Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Consider the following pairs regarding Proge...

Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:

1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children

2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria

3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes

4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with Progeria

How many pairs given above are correctly matched?

a)
Only one pair
b)
Only two pairs
c)
Only three pairs
d)
All four pairs

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford...

1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children - This is correctly matched. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome is indeed a rare genetic condition that causes rapid aging in children.

2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria - This is incorrectly matched. Lonafarnib is not a cure for Progeria; it is a medication that has shown the ability to slow the progression of the disease but does not cure it.

3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes - This is correctly matched. Heart complications or strokes are indeed the primary causes of death in individuals with Progeria.

4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with Progeria - This is incorrectly matched. Progeria does not impact a child’s cognitive abilities or brain development; thus, their cognitive development is not severely affected by the condition.

Pairs 1 and 3 are correctly matched, making the correct answer Option B: Only two pairs.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Consider the following statements about Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome:1. Progeria is caused by a major genetic mutation that affects cognitive development in children.2. Children with progeria typically show signs of premature aging within the first one to two years of life.3. Lonafarnib is a medication that has been shown to slow the progression of progeria.Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

View answer

Consider the following statements:Statement-I:Progeria, also known as Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, is a genetic disorder that leads to a rapid aging process in children.Statement-II:Eco-Sensitive Zones serve as buffer areas surrounding Protected Areas to provide a transition zone for wildlife.Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

View answer

Consider the following assumptions. 1. The Suprem e Court has ruled in f av our of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter. 2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962.This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed -raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company.Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Q. Consider the following assumptions. 1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter. 2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?

View answer

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following assumptions.1. The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone mainly because the law does not allow for a case against the latter.2. The tax claims that are being made should be rightfully made against Hutchison and not Vodafone.With reference to the above passage which of the following assumptions is/are valid?

View answer

The problem with backdating taxes is that the taxpayer will have to continuously guess how much of his current income will be taken away at a later date. This is the crux of the Parthasarathi Shome committee report on retrospective taxation of cross-border acquisition of Indian assets, like Vodafone’s $11.2 billion purchase of Hutchison’s stake in the country’s third largest telecom service provider in 2007.The Supreme Court in January ruled against the taxman, who was claiming Rs. 11,200 crore in tax, penalty and interest. The court conceded that Indian law was incapable of plugging a widely used tax dodge by inbound foreign investment. The message for the government in the verdict was that the law needed to be changed to curb treaty shopping, the practice of routing investments through letter-box companies in havens like Mauritius to avoid paying taxes in India.Presenting his last budget in March, the then finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, altered the Income Tax Act to tax such deals with retrospective effect. His argument was since the court felt the intent of the law was not clear, it had to be explicitly clarified for the entire past life of the Income Tax Act, which was enacted in 1962. This last bit - that deals done earlier could be taxed - raised a chorus of protest from the investing community, and the finance ministry under P Chidambaram sought an independent review of its stand. Mr Shome, a tax expert of international standing, has now told the government what it knew all this while: taxes in retrospect are best avoided.Specifically, they must never be used to merely raise tax revenue. In the Vodafone case, the Shome committee is unequivocal: the company to claim tax from is Hutchison, which made the profit from the sale of its stake in the telecom company. Vodafone was not required by the extant law to withhold capital gains tax. Since Vodafone made no profit in the deal, the question of interest and penalties on back taxes does not arise.Mr Chidambaram has indicated his desire to reverse the decision as soon as possible, even before the next budget when, normally, amendments to the Income Tax Act are undertaken. He reckons investors will return to the table once the fog over retrospective taxes is lifted.Consider the following statements:1. Vodafone bought Hutchison’s stake in the year 2008.2. The then Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee did not alter the Income Tax Act.According to the above passage, which of the statements is/are valid?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. 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 Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Consider the following pairs regarding Progeria:1. Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome: Rapid aging in children2. Lonafarnib: Cure for Progeria3. Primary Cause of Death: Heart complications or strokes4. Cognitive Development: Affected severely in children with ProgeriaHow many pairs given above are correctly matched?a)Only one pairb)Only two pairsc)Only three pairsd)All four pairsCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam