Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage and answer the items that follow. Your answers to these items should be based on the passage only.There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4. Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be. As for India, we can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan. Brazil has regional opponents and claimants. As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan – both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states – were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5. Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups. There is quite a debate going on about whether the aspiring countries should accept permanent membership without the right of veto. There is no ambiguity regarding the position of the P-5. Every one of them is firmly opposed to conferring the veto power to any prospective new permanent member. Not just the P-5. The vast majority of members do not want any more veto-wielding members in the Council. There is a proposal to the effect that a resolution can be defeated only by a negative vote of at least two permanent members. This also is a non-starter; the P-5 are firmly opposed to any dilution of their privileged position.Following assumptions have been made based on above passage:I. Addition of few more non permanent members would not be objected to by P-5. II. With India’s present standing it should be easy to become a permanent member.Which of the above assumptions are valid?a)I only b)II only c)Both I and II d)Neither I nor IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.