Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life andndash; the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who andldquo;wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinionsandrdquo;.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a personandrsquo;s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent andldquo;an FOI request to the universityandrsquo;s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose dataandrdquo;.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days itandrsquo;s surprising that they havenandrsquo;t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of peopleandrsquo;s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating peopleandrsquo;s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Directions for Questions: The passage given b...

Join the Discussion on the App

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.
PASSAGE
The development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.
Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.
The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.
Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.
On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have prevented press photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.
What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.

(2010)

Q. The author is least likely to support which of the following?

a)
Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraud
b)
Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terrorist
c)
Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attack
d)
Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violent

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Reading Comprehension (Based On Social Sciences) - 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set...

In all the other instances a crime has been committed and therefore the police is justified in carrying out various tasks to nab the person or convict him or her.
However, option (d) is not something that the author would support. In the passage it is mentioned that ‘one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.What is the central theme explored by the author in the passage?

View answer

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.Which one of these best expresses the author ’s attitude towards Sebastian Nokes?

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.It can be inferred from the passage that the crucial factor in a trial under the adversarial system is

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.The author sees the judge’s primary role in a trial under the inquisitorial system as that of

View answer

Read the passage carefully and answer within the context.There are two major systems of criminal procedure in the modern world—the adversarial and the inquisitorial. Both systems were historically preceded by the system of private vengeance in which the victim of a crime fashioned a remedy and administered it privately, either personally or through an agent.The modern adversarial system is only one historical step removed from the private vengeance system and still retains some of its characteristic features. For example, even though the right to initiate legal action against a criminal has now been extended to all members of society (as represented by the office of the public prosecutor), and even though the police department has effectively assumed the pretrial investigative functions on behalf of the prosecution, the adversarial system still leaves the defendant to conduct his or her own pretrial investigation. The trial is viewed as a forensic duel between two adversaries, presided over by a judge who, at the start, has no knowledge of the investigative background of the case. In the final analysis the adversarial system of criminal procedure symbolizes and regularizes punitive combat.By contrast, the inquisitorial system begins historically where the adversarial system stopped its development. It is two historical steps removed from the system of private vengeance.From the standpoint of legal anthropology, then, it is historically superior to the adversarial system. Under the inquisitorial system, the public prosecutor has the duty to investigate not just on behalf of society but also on behalf of the defendant. Additionally, the public prosecutor has the duty to present the court not only evidence that would convict the defendant, but also evidence that could prove the defendant’s innocence. The system mandates that both parties permit full pretrial discovery of the evidence in their possession. Finally, an aspect of the system that makes the trial less like a duel between two adversarial parties is that the inquisitorial system mandates that the judge take an active part in the conduct of the trial, with a role that is both directive and protective. Fact-finding is at the heart of the inquisitorial system. This system operates on the philosophical premise that in a criminal action the crucial factor is the body of facts, not the legal rule (in contrast to the adversarial system), and the goal of the entire procedure is to attempt to recreate, in the mind of the court, the commission of the alleged crime.Because of the inquisitorial system’s thoroughness in conducting its pretrial investigation, it can be concluded that, if given the choice, a defendant who is innocent would prefer to be tried under the inquisitorial system, whereas a defendant who is guilty would prefer to be tried under the adversarial system.Q.The author’s attitude toward the inquisitorial system can best be described as

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series and 500+ Practice Tests 2024

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. 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 Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions for Questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.PASSAGEThe development underlines the great danger we face from the extension of anti-terrorist measures and methods into normal life – the policing of our streets, for example, and the hounding of football fans and climate change protestors.Just as disturbing is the line of questioning by the police of those who made freedom of information requests before the alleged hacking of computers last year. In a letter to the Financial Times, Sebastian Nokes, a climate change sceptic and businessman, said he was interviewed by an officer who “wanted to know what computer I used, my internet service provider, and also to which political parties I have belonged, what I feel about climate change and what my qualifications in climate science are. He questioned me at length about my political and scientific opinions”.The police have a duty to investigate the alleged crime, but this kind of questioning smacks of something far more sinister because a person’s political and scientific views are being weighed to assess his likely criminality in the eyes of the police officer.Now you might ask how else the police are going to establish who is a suspect. After all, you would certainly ask people about their views if you investigating a string of racist attacks. But this is not a violent crime or a terrorist matter: moreover, Nokes had simply sent “an FOI request to the university’s climate unit asking whether scientists had received training in the disclosure rules and asking for copies of any emails in which they suggested ducking their obligations to disclose data”.On that basis the police felt entitled to examine Nokes on his views. These days it’s surprising that they haven’t found a way to seize his computer and mobile phone, which is what routinely happens to those involved in climate change protests. Limits need to be set in the policing and investigation of people’s legitimate beliefs. Any future government must take a grip on the tendency of the police to watch, search, categorise and retain the personal details of those who express the political, religious or scientific beliefs. We should never forget that under this government the police have used forward intelligence teams to photograph people emerging from a climate change meeting in a cafe in Brighton; have used the ANPR system to track the movement of vehicles belonging to people travelling to demonstrations; have preventedpress photographers from carrying out their lawful right to cover news events; and have combed the computers and searched the premises of an MP legitimately engaged in the business of opposition and holding the government to account.What this adds up to is a failure of understanding in the police force that one of its primary duties is to protect the various and sometimes inconvenient manifestations of a democracy, not to suppress them. That is why they have to be ultra-careful deploying specialist terrorist intelligence units and treating people’s opinions as evidence.(2010)Q.The author is least likely to support which of the following?a)Tracking the movements of a person accused of corporate fraudb)Seizing the computer or mobile of an alleged terroristc)Analysing the political beliefs of a person involved in a racist attackd)Banning media coverage of an event because it is likely to get violentCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam