What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > What is the primary objective of the collabor...

What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?

a)
To establish a cricket training center
b)
To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadium
c)
To empower Kho Kho talents
d)
To organize cultural events in Bhubaneswar

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha gove...

The correct answer is Option C. The collaboration aims to establish a High-Performance Center (HPC) for Kho Kho at Kalinga Stadium in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, with the primary goal of nurturing and promoting Kho Kho talents.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.Q. What is the primary purpose of the NIOD Institutes collection of personal correspondence mentioned in the passage?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.Q. Which of the following statements tangentially supports the idea that private records like letters and diaries can shed light on historical events?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.Q. What historical idea did German historian Leopold von Ranke create, and what was its main objective?

View answer

Directions: Kindly read the passage carefully and answer the questions given below.Today, Mechanicus’s diary is one of more than 2,100 in an Amsterdam collection held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, housed in the underground archives of a grand, doublewide mansion on the Golden Bend of the Herengracht Canal. The NIOD collection didn’t come together by accident. It was part of a concerted effort to collect, preserve and potentially publish the personal correspondence of ordinary citizens living through the occupation.The idea to do so was hatched simultaneously by Loe de Jong, a Dutch Jewish journalist in exile in London, who worked for Radio Oranje, the broadcast station for the government in exile, and a group of local Dutch scholars led by the economics and social history professor, Nicolaas Wilhelmus Posthumus, who had already established a few archives of social movements.More than a year before the war ended, De Jong had convinced the exiled Dutch Cabinet to establish a study centre of the occupation; it would open its doors as soon as the war ended. On 28 March 1944, Gerrit Bolkestein, the Dutch minister of education, arts and sciences, addressed the nation on Radio Oranje, in a speech that De Jong had written for him.‘History cannot be written on the basis of official decisions and documents alone,’ said Bolkestein to his countrymen back home. ‘If our descendants are to understand fully what we as a nation have had to endure and overcome during these years, then what we really need are ordinary documents – a diary, letters.’It was a relatively new notion that personal documents could illuminate history. Scholars of the early 20th century, above all, valued ‘objectivism’, a concept developed by the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who sought to turn ‘historiography’ into a scientific discipline; this required ridding it of its moral dimension. Ranke argued that facts were central to objective history-writing and, to maintain a scholarly distance from facts, historians should eliminate personal bias and take a neutral attitude. But, between the two world wars, this notion of ‘objectivism’ was already losing its grip. Official documents kept by the Germans as part of their notoriously meticulous record-keeping project, for instance, were naturally subjective in their advancement of Nazi aims.A more accurate way to differentiate between subjective and objective documentation would be through the prism of power. Sources considered ‘objective’ were typically associated with the dominant power elite; documents like diaries and letters, oral histories and first-hand witness accounts, by contrast, were often deemed suspect because they were tainted by experience.Q. Who was responsible for the idea of collecting and preserving personal documents like diaries and letters during the wartime occupation?

View answer

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Entrapment is a defence to criminal charges on the basis that the defendant only committed the crime because of harassment or coercion by a government official. Without such coercion, the crime would never have been committed. Entrapment can be a difficult defence to assert because it requires the defendant to establish that the idea and impetus for the crime were introduced by government officials, and the defendant was not already willing or predisposed to commit the crime. It is also important to note that entrapment can only occur with a government official, such as an FBI official or a police officer, not a private individual. Additionally, since it is an affirmative defence, the criminal defendant has the burden of establishing that entrapment occurred.Opportunity is not EntrapmentIn order to find and eliminate criminal behaviour, law enforcement officers are allowed to engage in sting operations, whereby they create circumstances that allow individuals to take criminal actions that they can then be arrested and prosecuted for. These are considered "opportunities" for individuals believed to be involved in criminal behaviour to commit crimes. An opportunity is considered very different from entrapment and involves merely the temptation to violate the law, not being forced to do so.Unlike creating an opportunity, entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers urge, harass, or otherwise overly encourage an individual to commit a crime when he or she would not otherwise do so. Entrapment may result from the use of threats, intimidation, extended fraud, or any other means where the defendant was essentially forced to commit a crime.For example, law enforcement officers could set up a sting operation for a suspected criminal to commit a burglary. This might involve a law enforcement officer pretending to be a fellow criminal and alerting the defendant of a warehouse shipment that will be arriving shortly and will not be protected by security. If the defendant completes the burglary on the basis of this information, this is not entrapment. The officers have merely created an opportunity for the defendant to commit the crime, and their efforts to do so were entirely legal. If however, the undercover law enforcement officer threatens that the defendant needs to commit the burglary for him, or he will be punished, or shows up every day and harasses the defendant to commit the burglary even though the defendant does not appear interested, this could amount to entrapment. It goes beyond providing an opportunity and involves efforts by law enforcement to force the burglary to occur.Analysing EntrapmentAssessing whether a criminal defendant was harassed or forced into committing a criminal act is a difficult task and involves a thorough evaluation of the circumstances. In some states, an objective standard is used to evaluate entrapment, meaning that the criminal defendant must show that the tactics used by government officials were such that any reasonable person would have been induced to commit a crime.However, other states utilize a subjective standard for assessing entrapment.Under the subjective standard, the court or jury weighs the actions of the law enforcement officials against the criminal defendant's predisposition to commit a crime and considers which was the primary motivating factor for the criminal act. Thus, the burden is on the defendant to show that the actions of the government officials were so overbearing and extreme as to constitute the primary reason for the crime to occur, or that the defendant had no prior motivation or disposition to complete the crime. This is often a much harder standard to meet than the objective standard.Q. The evidence put up by John to show that he was forced by the manager to commit the crime is such that it show that the tactics used by him were such that any reasonable person would have been induced to commit a crime. What type of standard will be used to assess whether there was any entrapment or not?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice What is the primary objective of the collaboration between Odisha government and ArcelorMittal Nippon Steel (AM/NS) India, as per the MoU signed?a)To establish a cricket training centerb)To promote football talents in Kalinga Stadiumc)To empower Kho Kho talentsd)To organize cultural events in BhubaneswarCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam