CLAT: Mock Test (New Pattern) - 15 - CLAT MCQ

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

In a blatant frank talk at the Indian Merchants Chamber in Kolkata the Japanese Ambassador in India dwelt at length with issues that exercise the mind of Japanese investors when they consider investment proposals in India. Raising the question "What comparative advantages does India offer as an investment market?" he said though labour in India is inexpensive. Wage levels are offset by productivity level to a large extent.

Acknowledging that vastness of the Indian market is a great inducement for investment in manufacturing industry he wondered if it was justifiable to provide that overseas remittance of profit in foreign exchange to be fully covered by exchange earnings as had been done. Significantly, on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Japan, the government delinked profit repatriation from exports, meeting this demand.

The Ambassador said foreign investors needed to be assured of the continuity and consistency of the liberalization policy and the fact that new measures had been put into force by means of administrative notifications without amending Government laws, acted as a damper.

The Ambassador pleaded for speedy formulation of the exit policy and pointed to the highly restrictive control by the Government on disinterment by foreign partners in joint ventures in India.

While it is all too easy to dismiss critical comment on conditions in India contemptuously, there can be little about that if foreign investment is to be wooed assiduously, we will have to meet exacting international standard and. cater at least partially to what we may consider the idiosyncrasies of our foreign collaborators. The Japanese too have passed through a stage in the fifties when their products were divided as substandard and shoddy. That they have come out of the ordeal of fire-to emerge as an economic super power speaks as much of their doggedness to pursue goals against all odds as of their ability to improvise and adapt to internationally acceptable standards.

There is no gain-saying that the past record of Japanese investment is a poor benchmark for future expectations.

Q. Which of the following suggestions were expected by the Japanese Ambassador?
(A) Speedy formulation of the exit policy.
(B) Imposing restrictions of disinvestment by foreign partners in joint ventures in India.
(C) Continuity and consistency of the liberalization policy.

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

In a blatant frank talk at the Indian Merchants Chamber in Kolkata the Japanese Ambassador in India dwelt at length with issues that exercise the mind of Japanese investors when they consider investment proposals in India. Raising the question "What comparative advantages does India offer as an investment market?" he said though labour in India is inexpensive. Wage levels are offset by productivity level to a large extent.

Acknowledging that vastness of the Indian market is a great inducement for investment in manufacturing industry he wondered if it was justifiable to provide that overseas remittance of profit in foreign exchange to be fully covered by exchange earnings as had been done. Significantly, on the eve of the Prime Minister's visit to Japan, the government delinked profit repatriation from exports, meeting this demand.

The Ambassador said foreign investors needed to be assured of the continuity and consistency of the liberalization policy and the fact that new measures had been put into force by means of administrative notifications without amending Government laws, acted as a damper.

The Ambassador pleaded for speedy formulation of the exit policy and pointed to the highly restrictive control by the Government on disinterment by foreign partners in joint ventures in India.

While it is all too easy to dismiss critical comment on conditions in India contemptuously, there can be little about that if foreign investment is to be wooed assiduously, we will have to meet exacting international standard and. cater at least partially to what we may consider the idiosyncrasies of our foreign collaborators. The Japanese too have passed through a stage in the fifties when their products were divided as substandard and shoddy. That they have come out of the ordeal of fire-to emerge as an economic super power speaks as much of their doggedness to pursue goals against all odds as of their ability to improvise and adapt to internationally acceptable standards.

There is no gain-saying that the past record of Japanese investment is a poor benchmark for future expectations.

Q. According to the Japanese Ambassador' India offers a comparative advantage of foreign investors in terms of -

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. According to the passage, the five well-known plant hormones are not useful in controlling the growth of crops because

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. The passage suggests that the place of hypothalamic hormones in the hormonal hierarchies of animals is similar to the place of which of the following in plants?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. The passage suggests that which of the following is a function likely to be performed by an oligosaccharin?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. The author mentions specific effects that auxin has on plant development in order to illustrate the

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. According to the passage, which of the following best describes a function performed by oligosaccharins?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. The passage suggests that, unlike the pleiotropic hormones, oligosaccharins could be used effectively to

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

All of the cells in a particular plant start out with the same complement of genes. How then can these cells differentiate and form structures as different as roots, stems, leaves, and fruits? The answer is that only a small subset of the genes in a particular kind of cell are expressed, or turned on, at a given time. This is accomplished by a complex system of chemical messengers that in plants include hormones and other regulatory molecules. Five major hormones have been identified: auxin, abscisic acid, cytokinin, ethylene, and gibberellin. Studies of plants have now identified a new class of regulatory molecules called oligosaccharins.

Unlike the oligosaccharins, the five well-known plant hormones are pleiotropic rather than specific; that is, each has more than one effect on the growth and development of plants. The five has so many simultaneous effects that they are not very useful in artificially controlling the growth of crops. Auxin, for instance, stimulates the rate of cell elongation, causes shoots to grow up and roots to grow down, and inhibits the growth of lateral shoots. Auxin also causes the plant to develop a vascular system, to form lateral roots, and to produce ethylene.

The pleiotropy of the five well-studied plant hormones is somewhat analogous to that of certain hormones in animal. For example, hormones from the hypothalamus in the brain stimulate the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland to synthesize and release many different hormones, one of which stimulates the release of hormones from the adrenal cortex. These hormones have specific effects on target organs all over the body. One hormone stimulates the thyroid gland, for example, another the ovarian follicle cells, and so forth. In other words, there is a hierarchy of hormones. Such a hierarchy may also exist in plants. Oligosaccharins are fragments of the cell wall released by enzymes: different enzymes release different oligosaccharins. There are indications that pleiotropic plant hormones may actually function by activating the enzymes that release these other, more specific chemical messengers from the cell wall.

Q. The author discusses animal hormones primarily in order to

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Intellectuals a category that includes academics, opinion journalists, and think tank experts are freaks. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I myself have spent most of my life in one of the three roles mentioned above. I have even been accused of being a public intellectual, which sounds too much like public nuisance or even public enemy for my taste.

My point is that people who specialize in the life of ideas tend to be extremely atypical of their societies. They are freaks in a statistical sense. For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.

The terms intellectual and intelligentsia arose around the same time in the 19th century. Before the industrial revolution, the few people in advanced civilizations paid to read, write, and debate were mostly either clerics like medieval Christian priests, monks, or secular scribes like Confucian mandarins who worked for kings or aristocrats, or, as in the city-states of ancient Greece, teachers whose students were mostly young men of the upper classes.
The replacement of agrarian civilization by industrial capitalism created two new homes for thinkers, both funded directly or indirectly by the newly enriched capitalist elite. One was the nonprofit sector the university and the nonprofit think tank founded chiefly by gifts from the tycoons who lent these institutions their names: Stanford University, the Ford Foundation.

Then there was bohemia, populated largely by the downwardly-mobile sons and daughters of the rich, spending down inherited bourgeois family fortunes while dabbling in the arts and philosophy and politics and denouncing the evils of the bourgeoisie.

Whether they are institutionalized professors and policy wonks or free-spirited bohemians, the intellectuals of the industrial era are as different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies as the clerics, scribes, mandarins, and itinerant philosophers of old were from the peasant or slave majorities in their societies.
To begin with, there is the matter of higher education. Only about 30 percent of American adults have a four-year undergraduate degree. The number of those with advanced graduate or professional degrees is around one in ten. As a BA is a minimal requirement for employment in most intellectual occupations, the pool from which scholars, writers, and policy experts is drawn is already a small one. It is even more exclusive in practice, because the children of the rich and affluent are overrepresented among those who go to college.

Then there is location. There have only been a few world capitals of bohemia, generally in big, expensive cities that appeal to bohemian rich kids. In the U.S., the geographic options for think tank scholars also tend to be limited to a few expensive cities, like Washington, D.C. and New York. Of the different breeds of the American intellectual, professors have the most diverse habitat, given the number and geographic distribution of universities across the American continent. Like college education, geographic mobility in the service of personal career ambitions is common only within a highly atypical social and economic elite.

Q. According to the author of the passage:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Intellectuals a category that includes academics, opinion journalists, and think tank experts are freaks. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I myself have spent most of my life in one of the three roles mentioned above. I have even been accused of being a public intellectual, which sounds too much like public nuisance or even public enemy for my taste.

My point is that people who specialize in the life of ideas tend to be extremely atypical of their societies. They are freaks in a statistical sense. For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.

The terms intellectual and intelligentsia arose around the same time in the 19th century. Before the industrial revolution, the few people in advanced civilizations paid to read, write, and debate were mostly either clerics like medieval Christian priests, monks, or secular scribes like Confucian mandarins who worked for kings or aristocrats, or, as in the city-states of ancient Greece, teachers whose students were mostly young men of the upper classes.
The replacement of agrarian civilization by industrial capitalism created two new homes for thinkers, both funded directly or indirectly by the newly enriched capitalist elite. One was the nonprofit sector the university and the nonprofit think tank founded chiefly by gifts from the tycoons who lent these institutions their names: Stanford University, the Ford Foundation.

Then there was bohemia, populated largely by the downwardly-mobile sons and daughters of the rich, spending down inherited bourgeois family fortunes while dabbling in the arts and philosophy and politics and denouncing the evils of the bourgeoisie.

Whether they are institutionalized professors and policy wonks or free-spirited bohemians, the intellectuals of the industrial era are as different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies as the clerics, scribes, mandarins, and itinerant philosophers of old were from the peasant or slave majorities in their societies.
To begin with, there is the matter of higher education. Only about 30 percent of American adults have a four-year undergraduate degree. The number of those with advanced graduate or professional degrees is around one in ten. As a BA is a minimal requirement for employment in most intellectual occupations, the pool from which scholars, writers, and policy experts is drawn is already a small one. It is even more exclusive in practice, because the children of the rich and affluent are overrepresented among those who go to college.

Then there is location. There have only been a few world capitals of bohemia, generally in big, expensive cities that appeal to bohemian rich kids. In the U.S., the geographic options for think tank scholars also tend to be limited to a few expensive cities, like Washington, D.C. and New York. Of the different breeds of the American intellectual, professors have the most diverse habitat, given the number and geographic distribution of universities across the American continent. Like college education, geographic mobility in the service of personal career ambitions is common only within a highly atypical social and economic elite.

Q. Identify the statements that are correct as per the information provided in the passage.
I. The term Intellectuals came into existence with the industrial revolution.
II. Industrial revolution contributed to the creation of new places for intellectuals.
III. Intellectuals lead to the industrial revolution.

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Intellectuals a category that includes academics, opinion journalists, and think tank experts are freaks. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I myself have spent most of my life in one of the three roles mentioned above. I have even been accused of being a public intellectual, which sounds too much like public nuisance or even public enemy for my taste.

My point is that people who specialize in the life of ideas tend to be extremely atypical of their societies. They are freaks in a statistical sense. For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.

The terms intellectual and intelligentsia arose around the same time in the 19th century. Before the industrial revolution, the few people in advanced civilizations paid to read, write, and debate were mostly either clerics like medieval Christian priests, monks, or secular scribes like Confucian mandarins who worked for kings or aristocrats, or, as in the city-states of ancient Greece, teachers whose students were mostly young men of the upper classes.
The replacement of agrarian civilization by industrial capitalism created two new homes for thinkers, both funded directly or indirectly by the newly enriched capitalist elite. One was the nonprofit sector the university and the nonprofit think tank founded chiefly by gifts from the tycoons who lent these institutions their names: Stanford University, the Ford Foundation.

Then there was bohemia, populated largely by the downwardly-mobile sons and daughters of the rich, spending down inherited bourgeois family fortunes while dabbling in the arts and philosophy and politics and denouncing the evils of the bourgeoisie.

Whether they are institutionalized professors and policy wonks or free-spirited bohemians, the intellectuals of the industrial era are as different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies as the clerics, scribes, mandarins, and itinerant philosophers of old were from the peasant or slave majorities in their societies.
To begin with, there is the matter of higher education. Only about 30 percent of American adults have a four-year undergraduate degree. The number of those with advanced graduate or professional degrees is around one in ten. As a BA is a minimal requirement for employment in most intellectual occupations, the pool from which scholars, writers, and policy experts is drawn is already a small one. It is even more exclusive in practice, because the children of the rich and affluent are overrepresented among those who go to college.

Then there is location. There have only been a few world capitals of bohemia, generally in big, expensive cities that appeal to bohemian rich kids. In the U.S., the geographic options for think tank scholars also tend to be limited to a few expensive cities, like Washington, D.C. and New York. Of the different breeds of the American intellectual, professors have the most diverse habitat, given the number and geographic distribution of universities across the American continent. Like college education, geographic mobility in the service of personal career ambitions is common only within a highly atypical social and economic elite.

Q. What is the contextual meaning of the following as used in the paragraph:

Denouncing

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Intellectuals a category that includes academics, opinion journalists, and think tank experts are freaks. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I myself have spent most of my life in one of the three roles mentioned above. I have even been accused of being a public intellectual, which sounds too much like public nuisance or even public enemy for my taste.

My point is that people who specialize in the life of ideas tend to be extremely atypical of their societies. They are freaks in a statistical sense. For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.

The terms intellectual and intelligentsia arose around the same time in the 19th century. Before the industrial revolution, the few people in advanced civilizations paid to read, write, and debate were mostly either clerics like medieval Christian priests, monks, or secular scribes like Confucian mandarins who worked for kings or aristocrats, or, as in the city-states of ancient Greece, teachers whose students were mostly young men of the upper classes.
The replacement of agrarian civilization by industrial capitalism created two new homes for thinkers, both funded directly or indirectly by the newly enriched capitalist elite. One was the nonprofit sector the university and the nonprofit think tank founded chiefly by gifts from the tycoons who lent these institutions their names: Stanford University, the Ford Foundation.

Then there was bohemia, populated largely by the downwardly-mobile sons and daughters of the rich, spending down inherited bourgeois family fortunes while dabbling in the arts and philosophy and politics and denouncing the evils of the bourgeoisie.

Whether they are institutionalized professors and policy wonks or free-spirited bohemians, the intellectuals of the industrial era are as different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies as the clerics, scribes, mandarins, and itinerant philosophers of old were from the peasant or slave majorities in their societies.
To begin with, there is the matter of higher education. Only about 30 percent of American adults have a four-year undergraduate degree. The number of those with advanced graduate or professional degrees is around one in ten. As a BA is a minimal requirement for employment in most intellectual occupations, the pool from which scholars, writers, and policy experts is drawn is already a small one. It is even more exclusive in practice, because the children of the rich and affluent are overrepresented among those who go to college.

Then there is location. There have only been a few world capitals of bohemia, generally in big, expensive cities that appeal to bohemian rich kids. In the U.S., the geographic options for think tank scholars also tend to be limited to a few expensive cities, like Washington, D.C. and New York. Of the different breeds of the American intellectual, professors have the most diverse habitat, given the number and geographic distribution of universities across the American continent. Like college education, geographic mobility in the service of personal career ambitions is common only within a highly atypical social and economic elite.

Q. According to the author of the passage, the intellectuals of the industrial area are different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies by virtue of:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

Intellectuals a category that includes academics, opinion journalists, and think tank experts are freaks. I do not mean that in a disrespectful way. I myself have spent most of my life in one of the three roles mentioned above. I have even been accused of being a public intellectual, which sounds too much like public nuisance or even public enemy for my taste.

My point is that people who specialize in the life of ideas tend to be extremely atypical of their societies. They are freaks in a statistical sense. For generations, populists of various kinds have argued that intellectuals are unworldly individuals out of touch with the experiences and values of most of their fellow citizens. While anti-intellectual populists have often been wrong about the gold standard or the single tax or other issues, by and large they have been right about intellectuals.

The terms intellectual and intelligentsia arose around the same time in the 19th century. Before the industrial revolution, the few people in advanced civilizations paid to read, write, and debate were mostly either clerics like medieval Christian priests, monks, or secular scribes like Confucian mandarins who worked for kings or aristocrats, or, as in the city-states of ancient Greece, teachers whose students were mostly young men of the upper classes.
The replacement of agrarian civilization by industrial capitalism created two new homes for thinkers, both funded directly or indirectly by the newly enriched capitalist elite. One was the nonprofit sector the university and the nonprofit think tank founded chiefly by gifts from the tycoons who lent these institutions their names: Stanford University, the Ford Foundation.

Then there was bohemia, populated largely by the downwardly-mobile sons and daughters of the rich, spending down inherited bourgeois family fortunes while dabbling in the arts and philosophy and politics and denouncing the evils of the bourgeoisie.

Whether they are institutionalized professors and policy wonks or free-spirited bohemians, the intellectuals of the industrial era are as different from the mass of people in contemporary industrial societies as the clerics, scribes, mandarins, and itinerant philosophers of old were from the peasant or slave majorities in their societies.
To begin with, there is the matter of higher education. Only about 30 percent of American adults have a four-year undergraduate degree. The number of those with advanced graduate or professional degrees is around one in ten. As a BA is a minimal requirement for employment in most intellectual occupations, the pool from which scholars, writers, and policy experts is drawn is already a small one. It is even more exclusive in practice, because the children of the rich and affluent are overrepresented among those who go to college.

Then there is location. There have only been a few world capitals of bohemia, generally in big, expensive cities that appeal to bohemian rich kids. In the U.S., the geographic options for think tank scholars also tend to be limited to a few expensive cities, like Washington, D.C. and New York. Of the different breeds of the American intellectual, professors have the most diverse habitat, given the number and geographic distribution of universities across the American continent. Like college education, geographic mobility in the service of personal career ambitions is common only within a highly atypical social and economic elite.

Q. A suitable title for the passage is:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. What, according to the passage should go a long way in judicial appointments?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. According to the passage, there has been a demand for a National Judicial Commission

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. Which of the following could be in the author’s mind when he says ‘in the light of our previous experience’?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. The role and procedure of the National Commission must be spelt out clearly

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. Which of the following words is similar in meaning as the word JETTISON as used in the passage?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. Which of the following forms part of what the Lord Chancelor has said?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. Which of the following according to the author is the most welcome thing?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. Which of the following groups of words is similar in meaning as the word LEST as used in the passage?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

An independent, able and upright judiciary is the hallmark of a free democratic country. Therefore, the process of judicial appointments is of vital importance. At present, on account of the Supreme Court’s last advisory opinion, the role of the executive and its interference in the appointment of judges is minimal, which, in light of our previous experience, is most welcome. However, there is a strong demand for a National Judicial Commission on the ground of wider participation in the appointment process and for greater transparency. The composition, the role and the procedures of the proposed National Judicial Commission, must be clearly spelt out, lest it be a case of jumping from the frying-pan into the fire.

Recently, there has been a lively debate in England on the subject. A judicial commission has been proposed but there are not many takers for that proposal. In the paper issued this month by the Lord Chancellor’s Department on judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor has said, “I want every vacancy on the Bench to be filled by the best person available.

Appointments must and will be made on merit, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, religion or disability. These are not mere words. They are firm principles. I will not tolerate any form of discrimination.”

At present, there are hardly any persons from the ethnic minorities manning the higher judiciary and so far not a single woman has made it to the House of Lords. The most significant part of Lord Chancellor’s paper is the requirement that “allegations of professional misconduct made in the course of consultations about a candidate for judicial office must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate”. This should go a long way in ensuring that principles of natural justice and fair play are not jettisoned in the appointment process, which is not an uncommon phenomenon.

Q. What does the expression “from the frying-pan into the fire” mean?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

The humanities transmit, through time and across cultures, diverse expressions of the human condition, allowing us to contextualize, illuminate, and pass on an essential legacy of culture, history and heritage.

I believe that social media poses a grave threat to the humanities because it lacks the depth, nuance and permanence that make genuine, meaningful interactions about the human condition possible. Everything that social media communication represents- immediacy, impermanence, collectivism- is contrary and harmful to the thoughtfulness, permanence and individualistic experiences necessary to humanities discourse. Social media is creating a hive mind, a group think that devalues the human condition in favor of the immediate, the marketable and the shallow. In social media, there is no difference between us and others; we look the same, we talk the same, we fill the same space. The real purpose of social media is to gauge measure and ultimately control the behavior of the crowd for marketing purposes. And as social media, and its values of pliable, identifiable collectives based on mutual interests, migrates from the Web to become more ubiquitous in our everyday lives--try attending a movie or buying a meal, the reductionist conversation that it engenders comes with it.

The first negative impact that social media has on the humanities is a multiple-choice format and physical structure that allows only for a very limited, narrow type of communication. There is no room for individual creativity or representation. Humanities also require background and context to impart ideas but social media is an equivalency and framework vacuum that decontextualizes and trivializes information in a way that renders it nearly meaningless. The brevity of communication through social media precludes explanation and circumstance. Within social media, all information is equally important. There are no little or big facts; all data is expressed in compact bites of equal weight. The inability to separate the trivial from the significant leaves us unable to glean consequential substance from what we are saying to each other: the very purpose of the humanities.
Lastly, social media creates and archives no history. The humanities are about expanding, describing, understanding and transmitting through the generations, the human condition. The purpose of social media is to understand ever larger groups of people at the expense of the individual. Humanities is exactly the opposite: understanding the individual for the sake of the masses.

As human beings, our only real method of connection is through authentic communication. Studies show that only 7% of communication is based on the written or verbal word. A whopping 93% is based on nonverbal body language. This is where social media gets dicey. Every relevant metric shows that we are interacting at breakneck speed and frequency through social media. But are we really communicating? With 93% of our communication context stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases, Abbreviations, Snippets, Emoticons, and which may or may not be accurate representations of the truth. In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social; a surrogate for the real thing. For it to be a truly effective communication vehicle, all parties bear a responsibility to be genuine, accurate, and not allow it to replace human contact altogether. In the workplace, the use of electronic communication has overtaken face-to-face and voice-to-voice communication by a wide margin. With these two trends at play, leaders must consider the impact on business relationships and the ability to effectively collaborate, build trust, and create employee engagement and loyalty.

Q. Which of the following best captures the essence of the passage?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

The humanities transmit, through time and across cultures, diverse expressions of the human condition, allowing us to contextualize, illuminate, and pass on an essential legacy of culture, history and heritage.

I believe that social media poses a grave threat to the humanities because it lacks the depth, nuance and permanence that make genuine, meaningful interactions about the human condition possible. Everything that social media communication represents- immediacy, impermanence, collectivism- is contrary and harmful to the thoughtfulness, permanence and individualistic experiences necessary to humanities discourse. Social media is creating a hive mind, a group think that devalues the human condition in favor of the immediate, the marketable and the shallow. In social media, there is no difference between us and others; we look the same, we talk the same, we fill the same space. The real purpose of social media is to gauge measure and ultimately control the behavior of the crowd for marketing purposes. And as social media, and its values of pliable, identifiable collectives based on mutual interests, migrates from the Web to become more ubiquitous in our everyday lives--try attending a movie or buying a meal, the reductionist conversation that it engenders comes with it.

The first negative impact that social media has on the humanities is a multiple-choice format and physical structure that allows only for a very limited, narrow type of communication. There is no room for individual creativity or representation. Humanities also require background and context to impart ideas but social media is an equivalency and framework vacuum that decontextualizes and trivializes information in a way that renders it nearly meaningless. The brevity of communication through social media precludes explanation and circumstance. Within social media, all information is equally important. There are no little or big facts; all data is expressed in compact bites of equal weight. The inability to separate the trivial from the significant leaves us unable to glean consequential substance from what we are saying to each other: the very purpose of the humanities.
Lastly, social media creates and archives no history. The humanities are about expanding, describing, understanding and transmitting through the generations, the human condition. The purpose of social media is to understand ever larger groups of people at the expense of the individual. Humanities is exactly the opposite: understanding the individual for the sake of the masses.

As human beings, our only real method of connection is through authentic communication. Studies show that only 7% of communication is based on the written or verbal word. A whopping 93% is based on nonverbal body language. This is where social media gets dicey. Every relevant metric shows that we are interacting at breakneck speed and frequency through social media. But are we really communicating? With 93% of our communication context stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases, Abbreviations, Snippets, Emoticons, and which may or may not be accurate representations of the truth. In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social; a surrogate for the real thing. For it to be a truly effective communication vehicle, all parties bear a responsibility to be genuine, accurate, and not allow it to replace human contact altogether. In the workplace, the use of electronic communication has overtaken face-to-face and voice-to-voice communication by a wide margin. With these two trends at play, leaders must consider the impact on business relationships and the ability to effectively collaborate, build trust, and create employee engagement and loyalty.

Q. The author adopts all of the following approaches towards Social media except:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

The humanities transmit, through time and across cultures, diverse expressions of the human condition, allowing us to contextualize, illuminate, and pass on an essential legacy of culture, history and heritage.

I believe that social media poses a grave threat to the humanities because it lacks the depth, nuance and permanence that make genuine, meaningful interactions about the human condition possible. Everything that social media communication represents- immediacy, impermanence, collectivism- is contrary and harmful to the thoughtfulness, permanence and individualistic experiences necessary to humanities discourse. Social media is creating a hive mind, a group think that devalues the human condition in favor of the immediate, the marketable and the shallow. In social media, there is no difference between us and others; we look the same, we talk the same, we fill the same space. The real purpose of social media is to gauge measure and ultimately control the behavior of the crowd for marketing purposes. And as social media, and its values of pliable, identifiable collectives based on mutual interests, migrates from the Web to become more ubiquitous in our everyday lives--try attending a movie or buying a meal, the reductionist conversation that it engenders comes with it.

The first negative impact that social media has on the humanities is a multiple-choice format and physical structure that allows only for a very limited, narrow type of communication. There is no room for individual creativity or representation. Humanities also require background and context to impart ideas but social media is an equivalency and framework vacuum that decontextualizes and trivializes information in a way that renders it nearly meaningless. The brevity of communication through social media precludes explanation and circumstance. Within social media, all information is equally important. There are no little or big facts; all data is expressed in compact bites of equal weight. The inability to separate the trivial from the significant leaves us unable to glean consequential substance from what we are saying to each other: the very purpose of the humanities.
Lastly, social media creates and archives no history. The humanities are about expanding, describing, understanding and transmitting through the generations, the human condition. The purpose of social media is to understand ever larger groups of people at the expense of the individual. Humanities is exactly the opposite: understanding the individual for the sake of the masses.

As human beings, our only real method of connection is through authentic communication. Studies show that only 7% of communication is based on the written or verbal word. A whopping 93% is based on nonverbal body language. This is where social media gets dicey. Every relevant metric shows that we are interacting at breakneck speed and frequency through social media. But are we really communicating? With 93% of our communication context stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases, Abbreviations, Snippets, Emoticons, and which may or may not be accurate representations of the truth. In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social; a surrogate for the real thing. For it to be a truly effective communication vehicle, all parties bear a responsibility to be genuine, accurate, and not allow it to replace human contact altogether. In the workplace, the use of electronic communication has overtaken face-to-face and voice-to-voice communication by a wide margin. With these two trends at play, leaders must consider the impact on business relationships and the ability to effectively collaborate, build trust, and create employee engagement and loyalty.

Q. What does the author mean by ‘reductionist conversation’?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.

The humanities transmit, through time and across cultures, diverse expressions of the human condition, allowing us to contextualize, illuminate, and pass on an essential legacy of culture, history and heritage.

I believe that social media poses a grave threat to the humanities because it lacks the depth, nuance and permanence that make genuine, meaningful interactions about the human condition possible. Everything that social media communication represents- immediacy, impermanence, collectivism- is contrary and harmful to the thoughtfulness, permanence and individualistic experiences necessary to humanities discourse. Social media is creating a hive mind, a group think that devalues the human condition in favor of the immediate, the marketable and the shallow. In social media, there is no difference between us and others; we look the same, we talk the same, we fill the same space. The real purpose of social media is to gauge measure and ultimately control the behavior of the crowd for marketing purposes. And as social media, and its values of pliable, identifiable collectives based on mutual interests, migrates from the Web to become more ubiquitous in our everyday lives--try attending a movie or buying a meal, the reductionist conversation that it engenders comes with it.

The first negative impact that social media has on the humanities is a multiple-choice format and physical structure that allows only for a very limited, narrow type of communication. There is no room for individual creativity or representation. Humanities also require background and context to impart ideas but social media is an equivalency and framework vacuum that decontextualizes and trivializes information in a way that renders it nearly meaningless. The brevity of communication through social media precludes explanation and circumstance. Within social media, all information is equally important. There are no little or big facts; all data is expressed in compact bites of equal weight. The inability to separate the trivial from the significant leaves us unable to glean consequential substance from what we are saying to each other: the very purpose of the humanities.
Lastly, social media creates and archives no history. The humanities are about expanding, describing, understanding and transmitting through the generations, the human condition. The purpose of social media is to understand ever larger groups of people at the expense of the individual. Humanities is exactly the opposite: understanding the individual for the sake of the masses.

As human beings, our only real method of connection is through authentic communication. Studies show that only 7% of communication is based on the written or verbal word. A whopping 93% is based on nonverbal body language. This is where social media gets dicey. Every relevant metric shows that we are interacting at breakneck speed and frequency through social media. But are we really communicating? With 93% of our communication context stripped away, we are now attempting to forge relationships and make decisions based on phrases, Abbreviations, Snippets, Emoticons, and which may or may not be accurate representations of the truth. In an ironic twist, social media has the potential to make us less social; a surrogate for the real thing. For it to be a truly effective communication vehicle, all parties bear a responsibility to be genuine, accurate, and not allow it to replace human contact altogether. In the workplace, the use of electronic communication has overtaken face-to-face and voice-to-voice communication by a wide margin. With these two trends at play, leaders must consider the impact on business relationships and the ability to effectively collaborate, build trust, and create employee engagement and loyalty.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred from the lines ‘This is where social media gets dicey’?