CLAT: Mock Test (New Pattern) - 14 - CLAT MCQ

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Every year, Time magazine names a 'Person of the Year', puts their photo on the cover and writes about them and their contribution — good or bad — to the planet. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Angela Merkel, President Obama and even non-people like the computer have been put on the cover.
This year, Time magazine named 15-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg as the person of the year. How cool is that? I am planning to walk around with a copy of the magazine with me wherever I go, so that whenever someone says 'What do kids know?' I can stick the magazine in their face!
Well, since the decade is almost over, the cover got me thinking of all the other amazing kids out there who are proof that we know a lot and can change the world. Here are five of them.
I am going to start with Greta Thunberg because I am a huge fan. Greta started skipping school every Friday to protest outside the Swedish parliament on climate emergency. She started a global environmental protest powered by young people, has given speeches at the United Nations, and has the coolest Twitter account.
Tween climate activist Ridhima Pandey was one of the petitioners, along with Greta Thunberg, in a complaint with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on government inaction on the climate crisis. She believes that if children all over the world protest for climate justice, then there can be a positive change.
Malala Yousafzai is the youngest Nobel Prize laureate. She was shot by the Taliban because they didn't want girls going to school. Later, she became a spokesperson campaigning for girls' right to education. I am not sure what the argument is for not sending girls to school, because they are super smart. Just look how many of them are on this list!
When he was 15, Jack Andraka invented a new, cheap way to detect pancreatic cancer. He won a bunch of International Science Fairs for his creation and said he came up with the idea by reading free science papers he found online.
So, who do you think might be the child change makers of 2020-2030? Well, why not you and me? We might not find a cure for a disease or be allowed to skip school to march outside parliament, but we can start doing something in our neighbourhood or school. Maybe it's feeding stray dogs, speaking up when someone gets teased or bullied in your class, or telling your local burger joint to stop using plastic straws. You might not get on the cover of Time magazine for it, but you sure will make a difference to that puppy, kid or sea turtle.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following can be rightly considered examples of a youth activist leader?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Every year, Time magazine names a 'Person of the Year', puts their photo on the cover and writes about them and their contribution — good or bad — to the planet. People like Mahatma Gandhi, Angela Merkel, President Obama and even non-people like the computer have been put on the cover.
This year, Time magazine named 15-year-old climate change activist Greta Thunberg as the person of the year. How cool is that? I am planning to walk around with a copy of the magazine with me wherever I go, so that whenever someone says 'What do kids know?' I can stick the magazine in their face!
Well, since the decade is almost over, the cover got me thinking of all the other amazing kids out there who are proof that we know a lot and can change the world. Here are five of them.
I am going to start with Greta Thunberg because I am a huge fan. Greta started skipping school every Friday to protest outside the Swedish parliament on climate emergency. She started a global environmental protest powered by young people, has given speeches at the United Nations, and has the coolest Twitter account.
Tween climate activist Ridhima Pandey was one of the petitioners, along with Greta Thunberg, in a complaint with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on government inaction on the climate crisis. She believes that if children all over the world protest for climate justice, then there can be a positive change.
Malala Yousafzai is the youngest Nobel Prize laureate. She was shot by the Taliban because they didn't want girls going to school. Later, she became a spokesperson campaigning for girls' right to education. I am not sure what the argument is for not sending girls to school, because they are super smart. Just look how many of them are on this list!
When he was 15, Jack Andraka invented a new, cheap way to detect pancreatic cancer. He won a bunch of International Science Fairs for his creation and said he came up with the idea by reading free science papers he found online.
So, who do you think might be the child change makers of 2020-2030? Well, why not you and me? We might not find a cure for a disease or be allowed to skip school to march outside parliament, but we can start doing something in our neighbourhood or school. Maybe it's feeding stray dogs, speaking up when someone gets teased or bullied in your class, or telling your local burger joint to stop using plastic straws. You might not get on the cover of Time magazine for it, but you sure will make a difference to that puppy, kid or sea turtle.

Q. Which of the following best sums up the author's main point in the given passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

In June 1965, I was a seventh standard student of King George’s School, Belgaum (now Military School, Belagavi). Straight from a village in Haryana, with little knowledge of English, here I was just about 13 years old among children from all walks of life. Initially, I was lost and cried often, feeling out of place. But, soon, I was on my feet and rubbing shoulders with children from privileged backgrounds. All this, thanks to our visionary Principal, R.S. Mani.

Seeing my shyness and poor English, he called me to his office.

Handing me a copy of Reader’s Digest with an essay on Gandhiji, he said, “Ripu, next week you will narrate that essay in the Assembly.” “Nothing is impossible,” he added.

I took it as a challenge and decided to memorise the whole essay. Shivering, I stood in front of the assembly, and rattled out the essay like a parrot. Loud clapping ensued.

Here began my journey. Principal Mani asked me to read newspapers daily and make note of important events. I took a dictionary and sat with an English daily. In one hour, I could finish no more than half a page, but I did not lose heart. The output kept increasing every day. My vocabulary kept on expanding, so did the general awareness.

Mr. Mani put me in the declamation team. By the time I was in the 10th standard, I was the best debater of the school. I still remember how we defeated a Pune school in an inter-school debate which was presided over by none other than Nani Palkhiwala. “Why don’t you start writing when you can speak so well,” Mr. Mani asked. And there I was in the school magazine editorial team.

He reposed faith in me as a moral guide, and put me in charge of the small children in Pratap House. It enriched me spiritually as I had to lead young minds on the righteous path.

No wonder, even today at 66, when I get on my bicycle, I remember him and pedal on to do my bit for the under-privileged.

Q. What can be inferred from the sentence “even today at 66, when I get on my bicycle, I remember him and pedal on to do my bit for the under privileged”?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

In June 1965, I was a seventh standard student of King George’s School, Belgaum (now Military School, Belagavi). Straight from a village in Haryana, with little knowledge of English, here I was just about 13 years old among children from all walks of life. Initially, I was lost and cried often, feeling out of place. But, soon, I was on my feet and rubbing shoulders with children from privileged backgrounds. All this, thanks to our visionary Principal, R.S. Mani.

Seeing my shyness and poor English, he called me to his office.

Handing me a copy of Reader’s Digest with an essay on Gandhiji, he said, “Ripu, next week you will narrate that essay in the Assembly.” “Nothing is impossible,” he added.

I took it as a challenge and decided to memorise the whole essay. Shivering, I stood in front of the assembly, and rattled out the essay like a parrot. Loud clapping ensued.

Here began my journey. Principal Mani asked me to read newspapers daily and make note of important events. I took a dictionary and sat with an English daily. In one hour, I could finish no more than half a page, but I did not lose heart. The output kept increasing every day. My vocabulary kept on expanding, so did the general awareness.

Mr. Mani put me in the declamation team. By the time I was in the 10th standard, I was the best debater of the school. I still remember how we defeated a Pune school in an inter-school debate which was presided over by none other than Nani Palkhiwala. “Why don’t you start writing when you can speak so well,” Mr. Mani asked. And there I was in the school magazine editorial team.

He reposed faith in me as a moral guide, and put me in charge of the small children in Pratap House. It enriched me spiritually as I had to lead young minds on the righteous path.

No wonder, even today at 66, when I get on my bicycle, I remember him and pedal on to do my bit for the under-privileged.

Q. What was the author’s reaction when Mr Mani handed him a copy of Reader’s Digest and told him narrate the essay on Gandhiji in the school assembly next week?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

In June 1965, I was a seventh standard student of King George’s School, Belgaum (now Military School, Belagavi). Straight from a village in Haryana, with little knowledge of English, here I was just about 13 years old among children from all walks of life. Initially, I was lost and cried often, feeling out of place. But, soon, I was on my feet and rubbing shoulders with children from privileged backgrounds. All this, thanks to our visionary Principal, R.S. Mani.

Seeing my shyness and poor English, he called me to his office.

Handing me a copy of Reader’s Digest with an essay on Gandhiji, he said, “Ripu, next week you will narrate that essay in the Assembly.” “Nothing is impossible,” he added.

I took it as a challenge and decided to memorise the whole essay. Shivering, I stood in front of the assembly, and rattled out the essay like a parrot. Loud clapping ensued.

Here began my journey. Principal Mani asked me to read newspapers daily and make note of important events. I took a dictionary and sat with an English daily. In one hour, I could finish no more than half a page, but I did not lose heart. The output kept increasing every day. My vocabulary kept on expanding, so did the general awareness.

Mr. Mani put me in the declamation team. By the time I was in the 10th standard, I was the best debater of the school. I still remember how we defeated a Pune school in an inter-school debate which was presided over by none other than Nani Palkhiwala. “Why don’t you start writing when you can speak so well,” Mr. Mani asked. And there I was in the school magazine editorial team.

He reposed faith in me as a moral guide, and put me in charge of the small children in Pratap House. It enriched me spiritually as I had to lead young minds on the righteous path.

No wonder, even today at 66, when I get on my bicycle, I remember him and pedal on to do my bit for the under-privileged.

Q. What is the central theme of the passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Probably too late to ask, but was the past year the moment we lost our technological innocence? The Alexa in the corner of the kitchen monitoring your every word? The location-betraying device in your pocket? The dozen trackers on that web page you just opened? The thought that a 5G network could, in some hazily understood way, be hardwired back to Beijing? The spooky use of live facial recognition on CCTV cameras across London.
With privacy there have been so many landmarks in the past 12 months. The $5bn Federal Trade Commission fine on Facebook to settle the Cambridge Analytica scandal? The accidental exposure of a mind-blowing 1.2 billion people's details from two data enrichment companies? Up to 50m medical records spilled?
Even people whose job it is to think deeply about technology have begun to come out with forms of belated protest or dissent. The Washington Post's tech columnist, Geoffrey A Fowler, concluded 2019 by writing: "Learning how everyday things spy on us made me, at times, feel paranoid. Mostly, my privacy project left me angry. Our cultural reference points – Big Brother and tinfoil hats – don't quite capture the sickness of an era when we gleefully carry surveillance machines in our pockets and install them in our homes."
Fowler's newspaper – owned by one of the biggest data harvesters of all, Amazon's Jeff Bezos – was not alone in publishing detailed guides to readers on the steps they could try to recover a degree of privacy online. But most commentators agree that such measures are too little too late – maybe 20 years too late. "We were caught off-guard by surveillance capitalism," says Zuboff, a Harvard professor. "Once we searched Google, but now Google searches us. Once we thought of digital services as free, but now surveillance capitalists think of us as free… The message here is simple: Once I was mine. Now I am theirs."
The future of privacy is likely to be complicated. For starters, no one can even agree what "privacy" means today. Some argue its first obituary was written 21 years ago when Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, pronounced: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." That may, technically speaking, be true. A different question is: have we reached the tipping point when enough people mind?
The traditional response is to argue that privacy has become a bargain. We may all be uneasy about granting so much access to our lives that big corporations know more about us than we do about ourselves… but we are, by and large, happy to trade that data for the (mostly free!) services and convenience we get in return.

Q. Which of the following best sums up the author's main point in the given passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Probably too late to ask, but was the past year the moment we lost our technological innocence? The Alexa in the corner of the kitchen monitoring your every word? The location-betraying device in your pocket? The dozen trackers on that web page you just opened? The thought that a 5G network could, in some hazily understood way, be hardwired back to Beijing? The spooky use of live facial recognition on CCTV cameras across London.
With privacy there have been so many landmarks in the past 12 months. The $5bn Federal Trade Commission fine on Facebook to settle the Cambridge Analytica scandal? The accidental exposure of a mind-blowing 1.2 billion people's details from two data enrichment companies? Up to 50m medical records spilled?
Even people whose job it is to think deeply about technology have begun to come out with forms of belated protest or dissent. The Washington Post's tech columnist, Geoffrey A Fowler, concluded 2019 by writing: "Learning how everyday things spy on us made me, at times, feel paranoid. Mostly, my privacy project left me angry. Our cultural reference points – Big Brother and tinfoil hats – don't quite capture the sickness of an era when we gleefully carry surveillance machines in our pockets and install them in our homes."
Fowler's newspaper – owned by one of the biggest data harvesters of all, Amazon's Jeff Bezos – was not alone in publishing detailed guides to readers on the steps they could try to recover a degree of privacy online. But most commentators agree that such measures are too little too late – maybe 20 years too late. "We were caught off-guard by surveillance capitalism," says Zuboff, a Harvard professor. "Once we searched Google, but now Google searches us. Once we thought of digital services as free, but now surveillance capitalists think of us as free… The message here is simple: Once I was mine. Now I am theirs."
The future of privacy is likely to be complicated. For starters, no one can even agree what "privacy" means today. Some argue its first obituary was written 21 years ago when Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, pronounced: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." That may, technically speaking, be true. A different question is: have we reached the tipping point when enough people mind?
The traditional response is to argue that privacy has become a bargain. We may all be uneasy about granting so much access to our lives that big corporations know more about us than we do about ourselves… but we are, by and large, happy to trade that data for the (mostly free!) services and convenience we get in return.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage from the author's description?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Probably too late to ask, but was the past year the moment we lost our technological innocence? The Alexa in the corner of the kitchen monitoring your every word? The location-betraying device in your pocket? The dozen trackers on that web page you just opened? The thought that a 5G network could, in some hazily understood way, be hardwired back to Beijing? The spooky use of live facial recognition on CCTV cameras across London.
With privacy there have been so many landmarks in the past 12 months. The $5bn Federal Trade Commission fine on Facebook to settle the Cambridge Analytica scandal? The accidental exposure of a mind-blowing 1.2 billion people's details from two data enrichment companies? Up to 50m medical records spilled?
Even people whose job it is to think deeply about technology have begun to come out with forms of belated protest or dissent. The Washington Post's tech columnist, Geoffrey A Fowler, concluded 2019 by writing: "Learning how everyday things spy on us made me, at times, feel paranoid. Mostly, my privacy project left me angry. Our cultural reference points – Big Brother and tinfoil hats – don't quite capture the sickness of an era when we gleefully carry surveillance machines in our pockets and install them in our homes."
Fowler's newspaper – owned by one of the biggest data harvesters of all, Amazon's Jeff Bezos – was not alone in publishing detailed guides to readers on the steps they could try to recover a degree of privacy online. But most commentators agree that such measures are too little too late – maybe 20 years too late. "We were caught off-guard by surveillance capitalism," says Zuboff, a Harvard professor. "Once we searched Google, but now Google searches us. Once we thought of digital services as free, but now surveillance capitalists think of us as free… The message here is simple: Once I was mine. Now I am theirs."
The future of privacy is likely to be complicated. For starters, no one can even agree what "privacy" means today. Some argue its first obituary was written 21 years ago when Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, pronounced: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." That may, technically speaking, be true. A different question is: have we reached the tipping point when enough people mind?
The traditional response is to argue that privacy has become a bargain. We may all be uneasy about granting so much access to our lives that big corporations know more about us than we do about ourselves… but we are, by and large, happy to trade that data for the (mostly free!) services and convenience we get in return.

Q. In the context of the given passage, which of the following would be the most appropriate meaning of the term 'surveillance capitalism'?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Probably too late to ask, but was the past year the moment we lost our technological innocence? The Alexa in the corner of the kitchen monitoring your every word? The location-betraying device in your pocket? The dozen trackers on that web page you just opened? The thought that a 5G network could, in some hazily understood way, be hardwired back to Beijing? The spooky use of live facial recognition on CCTV cameras across London.
With privacy there have been so many landmarks in the past 12 months. The $5bn Federal Trade Commission fine on Facebook to settle the Cambridge Analytica scandal? The accidental exposure of a mind-blowing 1.2 billion people's details from two data enrichment companies? Up to 50m medical records spilled?
Even people whose job it is to think deeply about technology have begun to come out with forms of belated protest or dissent. The Washington Post's tech columnist, Geoffrey A Fowler, concluded 2019 by writing: "Learning how everyday things spy on us made me, at times, feel paranoid. Mostly, my privacy project left me angry. Our cultural reference points – Big Brother and tinfoil hats – don't quite capture the sickness of an era when we gleefully carry surveillance machines in our pockets and install them in our homes."
Fowler's newspaper – owned by one of the biggest data harvesters of all, Amazon's Jeff Bezos – was not alone in publishing detailed guides to readers on the steps they could try to recover a degree of privacy online. But most commentators agree that such measures are too little too late – maybe 20 years too late. "We were caught off-guard by surveillance capitalism," says Zuboff, a Harvard professor. "Once we searched Google, but now Google searches us. Once we thought of digital services as free, but now surveillance capitalists think of us as free… The message here is simple: Once I was mine. Now I am theirs."
The future of privacy is likely to be complicated. For starters, no one can even agree what "privacy" means today. Some argue its first obituary was written 21 years ago when Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, pronounced: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." That may, technically speaking, be true. A different question is: have we reached the tipping point when enough people mind?
The traditional response is to argue that privacy has become a bargain. We may all be uneasy about granting so much access to our lives that big corporations know more about us than we do about ourselves… but we are, by and large, happy to trade that data for the (mostly free!) services and convenience we get in return.

Q. According to the author, why is the future of privacy likely to be complicated?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Probably too late to ask, but was the past year the moment we lost our technological innocence? The Alexa in the corner of the kitchen monitoring your every word? The location-betraying device in your pocket? The dozen trackers on that web page you just opened? The thought that a 5G network could, in some hazily understood way, be hardwired back to Beijing? The spooky use of live facial recognition on CCTV cameras across London.
With privacy there have been so many landmarks in the past 12 months. The $5bn Federal Trade Commission fine on Facebook to settle the Cambridge Analytica scandal? The accidental exposure of a mind-blowing 1.2 billion people's details from two data enrichment companies? Up to 50m medical records spilled?
Even people whose job it is to think deeply about technology have begun to come out with forms of belated protest or dissent. The Washington Post's tech columnist, Geoffrey A Fowler, concluded 2019 by writing: "Learning how everyday things spy on us made me, at times, feel paranoid. Mostly, my privacy project left me angry. Our cultural reference points – Big Brother and tinfoil hats – don't quite capture the sickness of an era when we gleefully carry surveillance machines in our pockets and install them in our homes."
Fowler's newspaper – owned by one of the biggest data harvesters of all, Amazon's Jeff Bezos – was not alone in publishing detailed guides to readers on the steps they could try to recover a degree of privacy online. But most commentators agree that such measures are too little too late – maybe 20 years too late. "We were caught off-guard by surveillance capitalism," says Zuboff, a Harvard professor. "Once we searched Google, but now Google searches us. Once we thought of digital services as free, but now surveillance capitalists think of us as free… The message here is simple: Once I was mine. Now I am theirs."
The future of privacy is likely to be complicated. For starters, no one can even agree what "privacy" means today. Some argue its first obituary was written 21 years ago when Scott McNealy, then CEO of Sun Microsystems, pronounced: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." That may, technically speaking, be true. A different question is: have we reached the tipping point when enough people mind?
The traditional response is to argue that privacy has become a bargain. We may all be uneasy about granting so much access to our lives that big corporations know more about us than we do about ourselves… but we are, by and large, happy to trade that data for the (mostly free!) services and convenience we get in return.

Q. Which of the following cannot be rightly inferred from the given passage?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

All of Francoise Duparc’s surviving paintings blend portraiture and genre. Her subjects appear to be acquaintances whom she has asked to pose. She has captured both their self-consciousness and the spontaneity of their everyday activities, the depiction of which characterizes genre paintings. But, genre painting, especially when it portrayed members of the humblest classes, was never popular in eighteenth century France. The Le Nain brothers and Georges de La Tour, who also chose such themes, were largely ignored. Their present high standing is due to a different, more democratic political climate and to different aesthetic values. We no longer require artists to provide images of humanity for our moral edification but rather regard idealization as a falsification of truth. Duparc gives no improving message and discretely refrains from judging her subjects. In brief, her works neither elevate not instruct. This restraint largely explains her lack of popular success during her lifetime, even if her talent did not go completely unrecognized by her eighteenth century French contemporaries.

Q. According to the passage, modern viewers are not likely to value which of the following qualities in a painting?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

All of Francoise Duparc’s surviving paintings blend portraiture and genre. Her subjects appear to be acquaintances whom she has asked to pose. She has captured both their self-consciousness and the spontaneity of their everyday activities, the depiction of which characterizes genre paintings. But, genre painting, especially when it portrayed members of the humblest classes, was never popular in eighteenth century France. The Le Nain brothers and Georges de La Tour, who also chose such themes, were largely ignored. Their present high standing is due to a different, more democratic political climate and to different aesthetic values. We no longer require artists to provide images of humanity for our moral edification but rather regard idealization as a falsification of truth. Duparc gives no improving message and discretely refrains from judging her subjects. In brief, her works neither elevate not instruct. This restraint largely explains her lack of popular success during her lifetime, even if her talent did not go completely unrecognized by her eighteenth century French contemporaries.

Q. If the history of Duparc’s artistic reputation were to follow to that of the Le Nain brothers and Georges de La Tour, present-day assessments of her works would be likely to contain which of the following?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

All of Francoise Duparc’s surviving paintings blend portraiture and genre. Her subjects appear to be acquaintances whom she has asked to pose. She has captured both their self-consciousness and the spontaneity of their everyday activities, the depiction of which characterizes genre paintings. But, genre painting, especially when it portrayed members of the humblest classes, was never popular in eighteenth century France. The Le Nain brothers and Georges de La Tour, who also chose such themes, were largely ignored. Their present high standing is due to a different, more democratic political climate and to different aesthetic values. We no longer require artists to provide images of humanity for our moral edification but rather regard idealization as a falsification of truth. Duparc gives no improving message and discretely refrains from judging her subjects. In brief, her works neither elevate not instruct. This restraint largely explains her lack of popular success during her lifetime, even if her talent did not go completely unrecognized by her eighteenth century French contemporaries.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that the term genre painting would most likely apply to which of the following?

Read the following passage and answer the question.

All of Francoise Duparc’s surviving paintings blend portraiture and genre. Her subjects appear to be acquaintances whom she has asked to pose. She has captured both their self-consciousness and the spontaneity of their everyday activities, the depiction of which characterizes genre paintings. But, genre painting, especially when it portrayed members of the humblest classes, was never popular in eighteenth century France. The Le Nain brothers and Georges de La Tour, who also chose such themes, were largely ignored. Their present high standing is due to a different, more democratic political climate and to different aesthetic values. We no longer require artists to provide images of humanity for our moral edification but rather regard idealization as a falsification of truth. Duparc gives no improving message and discretely refrains from judging her subjects. In brief, her works neither elevate not instruct. This restraint largely explains her lack of popular success during her lifetime, even if her talent did not go completely unrecognized by her eighteenth century French contemporaries.

Q. The argument of the passage best supports which of the following contentions concerning judgments of artistic work?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The railway ministry has announced its decision to transfer operations of more than 100 superfast passenger trains to private operators. This move is expected to bring higher level of comfort and satisfaction to the travelling public. However, it is not clear whether it will in anyway improve the profitability of Indian Railways. The railways operates more than 12,000 passenger trains daily. Transferring operation of less than one per cent of the trains to private operators is not even touching the tip of the iceberg. Introduction of private operators in container train operations has not given desired results.
Also, there are attendant problems of fixing revenue-sharing models as the accounting reforms project has not been completed yet. The Indian Railways' tracks are shared by passenger and freight trains. How much proportion of fixed and variable expenditure should be shared by each mode has always been a grey area.
Indian Railways does not follow the company accounting model, and that muddies the waters further. Once private passenger train operators enter the arena, they would claim compensation for any delays, etc and in the process the freight operations—the bread and butter of the railways' business, is bound to suffer, pulling down its profitability.
If the 'dedicated freight corridors project' had been completed in time, the Delhi-Howrah and Delhi-Mumbai routes could have easily accommodated entry of private train operators without giving rise to these complications. It may still be prudent to wait till these corridors are completed and all freight trains on these routes are diverted to them.
A better option to introduce private players in the railways would have been to corporatise the entire production-unit assemblage as a first step. There are no hurdles in the form of sharing infrastructure and inadequate accounting reforms. This had the potential of opening up possibilities of kick-starting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to introduce better technology in manufacturing of coaches and locomotives. It would have concomitantly reduced costs and improved quality.
It can, hence, be seen that by introducing a single service in the administrative setup, the railway ministry has decided to navigate in uncharted turbulent waters. On the other hand, introduction of private passenger train operators is not expected to make any dent in its financial health. It has to be kept in mind that Indian Railways is a government department of gigantic proportions, which touches the lives of almost every Indian in one form or other. It is like an elephant. When it starts moving, it requires a great effort to stop. But once it lies prone, it requires an even greater effort to make it get up and start moving again.

Q. Which of the following does the author discuss in the given passage?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The railway ministry has announced its decision to transfer operations of more than 100 superfast passenger trains to private operators. This move is expected to bring higher level of comfort and satisfaction to the travelling public. However, it is not clear whether it will in anyway improve the profitability of Indian Railways. The railways operates more than 12,000 passenger trains daily. Transferring operation of less than one per cent of the trains to private operators is not even touching the tip of the iceberg. Introduction of private operators in container train operations has not given desired results.
Also, there are attendant problems of fixing revenue-sharing models as the accounting reforms project has not been completed yet. The Indian Railways' tracks are shared by passenger and freight trains. How much proportion of fixed and variable expenditure should be shared by each mode has always been a grey area.
Indian Railways does not follow the company accounting model, and that muddies the waters further. Once private passenger train operators enter the arena, they would claim compensation for any delays, etc and in the process the freight operations—the bread and butter of the railways' business, is bound to suffer, pulling down its profitability.
If the 'dedicated freight corridors project' had been completed in time, the Delhi-Howrah and Delhi-Mumbai routes could have easily accommodated entry of private train operators without giving rise to these complications. It may still be prudent to wait till these corridors are completed and all freight trains on these routes are diverted to them.
A better option to introduce private players in the railways would have been to corporatise the entire production-unit assemblage as a first step. There are no hurdles in the form of sharing infrastructure and inadequate accounting reforms. This had the potential of opening up possibilities of kick-starting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to introduce better technology in manufacturing of coaches and locomotives. It would have concomitantly reduced costs and improved quality.
It can, hence, be seen that by introducing a single service in the administrative setup, the railway ministry has decided to navigate in uncharted turbulent waters. On the other hand, introduction of private passenger train operators is not expected to make any dent in its financial health. It has to be kept in mind that Indian Railways is a government department of gigantic proportions, which touches the lives of almost every Indian in one form or other. It is like an elephant. When it starts moving, it requires a great effort to stop. But once it lies prone, it requires an even greater effort to make it get up and start moving again.

Q. What does the author suggest when he states that transferring less than 1 per cent of trains to private enterprise does not touch the tip of the iceberg?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The railway ministry has announced its decision to transfer operations of more than 100 superfast passenger trains to private operators. This move is expected to bring higher level of comfort and satisfaction to the travelling public. However, it is not clear whether it will in anyway improve the profitability of Indian Railways. The railways operates more than 12,000 passenger trains daily. Transferring operation of less than one per cent of the trains to private operators is not even touching the tip of the iceberg. Introduction of private operators in container train operations has not given desired results.
Also, there are attendant problems of fixing revenue-sharing models as the accounting reforms project has not been completed yet. The Indian Railways' tracks are shared by passenger and freight trains. How much proportion of fixed and variable expenditure should be shared by each mode has always been a grey area.
Indian Railways does not follow the company accounting model, and that muddies the waters further. Once private passenger train operators enter the arena, they would claim compensation for any delays, etc and in the process the freight operations—the bread and butter of the railways' business, is bound to suffer, pulling down its profitability.
If the 'dedicated freight corridors project' had been completed in time, the Delhi-Howrah and Delhi-Mumbai routes could have easily accommodated entry of private train operators without giving rise to these complications. It may still be prudent to wait till these corridors are completed and all freight trains on these routes are diverted to them.
A better option to introduce private players in the railways would have been to corporatise the entire production-unit assemblage as a first step. There are no hurdles in the form of sharing infrastructure and inadequate accounting reforms. This had the potential of opening up possibilities of kick-starting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to introduce better technology in manufacturing of coaches and locomotives. It would have concomitantly reduced costs and improved quality.
It can, hence, be seen that by introducing a single service in the administrative setup, the railway ministry has decided to navigate in uncharted turbulent waters. On the other hand, introduction of private passenger train operators is not expected to make any dent in its financial health. It has to be kept in mind that Indian Railways is a government department of gigantic proportions, which touches the lives of almost every Indian in one form or other. It is like an elephant. When it starts moving, it requires a great effort to stop. But once it lies prone, it requires an even greater effort to make it get up and start moving again.

Q. What does the phrase 'muddies the waters' as used in the passage mean?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The railway ministry has announced its decision to transfer operations of more than 100 superfast passenger trains to private operators. This move is expected to bring higher level of comfort and satisfaction to the travelling public. However, it is not clear whether it will in anyway improve the profitability of Indian Railways. The railways operates more than 12,000 passenger trains daily. Transferring operation of less than one per cent of the trains to private operators is not even touching the tip of the iceberg. Introduction of private operators in container train operations has not given desired results.
Also, there are attendant problems of fixing revenue-sharing models as the accounting reforms project has not been completed yet. The Indian Railways' tracks are shared by passenger and freight trains. How much proportion of fixed and variable expenditure should be shared by each mode has always been a grey area.
Indian Railways does not follow the company accounting model, and that muddies the waters further. Once private passenger train operators enter the arena, they would claim compensation for any delays, etc and in the process the freight operations—the bread and butter of the railways' business, is bound to suffer, pulling down its profitability.
If the 'dedicated freight corridors project' had been completed in time, the Delhi-Howrah and Delhi-Mumbai routes could have easily accommodated entry of private train operators without giving rise to these complications. It may still be prudent to wait till these corridors are completed and all freight trains on these routes are diverted to them.
A better option to introduce private players in the railways would have been to corporatise the entire production-unit assemblage as a first step. There are no hurdles in the form of sharing infrastructure and inadequate accounting reforms. This had the potential of opening up possibilities of kick-starting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to introduce better technology in manufacturing of coaches and locomotives. It would have concomitantly reduced costs and improved quality.
It can, hence, be seen that by introducing a single service in the administrative setup, the railway ministry has decided to navigate in uncharted turbulent waters. On the other hand, introduction of private passenger train operators is not expected to make any dent in its financial health. It has to be kept in mind that Indian Railways is a government department of gigantic proportions, which touches the lives of almost every Indian in one form or other. It is like an elephant. When it starts moving, it requires a great effort to stop. But once it lies prone, it requires an even greater effort to make it get up and start moving again.

Q. What, according to the author, might be one of the problems if the private enterprises try to bring in the company accounting model?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The railway ministry has announced its decision to transfer operations of more than 100 superfast passenger trains to private operators. This move is expected to bring higher level of comfort and satisfaction to the travelling public. However, it is not clear whether it will in anyway improve the profitability of Indian Railways. The railways operates more than 12,000 passenger trains daily. Transferring operation of less than one per cent of the trains to private operators is not even touching the tip of the iceberg. Introduction of private operators in container train operations has not given desired results.
Also, there are attendant problems of fixing revenue-sharing models as the accounting reforms project has not been completed yet. The Indian Railways' tracks are shared by passenger and freight trains. How much proportion of fixed and variable expenditure should be shared by each mode has always been a grey area.
Indian Railways does not follow the company accounting model, and that muddies the waters further. Once private passenger train operators enter the arena, they would claim compensation for any delays, etc and in the process the freight operations—the bread and butter of the railways' business, is bound to suffer, pulling down its profitability.
If the 'dedicated freight corridors project' had been completed in time, the Delhi-Howrah and Delhi-Mumbai routes could have easily accommodated entry of private train operators without giving rise to these complications. It may still be prudent to wait till these corridors are completed and all freight trains on these routes are diverted to them.
A better option to introduce private players in the railways would have been to corporatise the entire production-unit assemblage as a first step. There are no hurdles in the form of sharing infrastructure and inadequate accounting reforms. This had the potential of opening up possibilities of kick-starting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to introduce better technology in manufacturing of coaches and locomotives. It would have concomitantly reduced costs and improved quality.
It can, hence, be seen that by introducing a single service in the administrative setup, the railway ministry has decided to navigate in uncharted turbulent waters. On the other hand, introduction of private passenger train operators is not expected to make any dent in its financial health. It has to be kept in mind that Indian Railways is a government department of gigantic proportions, which touches the lives of almost every Indian in one form or other. It is like an elephant. When it starts moving, it requires a great effort to stop. But once it lies prone, it requires an even greater effort to make it get up and start moving again.

Q. Which of the following best sums up the author's key message by listing the problems in the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

An important development in the twentieth century literary criticism was the growth of the New Criticism. The New Critics assumed that the methods devised for reading long poems could be applied to novels. In practice, this meant a new emphasis in the reading of fiction on scrupulous textual analysis as a prerequisite for biographical and ideological commend. A novelist’s ideas were now significant mainly as components of his or her writing technique. Insisting on close attention to a text, the New Critics analyzed long passages of a novel and concentrated on discerning the development of symbolic patterns. By analyzing symbols in this way, the critic could show how the meaning of symbol accrued as it was repeated in different passages. This permitted a more complete understanding of the symbol to emerge than that which could be discovered through isolated symbol-hunting. One novelist who benefited from this new emphasis on text was D.H.Lawrence, whose work was rescued from hostile critics who had attacked as mere ideology.

Q. According to the passage, the New Critics considered the ideas found in a novelist’s work to be

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

An important development in the twentieth century literary criticism was the growth of the New Criticism. The New Critics assumed that the methods devised for reading long poems could be applied to novels. In practice, this meant a new emphasis in the reading of fiction on scrupulous textual analysis as a prerequisite for biographical and ideological commend. A novelist’s ideas were now significant mainly as components of his or her writing technique. Insisting on close attention to a text, the New Critics analyzed long passages of a novel and concentrated on discerning the development of symbolic patterns. By analyzing symbols in this way, the critic could show how the meaning of symbol accrued as it was repeated in different passages. This permitted a more complete understanding of the symbol to emerge than that which could be discovered through isolated symbol-hunting. One novelist who benefited from this new emphasis on text was D.H.Lawrence, whose work was rescued from hostile critics who had attacked as mere ideology.

Q. The author alludes to D.H.Lawrence in order to give an example of a novelist who

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

An important development in the twentieth century literary criticism was the growth of the New Criticism. The New Critics assumed that the methods devised for reading long poems could be applied to novels. In practice, this meant a new emphasis in the reading of fiction on scrupulous textual analysis as a prerequisite for biographical and ideological commend. A novelist’s ideas were now significant mainly as components of his or her writing technique. Insisting on close attention to a text, the New Critics analyzed long passages of a novel and concentrated on discerning the development of symbolic patterns. By analyzing symbols in this way, the critic could show how the meaning of symbol accrued as it was repeated in different passages. This permitted a more complete understanding of the symbol to emerge than that which could be discovered through isolated symbol-hunting. One novelist who benefited from this new emphasis on text was D.H.Lawrence, whose work was rescued from hostile critics who had attacked as mere ideology.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that the New Critics disliked isolated symbol-hunting because it tended to

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.

An important development in the twentieth century literary criticism was the growth of the New Criticism. The New Critics assumed that the methods devised for reading long poems could be applied to novels. In practice, this meant a new emphasis in the reading of fiction on scrupulous textual analysis as a prerequisite for biographical and ideological commend. A novelist’s ideas were now significant mainly as components of his or her writing technique. Insisting on close attention to a text, the New Critics analyzed long passages of a novel and concentrated on discerning the development of symbolic patterns. By analyzing symbols in this way, the critic could show how the meaning of symbol accrued as it was repeated in different passages. This permitted a more complete understanding of the symbol to emerge than that which could be discovered through isolated symbol-hunting. One novelist who benefited from this new emphasis on text was D.H.Lawrence, whose work was rescued from hostile critics who had attacked as mere ideology.

Q. The passage implies that the New Critics would be most likely to agree with which of the following?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didn't come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.
The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but that's never the motive of the conqueror.
The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, there's no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.
The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Company's armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.

Q. What does the author suggest as the initial reason for the British conquest of India?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didn't come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.
The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but that's never the motive of the conqueror.
The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, there's no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.
The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Company's armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.

Q. According to the author, which of the following are often suggested as gained from being conquered?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didn't come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.
The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but that's never the motive of the conqueror.
The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, there's no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.
The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Company's armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.

Q. Which of the following is a situation similar to the one described by the author in the text when Indian bankers and financiers support the Company?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All empires involve one set of people dominating another set of people; all empires are violent; all empires tend to be extractive. The story of the East India Company shows that when the British first came to India, it didn't come as a conquering state. They came in this very unexpected form of a trading company, which then militarizes. But the Company, from the point it begins to conquer Indian territory, has no motive other than profit. The idea that the British came here to bestow railways, the English language, cricket and tea is a later Victorian spin, that bears no historical reality at all.
The Company made good profit trading Mughal textiles, and it found that it could make even more by conquering Indian territory, taxing Indians and not having to spend any money to buy the goods it was then selling. Which is not to say that there were not, obviously, benefits [for the colonised]. Roman rule was just as extractive of Britain in the early centuries BCE, but we gained ideas of law, the Latin language and so on. At the same time, the Roman Empire in Britain was incredibly brutal, involved massacres of the native people and existed for the benefit of the empire. So you can gain things, in a sense, accidentally, from being conquered by an empire, but that's never the motive of the conqueror.
The East India Company was in many ways a disaster for Bengal, which moved from being the premier economy in the world to being asset-stripped, plundered and looted. That said, by 1947, India did have the best communications, education and health care in Asia. When the British first came to India, they controlled three per cent of the world GDP, while India controlled 37 per cent—that figure was more or less reversed by the time the British left. So, there's no question about who gained more. Whatever India gained, we gained much more.
The East India Company, while being extractive and plundering, was also collaborative. From the very beginning it was in business with Indian businessmen; it almost never operated on its own. It gained an enormous amount from its business with Indian partners. And almost every stage, from the moment it arrives as a trading party to the moment that it begins to militarize and is used by the Jagat Seths to topple Siraj-ud-Daula, through to the 1803 war—the final war when they defeat the Marathas, when the banking dynasties of Benares are competing to fund the East India Company's armies—at every stage, the East India Company is working in collaboration with various Indian bankers and financiers, who support the Company as the least worst option in this time of anarchy.

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