start picking up butchers from their shops under the suspicion that they were slaughtering cows late in the night. There was a protest organized by HRN against this action of the government, during which some activists were also picked up. HRN tried extremely hard to locate the activists and the butchers, but to no avail. They decided that they would approach the court regarding this as well.
Their legal advisors laid down the following writs before them–
Habeas Corpus is „To have the body of.‟; Mandamus means „We command‟ and is used by the court to order the public official who has failed to perform his duty or refused to do his duty. The literal meaning of the writ of “Certiorari‟ is “To be certified‟ or „To be informed.” This writ is against issued by a court higher in authority to a lower court. The literal meaning of the writ of „Quo– Warranto‟ is „By what authority or warrant,‟ which question one‟s appointment to a public office. 
Article 19(1)(g) grants the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens of India. 
Article 48 reads that the State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. This has been interpreted expansively to ensure a right to a wholesome life and not just guarantee bare existence.

Q. Mr. Y, a chef, decides to explore recipes of beef delicacies across India and cook and consume them in the privacy of his house. However, he notices that due to the cow slaughter ban, beef is not available at all. He believes that this is a violation of his right to consume any food in the privacy of his home. 
Notwithstanding any decisions on the legality of cow slaughter and cow beef, his challenge as the violation of Right to Privacy will–

1. if the data in statement I alone are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement II alone are not sufficient to answer the question.

2. if the data in statement II alone are sufficient to answer the question, while the data in statement I alone are not sufficient to answer the question.

3. if the data either in statement I alone or in statement II alone are sufficient to answer the question.

4. if the data given in both the statements I & II together are not sufficient to answer the question.

5. if the data in both the statements I & II together are necessary to answer the question.

Q. ​​ How is K related to Z?

I. Z and P are the only sisters of D

II. D’s mother is the wife of K’s father

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

One summer, many years ago, while I was living in the garden city of Pune, I lay in bed, unwell. Lying in bed, I watched a large neem tree teeming with activity. Birds like orioles, flycatchers, and magpie robins were frequent visitors to the tree. Another cute resident on the neem tree was the palm squirrel; common in peninsular India. As I lay in bed, I enjoyed watching these creatures go about their daily tasks. Their activities on the tree made me get well quicker!

Then one day, I saw to my dismay that the tree was being chopped down to widen the road in the neighbouring society. I had watched the squirrel build its nest all summer, and it was with sadness I watched as the tree was slowly chopped down. I wondered what happened to the squirrel nesting in the tree.

The loss of the squirrel's nest made me sad. After much thought, I decided to do something about this. The loss of the tree led me to find out that in India trees, even the ones planted by us in our homes, need permission before they are chopped.

Over the next few years, I got involved in a programme called Pune Tree Watch, where citizens engaged with the Garden Department, to reduce tree felling in the rapidly developing city of Pune. We looked to balance development with the green needs of the city. We sought solutions like tree transplantation, alternate routes for roads or different designs for buildings, sewage and pipelines to save trees. In two to three years, we were able to save many trees, and create awareness about the laws relating to tree felling among citizens.

In 2008, I shifted to Dehradun, where I continued my work to save urban biodiversity. We worked with citizens and institutions ＿ the municipal and forest departments ＿ to save green cover in Dehradun. Over the last few years, we have successfully transplanted some trees, and saved many of them from being felled, too.

My ultimate reward in this line of work came when a tree in the middle of Dehradun city was being cut down. I watched as a squirrel ran down the tree that the municipality was chopping, and run up the one we had saved. It had lost a home, but found a new one. All the work I had done in the last decade seemed worthwhile.

It took a squirrel and a tree to move me from being aware and feeling sad, to action. All of us need to act to save nature.

So, what will be your "squirrel" moment?