Question Description
DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONS for the question : Read the passage and answer the question based on it.Much remained a mystery about Bernie Madoff s crime, even after he pleaded guilty in March 2009. But one thing, it seemed, that everybody knew was true was this: his wife and sons were guilty too. From the first weeks after his arrest, unidentified "former prosecutors" and "criminal lawyers who have followed the case" and "legal sources" were repeatedly quoted in various media outlets asserting that Ruth, Mark, and Andrew Madoff were under investigation and would soon be indicted. Glossy magazine articles would speculate carefully; garish Internet blogs would accuse recklessly; television commentators would wink and nod knowingly. All that fierce, smug certainty about their guilt-unsupported by any cited facts-effectively drove Madoff s immediate family into exile.In an era of hypermedia, with mobile phone paparazzi and self-defined Internet commentators constantly on the alert for ways to attract attention, it is worth noting that these attacks on the Madoff family were a sharp departure from the typical public reaction to cases of white-collar crime, going back more than a century.Of course, such criminals-confidence men, embezzlers, crooked politicians, fraudsters of all kinds-were attacked savagely by the press and the public when their crimes came to light. But their wives and children were almost never included in those attacks; rather they were almost always ignored or, at the very least, quickly left alone. There were a few exceptions where criminal charges were actually filed against a close relative, who was then pulled to the whipping post of public attention. In general, however, even the wives and children of executed murderers were left to rebuild their lives in relative obscurity, unless they sought the spotlight themselves.The treatment over the years of organized-crime defendants is instructive. Despite widespread fascination with the murderous escapades of so-called "Mafia dons" and crime-family "capos", it was extremely rare for any attention to fall on the elderly Mrs. Mafia Don or the capos children-even though a realist might have wondered how much they knew about why their husband or father had asked all his closest buddies to wear guns and sleep on mattresses in the garage. On rare occasions, a mobsters relatives actively courted publicity. But those who didnt were routinely ignored by the media and certainly were never publicly and repeatedly accused of complicity in their husbands or fathers crimes.Yet the public outcry against Ruth Madoff and her sons began almost from the instant of Madoffs arrest and did not cease. By the time he pleaded guilty, it was deafening.From the beginning, however, there were facts in the Madotf case that just didnt seem to be consistent with the familys guilt. First, there was the fact that none of them fled the country. Perhaps Bernie Madoff, seventy years old at the time of his confession, felt too old and tired to leave as a wealthy fugitive; and perhaps Ruth, even if she were guilty and faced arrest and a lifelong imprisonment, would not leave without him. But his two sons, if they were guilty, had the opportunity, the means, and the motive to flee. The end was clearly in sight weeks in advance, there was still a princely sum in the bank, and they and their families were relatively young and portable. Surely, Madoff, before turning himself in, would have handed his sons the keys to the company jet and enough cash to let them live comfortably beyond the reach of the law for the rest of their lives. After all, if they were his accomplices, their only other option would have been to stay and go to prison. And yet Madoff did not flee- and neither did his wife or sons.Then, there was his confession. Some hostile theorists immediately argued that Madoff and his guilty sons staged his confession so they could turn him in and thereby deflect suspicion from themselves. But this would have been a worthless gesture unless they all could have been absolutely sure that no incriminating evidence would surface later and none of their other low-levelaccomplices would finger the sons in a bid for leniency-assumptions that were not remotely realistic if the sons were actually guilty. Moreover, if Madoff truly believed anyone could be insulated from suspicion simply by turning himself in, wouldnt he have arranged for that to be Ruth?Logic aside, assumptions about the familys guilt began to run up against the fact that, as the Madoff investigation progressed, the predicted arrests of his wife and sons simply did not happen.Q.Which of the following sentences is incorrect?a)It was the facts about the Madoff case that indicated that his family was guiltyb)Madoff had been arrested following his confessionc)Media has always shown extensive interest in the exploits of mafia dons and other criminalsd)Madoff had committed a white-collar crimeCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.