CLAT Practice Test - 4 - CLAT MCQ

The need for Women’s empowerment was felt in India long back. Mahtama Gandhi had announced at the Second Round Table Conference that his aim was to establish a political society in India in which there would be no distinction between people of high and low classes and in which women would enjoy the same rights as men and the teeming millions of Indians would be ensured dignity and justice-social, economic and political.

The country’s concern in safeguarding the rights and privileges of women found its best expression in the Constitution of India, covering Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Constitution (73 and 74 Amendment) Acts, 1992 provides that not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat and Municipality shall be reserved for women. To make this de-jure equality into a de-facto one, many policies and programmes were put into action from time to time, besides enacting/enforcing special legislations, in favour of women. There is hardly any programme to address the cultural and traditional discrimination against women that leads to her abject conditions.

Apart from the constitutional provisions, a large number of laws have been enacted to protect the Human Rights for Women. The important policies which have vital implications for the women are National Policy for Empowerment of Women 2001 and others relating to population, health, nutrition, education, agriculture, industry, forest, water, housing, credit, science and technology, media, etc.

Since Women’s empowerment is a global issue, UNO has also expressed concern in the matter. The Charter of the United Nations declares equal dignity and worth of human person-all types of human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural. In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action proclaimed the rights of women and girl child as “Inalienable, integral and indivisible part – Priority objective of the international community”

Q. Consider the following statements regarding the above passage.
1. United Nations declare all types of human rights to both men and women in respect of social, cultural, religious, political and economic matters.
2. Gandhian view was that there has not to be any distinction between high and low classes and women must get preferential treatment. Choose the correct option:

The need for Women’s empowerment was felt in India long back. Mahtama Gandhi had announced at the Second Round Table Conference that his aim was to establish a political society in India in which there would be no distinction between people of high and low classes and in which women would enjoy the same rights as men and the teeming millions of Indians would be ensured dignity and justice-social, economic and political.

The country’s concern in safeguarding the rights and privileges of women found its best expression in the Constitution of India, covering Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Constitution (73 and 74 Amendment) Acts, 1992 provides that not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat and Municipality shall be reserved for women. To make this de-jure equality into a de-facto one, many policies and programmes were put into action from time to time, besides enacting/enforcing special legislations, in favour of women. There is hardly any programme to address the cultural and traditional discrimination against women that leads to her abject conditions.

Apart from the constitutional provisions, a large number of laws have been enacted to protect the Human Rights for Women. The important policies which have vital implications for the women are National Policy for Empowerment of Women 2001 and others relating to population, health, nutrition, education, agriculture, industry, forest, water, housing, credit, science and technology, media, etc.

Since Women’s empowerment is a global issue, UNO has also expressed concern in the matter. The Charter of the United Nations declares equal dignity and worth of human person-all types of human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural. In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action proclaimed the rights of women and girl child as “Inalienable, integral and indivisible part – Priority objective of the international community”

Q. According to the passage what specific measures have been taken to make equality to women ‘de-facto‘ from ‘de-jure‘?
1. Some special schemes have been launched for the welfare of women.
2. Some mechanism has been put into place to ensure that special laws for women are properly implemented.
3. Some progressive policies have been put into place.
4. Some special laws have been enacted to enforce the women rights.

The need for Women’s empowerment was felt in India long back. Mahtama Gandhi had announced at the Second Round Table Conference that his aim was to establish a political society in India in which there would be no distinction between people of high and low classes and in which women would enjoy the same rights as men and the teeming millions of Indians would be ensured dignity and justice-social, economic and political.

The country’s concern in safeguarding the rights and privileges of women found its best expression in the Constitution of India, covering Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Constitution (73 and 74 Amendment) Acts, 1992 provides that not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat and Municipality shall be reserved for women. To make this de-jure equality into a de-facto one, many policies and programmes were put into action from time to time, besides enacting/enforcing special legislations, in favour of women. There is hardly any programme to address the cultural and traditional discrimination against women that leads to her abject conditions.

Apart from the constitutional provisions, a large number of laws have been enacted to protect the Human Rights for Women. The important policies which have vital implications for the women are National Policy for Empowerment of Women 2001 and others relating to population, health, nutrition, education, agriculture, industry, forest, water, housing, credit, science and technology, media, etc.

Since Women’s empowerment is a global issue, UNO has also expressed concern in the matter. The Charter of the United Nations declares equal dignity and worth of human person-all types of human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural. In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action proclaimed the rights of women and girl child as “Inalienable, integral and indivisible part – Priority objective of the international community”

Q. According to the passage what are the various provisions for women as per Indian Constitution.
1. One third of the seats in Panchayats and Municipalities will be reserved for women.
2. Some of the rights of women get a mention in fundamental rights list and in directive principles of state policy. 
Choose the correct answer:

The need for Women’s empowerment was felt in India long back. Mahtama Gandhi had announced at the Second Round Table Conference that his aim was to establish a political society in India in which there would be no distinction between people of high and low classes and in which women would enjoy the same rights as men and the teeming millions of Indians would be ensured dignity and justice-social, economic and political.

The country’s concern in safeguarding the rights and privileges of women found its best expression in the Constitution of India, covering Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Constitution (73 and 74 Amendment) Acts, 1992 provides that not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat and Municipality shall be reserved for women. To make this de-jure equality into a de-facto one, many policies and programmes were put into action from time to time, besides enacting/enforcing special legislations, in favour of women. There is hardly any programme to address the cultural and traditional discrimination against women that leads to her abject conditions.

Apart from the constitutional provisions, a large number of laws have been enacted to protect the Human Rights for Women. The important policies which have vital implications for the women are National Policy for Empowerment of Women 2001 and others relating to population, health, nutrition, education, agriculture, industry, forest, water, housing, credit, science and technology, media, etc.

Since Women’s empowerment is a global issue, UNO has also expressed concern in the matter. The Charter of the United Nations declares equal dignity and worth of human person-all types of human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural. In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action proclaimed the rights of women and girl child as “Inalienable, integral and indivisible part – Priority objective of the international community”

Q. Apart from the Constitution, where from other rights of women could be derived?
1. National policy on housing.
2. National forest policy.
3. National agriculture policy.
4. National policy on tribals.
Choose the correct answer:

The need for Women’s empowerment was felt in India long back. Mahtama Gandhi had announced at the Second Round Table Conference that his aim was to establish a political society in India in which there would be no distinction between people of high and low classes and in which women would enjoy the same rights as men and the teeming millions of Indians would be ensured dignity and justice-social, economic and political.

The country’s concern in safeguarding the rights and privileges of women found its best expression in the Constitution of India, covering Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Constitution (73 and 74 Amendment) Acts, 1992 provides that not less than one third (including the number of seats reserved for women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat and Municipality shall be reserved for women. To make this de-jure equality into a de-facto one, many policies and programmes were put into action from time to time, besides enacting/enforcing special legislations, in favour of women. There is hardly any programme to address the cultural and traditional discrimination against women that leads to her abject conditions.

Apart from the constitutional provisions, a large number of laws have been enacted to protect the Human Rights for Women. The important policies which have vital implications for the women are National Policy for Empowerment of Women 2001 and others relating to population, health, nutrition, education, agriculture, industry, forest, water, housing, credit, science and technology, media, etc.

Since Women’s empowerment is a global issue, UNO has also expressed concern in the matter. The Charter of the United Nations declares equal dignity and worth of human person-all types of human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural. In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action proclaimed the rights of women and girl child as “Inalienable, integral and indivisible part – Priority objective of the international community”

Q. What is the correct inference drawn out from the passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The prime minister's cabinet met at 6 a.m. on 26 June. None of her senior ministers knew of the proclamation in advance, but the cabinet quickly and dutifully approved the decision. The Emergency Order had already removed protections of rights to freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. The president signed another proclamation under Article 359 on 27 June, suspending the right to move any court to enforce rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. The next day, Fali S. Nariman, one of India's top law officers, dispatched a one-line letter of resignation as additional attorney-general in protest.

H. V. Kamath, among others, had warned against this Emergency provision in the Constituent Assembly, citing the cautionary example of Hitler's abuse of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. Agamben [the renowned Italian philosopher] also mentions this example as part of a rising trend since World War I in the United States, France, Britain, Italy and Switzerland to invoke emergency conditions to assume extraordinary powers, which were subsequently normalized as the paradigm of government. Kamath feared something of this kind. He argued that if India had survived the crises in Kashmir and Hyderabad without Emergency provisions, it could outlive future adversities too. But the leading drafters, including Ambedkar, were adamant that the security of the state required them to deal with extraordinary circumstances. They thought a powerful state was necessary to secure the nation's integrity and transform its outmoded and unequal society. Their arguments won the day, and the Constituent Assembly adopted the Emergency provisions.

Twenty-five years later, Kamath's warning came to pass. The Emergency proclamation signed by President Ahmed just before midnight on 25 June was announced within hours by the knocks on the doors of Indira's political opponents. By the dawn of 26 June, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and over 600 opposition leaders and activists were behind bars. The government managed to cut off electricity to all but two newspapers in New Delhi on the night of 25 June to prevent them from reporting the predawn swoop. In any case, the arrests had occurred too late for the morning editions to carry the news. The government seized the supplements published by the Hindustan Times and Motherland on 26 June. The newspapers of 27 June reported the declaration of the Emergency, suspending fundamental rights under Article 19, and the arrest of JP and opposition leaders. They also reported on the unscheduled radio broadcast by the prime minister on the morning of 26 June, in which she justified the proclamation on the grounds of the threat to internal stability. She spoke about "the deep and widespread conspiracy" brewing against her progressive reforms and agitations threatening law and order and normal functioning.

Q. According to the passage, why did the Prime Minister's cabinet meet on June 26?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The prime minister's cabinet met at 6 a.m. on 26 June. None of her senior ministers knew of the proclamation in advance, but the cabinet quickly and dutifully approved the decision. The Emergency Order had already removed protections of rights to freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. The president signed another proclamation under Article 359 on 27 June, suspending the right to move any court to enforce rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. The next day, Fali S. Nariman, one of India's top law officers, dispatched a one-line letter of resignation as additional attorney-general in protest.

H. V. Kamath, among others, had warned against this Emergency provision in the Constituent Assembly, citing the cautionary example of Hitler's abuse of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. Agamben [the renowned Italian philosopher] also mentions this example as part of a rising trend since World War I in the United States, France, Britain, Italy and Switzerland to invoke emergency conditions to assume extraordinary powers, which were subsequently normalized as the paradigm of government. Kamath feared something of this kind. He argued that if India had survived the crises in Kashmir and Hyderabad without Emergency provisions, it could outlive future adversities too. But the leading drafters, including Ambedkar, were adamant that the security of the state required them to deal with extraordinary circumstances. They thought a powerful state was necessary to secure the nation's integrity and transform its outmoded and unequal society. Their arguments won the day, and the Constituent Assembly adopted the Emergency provisions.

Twenty-five years later, Kamath's warning came to pass. The Emergency proclamation signed by President Ahmed just before midnight on 25 June was announced within hours by the knocks on the doors of Indira's political opponents. By the dawn of 26 June, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and over 600 opposition leaders and activists were behind bars. The government managed to cut off electricity to all but two newspapers in New Delhi on the night of 25 June to prevent them from reporting the predawn swoop. In any case, the arrests had occurred too late for the morning editions to carry the news. The government seized the supplements published by the Hindustan Times and Motherland on 26 June. The newspapers of 27 June reported the declaration of the Emergency, suspending fundamental rights under Article 19, and the arrest of JP and opposition leaders. They also reported on the unscheduled radio broadcast by the prime minister on the morning of 26 June, in which she justified the proclamation on the grounds of the threat to internal stability. She spoke about "the deep and widespread conspiracy" brewing against her progressive reforms and agitations threatening law and order and normal functioning.

Q. According to the author, what was H.V. Kamath afraid of in respect to the Emergency provision?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The prime minister's cabinet met at 6 a.m. on 26 June. None of her senior ministers knew of the proclamation in advance, but the cabinet quickly and dutifully approved the decision. The Emergency Order had already removed protections of rights to freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. The president signed another proclamation under Article 359 on 27 June, suspending the right to move any court to enforce rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. The next day, Fali S. Nariman, one of India's top law officers, dispatched a one-line letter of resignation as additional attorney-general in protest.

H. V. Kamath, among others, had warned against this Emergency provision in the Constituent Assembly, citing the cautionary example of Hitler's abuse of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. Agamben [the renowned Italian philosopher] also mentions this example as part of a rising trend since World War I in the United States, France, Britain, Italy and Switzerland to invoke emergency conditions to assume extraordinary powers, which were subsequently normalized as the paradigm of government. Kamath feared something of this kind. He argued that if India had survived the crises in Kashmir and Hyderabad without Emergency provisions, it could outlive future adversities too. But the leading drafters, including Ambedkar, were adamant that the security of the state required them to deal with extraordinary circumstances. They thought a powerful state was necessary to secure the nation's integrity and transform its outmoded and unequal society. Their arguments won the day, and the Constituent Assembly adopted the Emergency provisions.

Twenty-five years later, Kamath's warning came to pass. The Emergency proclamation signed by President Ahmed just before midnight on 25 June was announced within hours by the knocks on the doors of Indira's political opponents. By the dawn of 26 June, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and over 600 opposition leaders and activists were behind bars. The government managed to cut off electricity to all but two newspapers in New Delhi on the night of 25 June to prevent them from reporting the predawn swoop. In any case, the arrests had occurred too late for the morning editions to carry the news. The government seized the supplements published by the Hindustan Times and Motherland on 26 June. The newspapers of 27 June reported the declaration of the Emergency, suspending fundamental rights under Article 19, and the arrest of JP and opposition leaders. They also reported on the unscheduled radio broadcast by the prime minister on the morning of 26 June, in which she justified the proclamation on the grounds of the threat to internal stability. She spoke about "the deep and widespread conspiracy" brewing against her progressive reforms and agitations threatening law and order and normal functioning.

Q. What does the word 'adamant' as used in the passage mean?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The prime minister's cabinet met at 6 a.m. on 26 June. None of her senior ministers knew of the proclamation in advance, but the cabinet quickly and dutifully approved the decision. The Emergency Order had already removed protections of rights to freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. The president signed another proclamation under Article 359 on 27 June, suspending the right to move any court to enforce rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. The next day, Fali S. Nariman, one of India's top law officers, dispatched a one-line letter of resignation as additional attorney-general in protest.

H. V. Kamath, among others, had warned against this Emergency provision in the Constituent Assembly, citing the cautionary example of Hitler's abuse of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. Agamben [the renowned Italian philosopher] also mentions this example as part of a rising trend since World War I in the United States, France, Britain, Italy and Switzerland to invoke emergency conditions to assume extraordinary powers, which were subsequently normalized as the paradigm of government. Kamath feared something of this kind. He argued that if India had survived the crises in Kashmir and Hyderabad without Emergency provisions, it could outlive future adversities too. But the leading drafters, including Ambedkar, were adamant that the security of the state required them to deal with extraordinary circumstances. They thought a powerful state was necessary to secure the nation's integrity and transform its outmoded and unequal society. Their arguments won the day, and the Constituent Assembly adopted the Emergency provisions.

Twenty-five years later, Kamath's warning came to pass. The Emergency proclamation signed by President Ahmed just before midnight on 25 June was announced within hours by the knocks on the doors of Indira's political opponents. By the dawn of 26 June, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and over 600 opposition leaders and activists were behind bars. The government managed to cut off electricity to all but two newspapers in New Delhi on the night of 25 June to prevent them from reporting the predawn swoop. In any case, the arrests had occurred too late for the morning editions to carry the news. The government seized the supplements published by the Hindustan Times and Motherland on 26 June. The newspapers of 27 June reported the declaration of the Emergency, suspending fundamental rights under Article 19, and the arrest of JP and opposition leaders. They also reported on the unscheduled radio broadcast by the prime minister on the morning of 26 June, in which she justified the proclamation on the grounds of the threat to internal stability. She spoke about "the deep and widespread conspiracy" brewing against her progressive reforms and agitations threatening law and order and normal functioning.

Q. According to the author, which of the following happened after the enactment was signed?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The prime minister's cabinet met at 6 a.m. on 26 June. None of her senior ministers knew of the proclamation in advance, but the cabinet quickly and dutifully approved the decision. The Emergency Order had already removed protections of rights to freedom under Article 19 of the Constitution. The president signed another proclamation under Article 359 on 27 June, suspending the right to move any court to enforce rights under Articles 14, 21 and 22. The next day, Fali S. Nariman, one of India's top law officers, dispatched a one-line letter of resignation as additional attorney-general in protest.

H. V. Kamath, among others, had warned against this Emergency provision in the Constituent Assembly, citing the cautionary example of Hitler's abuse of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. Agamben [the renowned Italian philosopher] also mentions this example as part of a rising trend since World War I in the United States, France, Britain, Italy and Switzerland to invoke emergency conditions to assume extraordinary powers, which were subsequently normalized as the paradigm of government. Kamath feared something of this kind. He argued that if India had survived the crises in Kashmir and Hyderabad without Emergency provisions, it could outlive future adversities too. But the leading drafters, including Ambedkar, were adamant that the security of the state required them to deal with extraordinary circumstances. They thought a powerful state was necessary to secure the nation's integrity and transform its outmoded and unequal society. Their arguments won the day, and the Constituent Assembly adopted the Emergency provisions.

Twenty-five years later, Kamath's warning came to pass. The Emergency proclamation signed by President Ahmed just before midnight on 25 June was announced within hours by the knocks on the doors of Indira's political opponents. By the dawn of 26 June, Jayaprakash Narayan, Morarji Desai and over 600 opposition leaders and activists were behind bars. The government managed to cut off electricity to all but two newspapers in New Delhi on the night of 25 June to prevent them from reporting the predawn swoop. In any case, the arrests had occurred too late for the morning editions to carry the news. The government seized the supplements published by the Hindustan Times and Motherland on 26 June. The newspapers of 27 June reported the declaration of the Emergency, suspending fundamental rights under Article 19, and the arrest of JP and opposition leaders. They also reported on the unscheduled radio broadcast by the prime minister on the morning of 26 June, in which she justified the proclamation on the grounds of the threat to internal stability. She spoke about "the deep and widespread conspiracy" brewing against her progressive reforms and agitations threatening law and order and normal functioning.

Q. What reason did Indira Gandhi provide for imposing the Emergency proclamation?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

In Bhavnagar, a former princely state in Gujarat, I, Mohandas Gandhi, had a chat with Jayshankar Buch. During the chat he advised me to apply to the Junagadh State to give me a scholarship to proceed to London for continuing my studies, I being an inhabitant of Sorath, a district in Saurashtra. I do not perfectly remember the answer I made to him that day. I suppose I felt the impossibility of getting the scholarship. From that time onwards I had in my mind the intention of visiting the land. And I was finding the means to reach that end.
On 13^th April, 1888, I left Bhavnagar to enjoy the vacation in Rajkot. After 15 days of vacation, my elder brother and I went to see Patwari. On our return my brother said: "We would go to see Mavji Joshi", a family friend and adviser of our family, and so we went. Mavji Joshi asked me as usual how I did, then put some questions about my study in Bhavnagar. I plainly told him that I had hardly any chance of passing my examination first year. I also added that I found the course very difficult. Hearing this, he advised my brother to send me as soon as possible to London for being called to the Bar. He said that the expense would be only Rs. 5,000. "Let him take some urad dal. There he will cook some food for himself and thereby there will be no objection about religion. Don't reveal the matter to anybody. Try to get some scholarship. Apply to Junagadh and Porbandar States. See my son Kevalram, the leading lawyer of Kathiwan, and if you fail in getting the pecuniary help and if you have no money, sell your furniture. But anyhow send Mohandas to London. I think that is the only means to keep the reputation of your deceased father." All of our family members have great faith in what Mavji Joshi says. And of my brother who is naturally very credulous made a promise to Mavji Joshi to send me to London. Now was the time for my exertions.
On that very day, my brother, notwithstanding his promise to keep the matter secret, told the thing to Khushalbhai, my cousin and father of Chhaganlal and Maganlal both of whom worked with him in South Africa. He, of course, approved of it in case I could observe my religion. The very day it was told to my cousin Meghjibhai. He quite agreed with the proposal and offered to give me Rs. 5,000. I had some faith in what he said.

Q. What could have been Gandhiji's answer to Buch about going to London to study?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

In Bhavnagar, a former princely state in Gujarat, I, Mohandas Gandhi, had a chat with Jayshankar Buch. During the chat he advised me to apply to the Junagadh State to give me a scholarship to proceed to London for continuing my studies, I being an inhabitant of Sorath, a district in Saurashtra. I do not perfectly remember the answer I made to him that day. I suppose I felt the impossibility of getting the scholarship. From that time onwards I had in my mind the intention of visiting the land. And I was finding the means to reach that end.
On 13^th April, 1888, I left Bhavnagar to enjoy the vacation in Rajkot. After 15 days of vacation, my elder brother and I went to see Patwari. On our return my brother said: "We would go to see Mavji Joshi", a family friend and adviser of our family, and so we went. Mavji Joshi asked me as usual how I did, then put some questions about my study in Bhavnagar. I plainly told him that I had hardly any chance of passing my examination first year. I also added that I found the course very difficult. Hearing this, he advised my brother to send me as soon as possible to London for being called to the Bar. He said that the expense would be only Rs. 5,000. "Let him take some urad dal. There he will cook some food for himself and thereby there will be no objection about religion. Don't reveal the matter to anybody. Try to get some scholarship. Apply to Junagadh and Porbandar States. See my son Kevalram, the leading lawyer of Kathiwan, and if you fail in getting the pecuniary help and if you have no money, sell your furniture. But anyhow send Mohandas to London. I think that is the only means to keep the reputation of your deceased father." All of our family members have great faith in what Mavji Joshi says. And of my brother who is naturally very credulous made a promise to Mavji Joshi to send me to London. Now was the time for my exertions.
On that very day, my brother, notwithstanding his promise to keep the matter secret, told the thing to Khushalbhai, my cousin and father of Chhaganlal and Maganlal both of whom worked with him in South Africa. He, of course, approved of it in case I could observe my religion. The very day it was told to my cousin Meghjibhai. He quite agreed with the proposal and offered to give me Rs. 5,000. I had some faith in what he said.

Q. Why did Gandhiji and his brother visit Mavji Joshi? 

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

In Bhavnagar, a former princely state in Gujarat, I, Mohandas Gandhi, had a chat with Jayshankar Buch. During the chat he advised me to apply to the Junagadh State to give me a scholarship to proceed to London for continuing my studies, I being an inhabitant of Sorath, a district in Saurashtra. I do not perfectly remember the answer I made to him that day. I suppose I felt the impossibility of getting the scholarship. From that time onwards I had in my mind the intention of visiting the land. And I was finding the means to reach that end.
On 13^th April, 1888, I left Bhavnagar to enjoy the vacation in Rajkot. After 15 days of vacation, my elder brother and I went to see Patwari. On our return my brother said: "We would go to see Mavji Joshi", a family friend and adviser of our family, and so we went. Mavji Joshi asked me as usual how I did, then put some questions about my study in Bhavnagar. I plainly told him that I had hardly any chance of passing my examination first year. I also added that I found the course very difficult. Hearing this, he advised my brother to send me as soon as possible to London for being called to the Bar. He said that the expense would be only Rs. 5,000. "Let him take some urad dal. There he will cook some food for himself and thereby there will be no objection about religion. Don't reveal the matter to anybody. Try to get some scholarship. Apply to Junagadh and Porbandar States. See my son Kevalram, the leading lawyer of Kathiwan, and if you fail in getting the pecuniary help and if you have no money, sell your furniture. But anyhow send Mohandas to London. I think that is the only means to keep the reputation of your deceased father." All of our family members have great faith in what Mavji Joshi says. And of my brother who is naturally very credulous made a promise to Mavji Joshi to send me to London. Now was the time for my exertions.
On that very day, my brother, notwithstanding his promise to keep the matter secret, told the thing to Khushalbhai, my cousin and father of Chhaganlal and Maganlal both of whom worked with him in South Africa. He, of course, approved of it in case I could observe my religion. The very day it was told to my cousin Meghjibhai. He quite agreed with the proposal and offered to give me Rs. 5,000. I had some faith in what he said.

Q. What does the word 'credulous' mean as used in the passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

In Bhavnagar, a former princely state in Gujarat, I, Mohandas Gandhi, had a chat with Jayshankar Buch. During the chat he advised me to apply to the Junagadh State to give me a scholarship to proceed to London for continuing my studies, I being an inhabitant of Sorath, a district in Saurashtra. I do not perfectly remember the answer I made to him that day. I suppose I felt the impossibility of getting the scholarship. From that time onwards I had in my mind the intention of visiting the land. And I was finding the means to reach that end.
On 13^th April, 1888, I left Bhavnagar to enjoy the vacation in Rajkot. After 15 days of vacation, my elder brother and I went to see Patwari. On our return my brother said: "We would go to see Mavji Joshi", a family friend and adviser of our family, and so we went. Mavji Joshi asked me as usual how I did, then put some questions about my study in Bhavnagar. I plainly told him that I had hardly any chance of passing my examination first year. I also added that I found the course very difficult. Hearing this, he advised my brother to send me as soon as possible to London for being called to the Bar. He said that the expense would be only Rs. 5,000. "Let him take some urad dal. There he will cook some food for himself and thereby there will be no objection about religion. Don't reveal the matter to anybody. Try to get some scholarship. Apply to Junagadh and Porbandar States. See my son Kevalram, the leading lawyer of Kathiwan, and if you fail in getting the pecuniary help and if you have no money, sell your furniture. But anyhow send Mohandas to London. I think that is the only means to keep the reputation of your deceased father." All of our family members have great faith in what Mavji Joshi says. And of my brother who is naturally very credulous made a promise to Mavji Joshi to send me to London. Now was the time for my exertions.
On that very day, my brother, notwithstanding his promise to keep the matter secret, told the thing to Khushalbhai, my cousin and father of Chhaganlal and Maganlal both of whom worked with him in South Africa. He, of course, approved of it in case I could observe my religion. The very day it was told to my cousin Meghjibhai. He quite agreed with the proposal and offered to give me Rs. 5,000. I had some faith in what he said.

Q. What could be a reason why Gandhiji felt that he would not pass his examination?

A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post-truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: “How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.” Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to “systemic problems with how people get their information and how they’ve come to think in increasingly partisan terms”.

Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an “insulated knowledge community”, with “social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world”. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called “alternative facts”, so that such “facts” are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.

Kakutani’s important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere — and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted — each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it.

A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: “To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....” There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that “social media is undermining truth”, “making what you say meaningless”, “making you unhappy”, and “making politics impossible”.

Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: “When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.” Anxiety is easy to whip up. It’s like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a child-abuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children’s organs.

But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: “You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.”
 It’s tough to delete one’s accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back “the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world”. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an “introspective intensive” course in university, a “quiet room” at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an “unplugged” (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and “screen-free zones” in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.

Q. Which among the following is true regarding the opinion expressed in the passage about reading news stories from various online sources?

A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post-truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: “How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.” Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to “systemic problems with how people get their information and how they’ve come to think in increasingly partisan terms”.

Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an “insulated knowledge community”, with “social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world”. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called “alternative facts”, so that such “facts” are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.

Kakutani’s important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere — and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted — each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it.

A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: “To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....” There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that “social media is undermining truth”, “making what you say meaningless”, “making you unhappy”, and “making politics impossible”.

Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: “When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.” Anxiety is easy to whip up. It’s like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a child-abuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children’s organs.

But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: “You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.”
 It’s tough to delete one’s accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back “the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world”. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an “introspective intensive” course in university, a “quiet room” at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an “unplugged” (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and “screen-free zones” in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.

Q. Which among the following is not true according to the given passage?
I. The victory of Donald Trump in the US Presidential elections is mainly due to the social media engineering of facts.
II. It is necessary that the readers are alert whenever they are going through any news since using personal discretion is very important.
III. Leaving the social media is an example of depression and isolation from the society that is very much harmful.

A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post-truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: “How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.” Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to “systemic problems with how people get their information and how they’ve come to think in increasingly partisan terms”.

Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an “insulated knowledge community”, with “social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world”. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called “alternative facts”, so that such “facts” are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.

Kakutani’s important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere — and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted — each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it.

A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: “To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....” There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that “social media is undermining truth”, “making what you say meaningless”, “making you unhappy”, and “making politics impossible”.

Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: “When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.” Anxiety is easy to whip up. It’s like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a child-abuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children’s organs.

But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: “You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.”
 It’s tough to delete one’s accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back “the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world”. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an “introspective intensive” course in university, a “quiet room” at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an “unplugged” (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and “screen-free zones” in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.

Q. Which among the following has/have been suggested as possible solution(s) to tackle the internet addiction prevalent in human beings today?
I. The academic curriculum should be changed and courses focusing on introspection of oneself should be there in the course materials.
II. The employers should arrange for areas within the premises where employees can just recreate with each other without the help of any device or technology.
III. In the public space, the administration should make sure that there is no device working in a particular area.

A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post-truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: “How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.” Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to “systemic problems with how people get their information and how they’ve come to think in increasingly partisan terms”.

Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an “insulated knowledge community”, with “social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world”. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called “alternative facts”, so that such “facts” are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.

Kakutani’s important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere — and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted — each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it.

A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: “To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....” There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that “social media is undermining truth”, “making what you say meaningless”, “making you unhappy”, and “making politics impossible”.

Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: “When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.” Anxiety is easy to whip up. It’s like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a child-abuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children’s organs.

But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: “You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.”
 It’s tough to delete one’s accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back “the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world”. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an “introspective intensive” course in university, a “quiet room” at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an “unplugged” (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and “screen-free zones” in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.

Q. Which among the following perfectly describes the main objective of the book written by Michiko Kakutani as described in the passage?

A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post-truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: “How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.” Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to “systemic problems with how people get their information and how they’ve come to think in increasingly partisan terms”.

Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an “insulated knowledge community”, with “social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world”. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called “alternative facts”, so that such “facts” are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.

Kakutani’s important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere — and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted — each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it.

A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: “To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....” There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that “social media is undermining truth”, “making what you say meaningless”, “making you unhappy”, and “making politics impossible”.

Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: “When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.” Anxiety is easy to whip up. It’s like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a child-abuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children’s organs.

But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: “You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.”
 It’s tough to delete one’s accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back “the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world”. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an “introspective intensive” course in university, a “quiet room” at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an “unplugged” (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and “screen-free zones” in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.

Q. Which among the following is not a harmful effect of social media that has been highlighted in the passage?

A few months after Donald Trump took over as the President of the U.S. in 2017, Michiko Kakutani stepped down as the chief book reviewer at The New York Times to devote herself to studying the post-truth, divisive political era that his election marked. Or, as she writes in the book her inquiry has now yielded, The Death of Truth: “How did truth and reason become such endangered species, and what does their impending demise portend for our public discourse and the future of our politics and governance? That is the purpose of this book.” Her inquiry is multilayered, with insights that echo worldwide as institutions and expertise are undermined, but it is useful to pause at her reference to “systemic problems with how people get their information and how they’ve come to think in increasingly partisan terms”.

Filter bubbles created by algorithms and social media are crucial here, with their capacity to create echo chambers so that one world view is repeatedly conveyed to the exclusion of all else. For instance, Kakutani cites a 2017 Harvard study which found that in the 19 months leading up to election-day in 2016, pro-Trump audiences were reliant on an “insulated knowledge community”, with “social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world”. This creates a fertile ground for what a Trump aide later called “alternative facts”, so that such “facts” are not just being floated, but also used to contest reportage in the mainstream media.

Kakutani’s important study has a rather specific context. But even away from the ideological fight in the U.S. and elsewhere — and perhaps even away from the danger of concocted stories gaining credence by virtue of having been forwarded, shared, liked, and re-tweeted — each one of us would benefit from an appraisal of how we get information and how we read it.

A lot of it is through social media, including links to news stories, many of them put out by news media itself. Jaron Lanier’s Ten Arguments For Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now is a riveting call for self-preservation. Lanier, an Internet and virtual reality pioneer, lists some of the gains to be made by doing so: “To free yourself, to be more authentic, to be less addicted, to be less manipulated, to be less paranoid.....” There is, he suggests, no good way to be on social media and retain a free mind. In fact, among the reasons (all very convincing, and urgent) are that “social media is undermining truth”, “making what you say meaningless”, “making you unhappy”, and “making politics impossible”.

Lanier also says that social media is destroying your capacity for empathy: “When we’re all seeing different, private worlds, then our cues to one another become meaningless.” Anxiety is easy to whip up. It’s like the childhood prank where one kid rattles the rest by gazing at the sky, so that everyone else gets anxious and keeps looking up, he explains. Soon, I suppose, the children snap out of it. But with filter bubbles, the anxiety keeps getting reinforced. He cites the American example of a man reacting to a conspiracy theory, targeted at Hillary Clinton, that a pizza place in Washington was running a child-abuse racket by firing shots at the site. In India, we could substitute as examples the horrific lynchings in recent months based on viral WhatsApp messages about kidnappers being on the prowl to harvest children’s organs.

But even as he attempts to persuade readers to get off social media, one person at a time till Silicon Valley gets the message, Lanier emphasizes that this should not mean a rejection of the Internet. And whether you are brave enough to get off social media or not, do heed this advice to keep your sanity and ensure the integrity and cohesion of your information gathering: “You can still get news online. Read news websites directly (instead of getting news through personalized feeds), especially sites that hire investigative reporters. Get a feel for the editorial voice of each site, which is only available when you go direct.”
 It’s tough to delete one’s accounts, admits Lanier, in the face of addiction and the network-effect lock. But advice from physicist Alan Lightman may help break the addiction to being constantly online. In his slim book, In Praise of Wasting Time, he suggests some society-wide moves to roll back “the destruction of our inner selves via the wired world”. He recommends a daily ten-minute period of silence in schools, an “introspective intensive” course in university, a “quiet room” at workplaces that are mandatorily free of devices for employees to retreat to, an “unplugged” (i.e. free of phones, computers, etc.) hour at home, and “screen-free zones” in public areas. Sounds also like advice for saving time.

Q. Which among the following is similar in meaning to the word 'Concocted' as used in the passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Almost all of us have this belief that the knowledge about technology, management and smartness are the more important ingredients of a successful entrepreneurship. But, Alibaba Group's executive chairman, Jack Ma did not have any of it when he started his business in 1995.

Starting out his career as a teacher is what made him into the world's renowned businessman he is today, believes Ma. "The only thing that made me into a successful businessman is my teaching background," Ma said on Thursday, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Tianjin, China.

Before starting Alibaba, Ma faced the rejections from 30 jobs and decided to start an Internet-based company. At the Forum, Ma said, that he did not know about technology and had no idea about how a business can be run, but he was confident about one quality of him as an English teacher, which was the ability to identify and cultivate talent.

At the Forum in China, when Ma was asked about his early retirement, he clearly said, "I do not want to die in office. I can die at the seaside, I would feel very happy. I prefer dying on the beach."

Speaking about his background as an English teacher, he added, "I used to be a teacher. That was not the trend in entrepreneurship. But with time, I had a very good team, but no good luck stay with you all the time. We need to extend the luck if you want to do so; you need to offer more opportunities to others, which mean you gave yourself more chances."

Confessing about his other desires and interests of life, he said, "You're born to see life and try different things as life is not just about work. A lot of things I got interested in the past 20 years, I feel pity that I did not have the time and capability of doing so. But today I have time and capability of developing these new things."

Ma refutes the logic of working until you're 80 and 90. "I don't think it's necessary to work till 80 or 90. Look at the other countries, entrepreneurs and business owners have white hair but do you know, it's a kind of step back, in today's times. I have more time to do for my interest areas," said Ma.

"I really want to show this to businesses in China and Asia. Never saying giving up and keep working and fighting for the age of 90 and much more," he said.

Q. How was Ma able to become successful despite not having the necessary qualities?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Almost all of us have this belief that the knowledge about technology, management and smartness are the more important ingredients of a successful entrepreneurship. But, Alibaba Group's executive chairman, Jack Ma did not have any of it when he started his business in 1995.

Starting out his career as a teacher is what made him into the world's renowned businessman he is today, believes Ma. "The only thing that made me into a successful businessman is my teaching background," Ma said on Thursday, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Tianjin, China.

Before starting Alibaba, Ma faced the rejections from 30 jobs and decided to start an Internet-based company. At the Forum, Ma said, that he did not know about technology and had no idea about how a business can be run, but he was confident about one quality of him as an English teacher, which was the ability to identify and cultivate talent.

At the Forum in China, when Ma was asked about his early retirement, he clearly said, "I do not want to die in office. I can die at the seaside, I would feel very happy. I prefer dying on the beach."

Speaking about his background as an English teacher, he added, "I used to be a teacher. That was not the trend in entrepreneurship. But with time, I had a very good team, but no good luck stay with you all the time. We need to extend the luck if you want to do so; you need to offer more opportunities to others, which mean you gave yourself more chances."

Confessing about his other desires and interests of life, he said, "You're born to see life and try different things as life is not just about work. A lot of things I got interested in the past 20 years, I feel pity that I did not have the time and capability of doing so. But today I have time and capability of developing these new things."

Ma refutes the logic of working until you're 80 and 90. "I don't think it's necessary to work till 80 or 90. Look at the other countries, entrepreneurs and business owners have white hair but do you know, it's a kind of step back, in today's times. I have more time to do for my interest areas," said Ma.

"I really want to show this to businesses in China and Asia. Never saying giving up and keep working and fighting for the age of 90 and much more," he said.

Q. What does Ma imply when he says "I do not want to die in office"?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Almost all of us have this belief that the knowledge about technology, management and smartness are the more important ingredients of a successful entrepreneurship. But, Alibaba Group's executive chairman, Jack Ma did not have any of it when he started his business in 1995.

Starting out his career as a teacher is what made him into the world's renowned businessman he is today, believes Ma. "The only thing that made me into a successful businessman is my teaching background," Ma said on Thursday, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Tianjin, China.

Before starting Alibaba, Ma faced the rejections from 30 jobs and decided to start an Internet-based company. At the Forum, Ma said, that he did not know about technology and had no idea about how a business can be run, but he was confident about one quality of him as an English teacher, which was the ability to identify and cultivate talent.

At the Forum in China, when Ma was asked about his early retirement, he clearly said, "I do not want to die in office. I can die at the seaside, I would feel very happy. I prefer dying on the beach."

Speaking about his background as an English teacher, he added, "I used to be a teacher. That was not the trend in entrepreneurship. But with time, I had a very good team, but no good luck stay with you all the time. We need to extend the luck if you want to do so; you need to offer more opportunities to others, which mean you gave yourself more chances."

Confessing about his other desires and interests of life, he said, "You're born to see life and try different things as life is not just about work. A lot of things I got interested in the past 20 years, I feel pity that I did not have the time and capability of doing so. But today I have time and capability of developing these new things."

Ma refutes the logic of working until you're 80 and 90. "I don't think it's necessary to work till 80 or 90. Look at the other countries, entrepreneurs and business owners have white hair but do you know, it's a kind of step back, in today's times. I have more time to do for my interest areas," said Ma.

"I really want to show this to businesses in China and Asia. Never saying giving up and keep working and fighting for the age of 90 and much more," he said.

Q. What does the word 'pity' as used in the passage mean?

In a very short time after I went to live at Baltimore, my old master’s youngest son Richard died; and in about three years and six months after his death, my old master, Captain Anthony, died, leaving only his son, Andrew, and daughter, Lucretia, to share his estate. He died while on a visit to see his daughter at Hillsborough. Cut off thus unexpectedly, he left no will as to the disposal of his property. It was therefore necessary to have a valuation of the property, that it might be equally divided between Mrs. Lucretia and Master Andrew. I was immediately sent for, to be valued with the other property. Here again my feelings rose up in detestation of slavery. I had now a new conception of my degraded condition. Prior to this, I had become, if not insensible to my lot, at least partly so. I left Baltimore with a young heart overborne with sadness, and a soul full of apprehension. I took passage with Captain Rowe, in the schooner Wild Cat, and, after a sail of about twenty-four hours, I found myself near the place of my birth. I had now been absent from it almost, if not quite, five years. I, however, remembered the place very well. I was only about five years old when I left it, to go and live with my old master on Colonel Lloyd’s plantation; so that I was now between ten and eleven years old.

We were all ranked together at the valuation. Men and women, old and young, married and single, were ranked with horses, sheep, and swine. There were horses and men, cattle and women, pigs and children, all holding the same rank in the scale of being, and were all subjected to the same narrow examination. Silvery-headed age and sprightly youth, maids and matrons, had to undergo the same indelicate inspection. At this moment, I saw more clearly than ever the brutalizing effects of slavery upon both slave and slaveholder.

After the valuation, then came the division. I have no language to express the high excitement and deep anxiety which were felt among us poor slaves during this time. Our fate for life was now to be decided. We had no more voice in that decision than the brutes among whom we were ranked. A single word from the white men was enough—against all our wishes, prayers, and entreaties—to sunder forever the dearest friends, dearest kindred, and strongest ties known to human beings. In addition to the pain of separation, there was the horrid dread of falling into the hands of Master Andrew. He was known to us all as being a most cruel wretch,—a common drunkard, who had, by his reckless mismanagement and profligate dissipation, already wasted a large portion of his father's property. We all felt that we might as well be sold at once to the Georgia traders, as to pass into his hands; for we knew that that would be our inevitable condition,—a condition held by us all in utmost horror and dread.

(Extract from "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" by Young Federick Douglass)

Q. Why did Douglass go to Baltimore?

In a very short time after I went to live at Baltimore, my old master’s youngest son Richard died; and in about three years and six months after his death, my old master, Captain Anthony, died, leaving only his son, Andrew, and daughter, Lucretia, to share his estate. He died while on a visit to see his daughter at Hillsborough. Cut off thus unexpectedly, he left no will as to the disposal of his property. It was therefore necessary to have a valuation of the property, that it might be equally divided between Mrs. Lucretia and Master Andrew. I was immediately sent for, to be valued with the other property. Here again my feelings rose up in detestation of slavery. I had now a new conception of my degraded condition. Prior to this, I had become, if not insensible to my lot, at least partly so. I left Baltimore with a young heart overborne with sadness, and a soul full of apprehension. I took passage with Captain Rowe, in the schooner Wild Cat, and, after a sail of about twenty-four hours, I found myself near the place of my birth. I had now been absent from it almost, if not quite, five years. I, however, remembered the place very well. I was only about five years old when I left it, to go and live with my old master on Colonel Lloyd’s plantation; so that I was now between ten and eleven years old.

We were all ranked together at the valuation. Men and women, old and young, married and single, were ranked with horses, sheep, and swine. There were horses and men, cattle and women, pigs and children, all holding the same rank in the scale of being, and were all subjected to the same narrow examination. Silvery-headed age and sprightly youth, maids and matrons, had to undergo the same indelicate inspection. At this moment, I saw more clearly than ever the brutalizing effects of slavery upon both slave and slaveholder.

After the valuation, then came the division. I have no language to express the high excitement and deep anxiety which were felt among us poor slaves during this time. Our fate for life was now to be decided. We had no more voice in that decision than the brutes among whom we were ranked. A single word from the white men was enough—against all our wishes, prayers, and entreaties—to sunder forever the dearest friends, dearest kindred, and strongest ties known to human beings. In addition to the pain of separation, there was the horrid dread of falling into the hands of Master Andrew. He was known to us all as being a most cruel wretch,—a common drunkard, who had, by his reckless mismanagement and profligate dissipation, already wasted a large portion of his father's property. We all felt that we might as well be sold at once to the Georgia traders, as to pass into his hands; for we knew that that would be our inevitable condition,—a condition held by us all in utmost horror and dread.

(Extract from "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" by Young Federick Douglass)

Q. How does Douglass and the other slaves view Master Andrew

In a very short time after I went to live at Baltimore, my old master’s youngest son Richard died; and in about three years and six months after his death, my old master, Captain Anthony, died, leaving only his son, Andrew, and daughter, Lucretia, to share his estate. He died while on a visit to see his daughter at Hillsborough. Cut off thus unexpectedly, he left no will as to the disposal of his property. It was therefore necessary to have a valuation of the property, that it might be equally divided between Mrs. Lucretia and Master Andrew. I was immediately sent for, to be valued with the other property. Here again my feelings rose up in detestation of slavery. I had now a new conception of my degraded condition. Prior to this, I had become, if not insensible to my lot, at least partly so. I left Baltimore with a young heart overborne with sadness, and a soul full of apprehension. I took passage with Captain Rowe, in the schooner Wild Cat, and, after a sail of about twenty-four hours, I found myself near the place of my birth. I had now been absent from it almost, if not quite, five years. I, however, remembered the place very well. I was only about five years old when I left it, to go and live with my old master on Colonel Lloyd’s plantation; so that I was now between ten and eleven years old.

We were all ranked together at the valuation. Men and women, old and young, married and single, were ranked with horses, sheep, and swine. There were horses and men, cattle and women, pigs and children, all holding the same rank in the scale of being, and were all subjected to the same narrow examination. Silvery-headed age and sprightly youth, maids and matrons, had to undergo the same indelicate inspection. At this moment, I saw more clearly than ever the brutalizing effects of slavery upon both slave and slaveholder.

After the valuation, then came the division. I have no language to express the high excitement and deep anxiety which were felt among us poor slaves during this time. Our fate for life was now to be decided. We had no more voice in that decision than the brutes among whom we were ranked. A single word from the white men was enough—against all our wishes, prayers, and entreaties—to sunder forever the dearest friends, dearest kindred, and strongest ties known to human beings. In addition to the pain of separation, there was the horrid dread of falling into the hands of Master Andrew. He was known to us all as being a most cruel wretch,—a common drunkard, who had, by his reckless mismanagement and profligate dissipation, already wasted a large portion of his father's property. We all felt that we might as well be sold at once to the Georgia traders, as to pass into his hands; for we knew that that would be our inevitable condition,—a condition held by us all in utmost horror and dread.

(Extract from "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" by Young Federick Douglass)

Q. In the passage, Douglass explains that slavery was humiliating. Cite text from the passage that clearly supports this idea.

In a very short time after I went to live at Baltimore, my old master’s youngest son Richard died; and in about three years and six months after his death, my old master, Captain Anthony, died, leaving only his son, Andrew, and daughter, Lucretia, to share his estate. He died while on a visit to see his daughter at Hillsborough. Cut off thus unexpectedly, he left no will as to the disposal of his property. It was therefore necessary to have a valuation of the property, that it might be equally divided between Mrs. Lucretia and Master Andrew. I was immediately sent for, to be valued with the other property. Here again my feelings rose up in detestation of slavery. I had now a new conception of my degraded condition. Prior to this, I had become, if not insensible to my lot, at least partly so. I left Baltimore with a young heart overborne with sadness, and a soul full of apprehension. I took passage with Captain Rowe, in the schooner Wild Cat, and, after a sail of about twenty-four hours, I found myself near the place of my birth. I had now been absent from it almost, if not quite, five years. I, however, remembered the place very well. I was only about five years old when I left it, to go and live with my old master on Colonel Lloyd’s plantation; so that I was now between ten and eleven years old.

We were all ranked together at the valuation. Men and women, old and young, married and single, were ranked with horses, sheep, and swine. There were horses and men, cattle and women, pigs and children, all holding the same rank in the scale of being, and were all subjected to the same narrow examination. Silvery-headed age and sprightly youth, maids and matrons, had to undergo the same indelicate inspection. At this moment, I saw more clearly than ever the brutalizing effects of slavery upon both slave and slaveholder.

After the valuation, then came the division. I have no language to express the high excitement and deep anxiety which were felt among us poor slaves during this time. Our fate for life was now to be decided. We had no more voice in that decision than the brutes among whom we were ranked. A single word from the white men was enough—against all our wishes, prayers, and entreaties—to sunder forever the dearest friends, dearest kindred, and strongest ties known to human beings. In addition to the pain of separation, there was the horrid dread of falling into the hands of Master Andrew. He was known to us all as being a most cruel wretch,—a common drunkard, who had, by his reckless mismanagement and profligate dissipation, already wasted a large portion of his father's property. We all felt that we might as well be sold at once to the Georgia traders, as to pass into his hands; for we knew that that would be our inevitable condition,—a condition held by us all in utmost horror and dread.

(Extract from "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" by Young Federick Douglass)

Q. What could be the appropriate title of the passage?