CLAT: Mock Test (New Pattern) - 16 - CLAT MCQ

Jim Bird, the President of worklifebalance.com, a leader in work-life balance solutions, has a simple philosophy: "I just want to achieve something today and enjoy something too. And if I do both of these things everyday, for the rest of my Iife, I am going to have a pretty good life,” he says.
A simple, set profound concept, and is probably the best -advice anyone can offer you for incorporating balance into your work-life. Balance is necessary, for it gives you a measure of control over your life. As work schedules become hectic and the customer expects 24x7 services from a company, the employee is under constant pressure to perform. “Today, most employees are reeling under long working hours and pressure.” says Sanjay Salooja, Founder and CEO. Empower, a work-life value company. And if the pressure gets to you, then the balance could tip. The effect is, of course disastrous, with the employer and the employee suffering in the long run. A survey- conducted on how personal problems could impact your work life, pointed out that 30 per cent of absenteeism - is related to an employee's inability to cope with personal problems. And that nearly two out of every five employees are dissatisfied with the balance between their work and personal lives.
The symptoms of living in imbalance ate quite obvious - mental duress and lack of concentration. “The employee is usually in a tearing hurry to shift from one task to the other and is unable to do justice to any,” says Ajay Oberoi, Senior Vice President, Aptech Limited. As a result, he feels tired constantly and eventually burnout sets in. “One can quote the example of Amitabh Bachchan who used to pump 17 hours into his workday. And this is no doubt, one plausible reason for his illness,” says Dr. R.L. Bhatia, CEO, Fun and Joy At Work.
So how does one go about achieving a work-life balances? There are five stages that one must go through to achieve this, the first one being the phase where you struggle to understand what is wrong and what you are missing in life. “You just feel out of control” says Bhatia. In the second stage, you juggle various responsibilities and develop tricks and techniques that allow you to create a sense of control. “This is a precarious stage and the skills that allow you to juggle two balls may fail as soon as a third ball is added to juggle,” he says. Now comes the third stage - work-life balance - where you actually begin to fulfill your multiple responsibilities and enjoy a sense of equilibrium. The trick is to focus on all your energies and get through the day. The fourth is work-life integration where you are not only able to fulfill all your work responsibilities but also have enough energy to put towards career planning, career development and personal growth. You have a sense of where you are going, says Bhatia. In the final stage of work-life harmony, you are completely in control of all aspects of your work life.
Even organisations have started realising the importance of work-life balance and are taking some concrete steps to help employees snap out of the imbroglio. A company, for instance, has come up with a Wednesday Blackout policy, which essentially means that lights are switched off at 6 pm every Wednesday - a signal for employees to wrap up and push off. Then there are companies that have formulated flexi-hour policies for their employees. This allows people to adjust their workday while maintaining full-time hours - an ideal arrangement for someone who might want to start work early and leave early. “I know of a manager in a company who worked flexi hours from December to May to meet with a family responsibility,” says Bhatia. A "compressed workweek is another option. “Companies even allow employees to work the entire week and club the holidays together to meet family.” says an Editor of a publishing house.
For all this or any of this to happen, you’ll obviously have to look for an opportunity to talk to your employer. “It's better to be prepared in advance and not spring it onto a manager on a Friday afternoon in a fit of tears after an exhausting week,” says Salooja. Let them know exactly what you are looking for and explain why. Do this not from the perspective of “I need to spend more time with my kids” but in terms of “In order for me to be the most effective employee possible, this is the work arrangement that I need in order to fulfill my commitment.” And if you are wondering whether flexi-arrangements would hamper your career, then let me tell you a flexible schedule does not always limit your career. “It can slow down your career path slightly because it may take you longer to get the necessary experience for promotion, but it shouldn't limit growth in the long run.” says Bhatia. After all, it’s good to remember that the more out of balance or out of control your life is, the more you pay in terms of physical and emotional health. “You probably won’t eat property or consume more caffeine, more alcohol, more sugar, and you are less likely to exercise on a regular basis. Your relationships, too, could become unstable - quite a heavy price to pay for an unbalanced life,” says Salooja. A stressed employee may spell trouble for companies, too.

Q. Which of the following best summarizes the passage?

Jim Bird, the President of worklifebalance.com, a leader in work-life balance solutions, has a simple philosophy: "I just want to achieve something today and enjoy something too. And if I do both of these things everyday, for the rest of my Iife, I am going to have a pretty good life,” he says.
A simple, set profound concept, and is probably the best -advice anyone can offer you for incorporating balance into your work-life. Balance is necessary, for it gives you a measure of control over your life. As work schedules become hectic and the customer expects 24x7 services from a company, the employee is under constant pressure to perform. “Today, most employees are reeling under long working hours and pressure.” says Sanjay Salooja, Founder and CEO. Empower, a work-life value company. And if the pressure gets to you, then the balance could tip. The effect is, of course disastrous, with the employer and the employee suffering in the long run. A survey- conducted on how personal problems could impact your work life, pointed out that 30 per cent of absenteeism - is related to an employee's inability to cope with personal problems. And that nearly two out of every five employees are dissatisfied with the balance between their work and personal lives.
The symptoms of living in imbalance ate quite obvious - mental duress and lack of concentration. “The employee is usually in a tearing hurry to shift from one task to the other and is unable to do justice to any,” says Ajay Oberoi, Senior Vice President, Aptech Limited. As a result, he feels tired constantly and eventually burnout sets in. “One can quote the example of Amitabh Bachchan who used to pump 17 hours into his workday. And this is no doubt, one plausible reason for his illness,” says Dr. R.L. Bhatia, CEO, Fun and Joy At Work.
So how does one go about achieving a work-life balances? There are five stages that one must go through to achieve this, the first one being the phase where you struggle to understand what is wrong and what you are missing in life. “You just feel out of control” says Bhatia. In the second stage, you juggle various responsibilities and develop tricks and techniques that allow you to create a sense of control. “This is a precarious stage and the skills that allow you to juggle two balls may fail as soon as a third ball is added to juggle,” he says. Now comes the third stage - work-life balance - where you actually begin to fulfill your multiple responsibilities and enjoy a sense of equilibrium. The trick is to focus on all your energies and get through the day. The fourth is work-life integration where you are not only able to fulfill all your work responsibilities but also have enough energy to put towards career planning, career development and personal growth. You have a sense of where you are going, says Bhatia. In the final stage of work-life harmony, you are completely in control of all aspects of your work life.
Even organisations have started realising the importance of work-life balance and are taking some concrete steps to help employees snap out of the imbroglio. A company, for instance, has come up with a Wednesday Blackout policy, which essentially means that lights are switched off at 6 pm every Wednesday - a signal for employees to wrap up and push off. Then there are companies that have formulated flexi-hour policies for their employees. This allows people to adjust their workday while maintaining full-time hours - an ideal arrangement for someone who might want to start work early and leave early. “I know of a manager in a company who worked flexi hours from December to May to meet with a family responsibility,” says Bhatia. A "compressed workweek is another option. “Companies even allow employees to work the entire week and club the holidays together to meet family.” says an Editor of a publishing house.
For all this or any of this to happen, you’ll obviously have to look for an opportunity to talk to your employer. “It's better to be prepared in advance and not spring it onto a manager on a Friday afternoon in a fit of tears after an exhausting week,” says Salooja. Let them know exactly what you are looking for and explain why. Do this not from the perspective of “I need to spend more time with my kids” but in terms of “In order for me to be the most effective employee possible, this is the work arrangement that I need in order to fulfill my commitment.” And if you are wondering whether flexi-arrangements would hamper your career, then let me tell you a flexible schedule does not always limit your career. “It can slow down your career path slightly because it may take you longer to get the necessary experience for promotion, but it shouldn't limit growth in the long run.” says Bhatia. After all, it’s good to remember that the more out of balance or out of control your life is, the more you pay in terms of physical and emotional health. “You probably won’t eat property or consume more caffeine, more alcohol, more sugar, and you are less likely to exercise on a regular basis. Your relationships, too, could become unstable - quite a heavy price to pay for an unbalanced life,” says Salooja. A stressed employee may spell trouble for companies, too.

Q. What would be the suitable title for this passage'?

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed is by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato, whose ``Republic' set the model for the Utopias of subsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates the world in the light of an ideal—whether what he seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or all together—must feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he be a man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire to lead men to the realization of the good which inspires his creative vision. It is this desire which has been the primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal commonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing new. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, is that close relation of the ideal to the present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important and it is this that makes them dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously upon the evils of our present order of society.
The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth, without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives.
These few, driven by sympathetic pain, will seek, first in thought and then in action, for some way of escape, some new system of society by which life may become richer, more full of joy and less full of preventable evils than it is at present. But in the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest the very victims of the injustices which they wished to remedy. The more unfortunate sections of the population have been ignorant, apathetic from excess of toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent danger of immediate punishment by the holders of power, and morally unreliable owing to the loss of self-respect resulting from their degradation. To create among such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has generally proved so. But the modern world, by the increase of education and the rise in the standard of comfort among wage-earners, has produced new conditions, more favorable than ever before to the demand for radical reconstruction. It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists, who have become the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a better world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning classes have accepted them as their guide in the practical affairs of the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident; but in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some qualification.

Q. According to the information provided in the passage, men can be classified :
I. as timid followers
II. as altruistic iconoclasts
III. as self-interested savants
IV. as self-seekers

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed is by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato, whose ``Republic' set the model for the Utopias of subsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates the world in the light of an ideal—whether what he seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or all together—must feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he be a man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire to lead men to the realization of the good which inspires his creative vision. It is this desire which has been the primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal commonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing new. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, is that close relation of the ideal to the present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important and it is this that makes them dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously upon the evils of our present order of society.
The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth, without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives.
These few, driven by sympathetic pain, will seek, first in thought and then in action, for some way of escape, some new system of society by which life may become richer, more full of joy and less full of preventable evils than it is at present. But in the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest the very victims of the injustices which they wished to remedy. The more unfortunate sections of the population have been ignorant, apathetic from excess of toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent danger of immediate punishment by the holders of power, and morally unreliable owing to the loss of self-respect resulting from their degradation. To create among such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has generally proved so. But the modern world, by the increase of education and the rise in the standard of comfort among wage-earners, has produced new conditions, more favorable than ever before to the demand for radical reconstruction. It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists, who have become the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a better world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning classes have accepted them as their guide in the practical affairs of the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident; but in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some qualification.

Q. It can be inferred that hindrance(s) to the collective improvement of man was/were:
I. a weary population afraid of challenging established systems and viewpoints.
II. Basic poverty which made them focused only on their day to day survival.
III. low levels of education

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed is by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato, whose ``Republic' set the model for the Utopias of subsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates the world in the light of an ideal—whether what he seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or all together—must feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he be a man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire to lead men to the realization of the good which inspires his creative vision. It is this desire which has been the primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal commonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing new. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, is that close relation of the ideal to the present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important and it is this that makes them dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously upon the evils of our present order of society.
The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth, without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives.
These few, driven by sympathetic pain, will seek, first in thought and then in action, for some way of escape, some new system of society by which life may become richer, more full of joy and less full of preventable evils than it is at present. But in the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest the very victims of the injustices which they wished to remedy. The more unfortunate sections of the population have been ignorant, apathetic from excess of toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent danger of immediate punishment by the holders of power, and morally unreliable owing to the loss of self-respect resulting from their degradation. To create among such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has generally proved so. But the modern world, by the increase of education and the rise in the standard of comfort among wage-earners, has produced new conditions, more favorable than ever before to the demand for radical reconstruction. It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists, who have become the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a better world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning classes have accepted them as their guide in the practical affairs of the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident; but in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some qualification.

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

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed is by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato, whose ``Republic' set the model for the Utopias of subsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates the world in the light of an ideal—whether what he seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or all together—must feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he be a man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire to lead men to the realization of the good which inspires his creative vision. It is this desire which has been the primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal commonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing new. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, is that close relation of the ideal to the present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important and it is this that makes them dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously upon the evils of our present order of society.
The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth, without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives.
These few, driven by sympathetic pain, will seek, first in thought and then in action, for some way of escape, some new system of society by which life may become richer, more full of joy and less full of preventable evils than it is at present. But in the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest the very victims of the injustices which they wished to remedy. The more unfortunate sections of the population have been ignorant, apathetic from excess of toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent danger of immediate punishment by the holders of power, and morally unreliable owing to the loss of self-respect resulting from their degradation. To create among such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has generally proved so. But the modern world, by the increase of education and the rise in the standard of comfort among wage-earners, has produced new conditions, more favorable than ever before to the demand for radical reconstruction. It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists, who have become the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a better world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning classes have accepted them as their guide in the practical affairs of the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident; but in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some qualification.

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that Socialism and Anarchism pose a threat to:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
The attempt to conceive imaginatively a better ordering of human society than the destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed is by no means modern: it is at least as old as Plato, whose ``Republic' set the model for the Utopias of subsequent philosophers. Whoever contemplates the world in the light of an ideal—whether what he seeks be intellect, or art, or love, or simple happiness, or all together—must feel a great sorrow in the evils that men needlessly allow to continue, and—if he be a man of force and vital energy—an urgent desire to lead men to the realization of the good which inspires his creative vision. It is this desire which has been the primary force moving the pioneers of Socialism and Anarchism, as it moved the inventors of ideal commonwealths in the past. In this there is nothing new. What is new in Socialism and Anarchism, is that close relation of the ideal to the present sufferings of men, which has enabled powerful political movements to grow out of the hopes of solitary thinkers. It is this that makes Socialism and Anarchism important and it is this that makes them dangerous to those who batten, consciously or unconsciously upon the evils of our present order of society.
The great majority of men and women, in ordinary times, pass through life without ever contemplating or criticising, as a whole, either their own conditions or those of the world at large. They find themselves born into a certain place in society, and they accept what each day brings forth, without any effort of thought beyond what the immediate present requires. Almost as instinctively as the beasts of the field, they seek the satisfaction of the needs of the moment, without much forethought, and without considering that by sufficient effort the whole conditions of their lives could be changed. A certain percentage, guided by personal ambition, make the effort of thought and will which is necessary to place themselves among the more fortunate members of the community; but very few among these are seriously concerned to secure for all the advantages which they seek for themselves. It is only a few rare and exceptional men who have that kind of love toward mankind at large that makes them unable to endure patiently the general mass of evil and suffering, regardless of any relation it may have to their own lives.
These few, driven by sympathetic pain, will seek, first in thought and then in action, for some way of escape, some new system of society by which life may become richer, more full of joy and less full of preventable evils than it is at present. But in the past such men have, as a rule, failed to interest the very victims of the injustices which they wished to remedy. The more unfortunate sections of the population have been ignorant, apathetic from excess of toil and weariness, timorous through the imminent danger of immediate punishment by the holders of power, and morally unreliable owing to the loss of self-respect resulting from their degradation. To create among such classes any conscious, deliberate effort after general amelioration might have seemed a hopeless task, and indeed in the past it has generally proved so. But the modern world, by the increase of education and the rise in the standard of comfort among wage-earners, has produced new conditions, more favorable than ever before to the demand for radical reconstruction. It is above all the Socialists, and in a lesser degree the Anarchists, who have become the exponents of this demand.
What is perhaps most remarkable in regard to both Socialism and Anarchism is the association of a widespread popular movement with ideals for a better world. The ideals have been elaborated, in the first instance, by solitary writers of books, and yet powerful sections of the wage-earning classes have accepted them as their guide in the practical affairs of the world. In regard to Socialism this is evident; but in regard to Anarchism it is only true with some qualification.

Q. If you were to ask one pertinent question to the author of the passage, what would it be?

The media have a right and a duty to investigate into and comment on the integrity and efficiency of police investigation of crime. They have no right to usurp the functions of the court and pronounce on the suspect's guilt. That is contempt of court, a violation of his right to a free trial a competing, but overriding, right - and public interest. The media abdicated their duty in Jessica Lall's case. You did not have to be K.P.S. Gill to discern that investigation was being botched up from day one. Had the media bestirred themselves, the damage might have been repaired in time. In the Rahul Mahajan case, the media are guilty of excess. It is a sad state of things when a TV anchor feels free to ask a lawyer whether his client had taken drugs or not. "Tell us something to show that he is innocent.” That is a plea to enter in court, not before TV. But, why was the lawyer there? It is little realised that this practice violates professional norms fundamentally. Lord Justice John Singleton stated without qualification in his classic. 'Conduct at the Bar’: “No advocate, in any circumstances, should ever permit himself to assert his own belief on the merits of the case which he is arguing or in the innocence of the prisoner whom he is defending. The moment he does so, he steps outside his role of advocate” - and becomes a PRO. In 1998, the Master of Rolls, Lord Woolf, said: “The defendants are entitled to have the issues involved determined by the courts without improper interference with the administration of justice. The situation is one in which it is easy to fan emotions that will make the task of the courts to resolve the complex issues involved and do justice between the parties - more difficult.”
Extra-judicial statements by legal representatives can be especially unhelpful since they are likely to be received by the media as especially authoritative even if they are inaccurate. The professionalism and the sense of duty of legal advisors who conduct litigation of this nature should mean that the courts arc able to rely on the legal advisors to exercise great self-restraint when making comments to the press, while at the same time recognising the need for the media to be properly informed of what is happening in the proceedings. Possible cooperation and an absence of excessive adversarial behaviour on the part of the legal advisors of all parties is essential if multi-party litigation such as this is to be conducted in the proportionate manner that the interest of their clients and justice require. Law correspondents are there to report the proceedings. As the BBC’s law correspondent does outside the royal courts of justice. Lawyers need not go before TV cameras on the grounds of the Supreme Court. Correspondents can be briefed by lawyers on complexities if the correspondents so desire. The biggest offender is the police. Its officials hold press conferences to announce the arrest of a ‘Naxalite’ or ‘terrorist’ and even present him to the media. Interviews are arranged in jails and ‘confessions' by the hapless man are telecast, In 1995, the French Minister of the Interior, who held a press conference with police officials in which they named a man as one of the instigators of the murder of an MP, was ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay him 2 million French francs for violating a human right - the presumption of innocence.
Investigating journalism and the TV came well after the Contempt of Court Act. 1971. Earlier, the law operated when proceedings became ‘imminent". Rejecting the recommendation of the Sanyal Committee, Parliament made the law operable only when a chargesheet is filed or when the court issues summons or warrant. Comment is free during the entire course of police investigation, even if it poisons "‘the fountain of justice before it begins to flow” (Ss.2[c][ii], 3 and Explanation to S.3). If a private complaint is filed, the Act operates when the court takes cognisance. Applying this principle, it would be but fair to make the Act operable from the time of arrest or when criminal proceedings become ‘active', as the Bombay High Court suggested in 1973. Right now, we sail on uncharted seas in an “atmosphere of a Roman Holiday for the news media”, as an American judge put it. It is free to air evidence inadmissible in court, regale its patrons with the suspect and "the witnesses' past, including past convictions for crime that no prosecutor can cite in court. An Australian court hauled up a radio station for contempt for suggesting that the arrest of a particular suspect marked a successful conclusion to police investigations - something our police and TV channels revel in merrily.
Equally culpable are assertions of innocence of the suspect. The Premier of New South Wales was lined £25,000 for contempt when he told the press, apropos a judge awaiting trial, that he had “a deep conviction” that the judge was innocent. If there is a substantial risk of prejudice, it does not matter that the daily had exposed a conspiracy and cooperated with the police. Asghar Mahmood unearthed a conspiracy and informed the police, which decided to widen and prolong the probe. But News of the World did not wait, its help was acknowledged. So was its interference with justice. It was fined £50,000. C J Miller, an authority on contempt of court, makes a fair comment: “It is unrealistic to expect a newspaper simply to hand over its material and publish it only after the conclusion of the trial. The business is a highly competitive one and scoops have commercial value. If it publishes it without alerting the police, the suspects might well vanish, but in all probability it will not commit a strict liability contempt. However, if it alerts the police, who then arrest the suspects, the danger of committing a contempt by publication is clear.” The solution lies in recognising ‘the public interest’ as a valid defence Publication of the photograph of a dangerous suspect on the run is a service, not a contempt. The media have rendered services in exposure of fraud, corruption in police and perversion of investigation. But one must recognise the potentiality of conflict to the harm of the public interest. In the Sixties, David Frost exposed Savundra's frauds on TV. This warned off many small investors who would otherwise have lost their savings. He was, nonetheless, severely criticised by Lord Justice Salmon in the appeal court for endangering Savundra's fair trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud. This is a risk inherent in the game unless the media, the Bar and the police draw up rules, based on modern realities, for incorporation in the Act of 1971.

Q. Which of the following is the best suited title for the passage?

The media have a right and a duty to investigate into and comment on the integrity and efficiency of police investigation of crime. They have no right to usurp the functions of the court and pronounce on the suspect's guilt. That is contempt of court, a violation of his right to a free trial a competing, but overriding, right - and public interest. The media abdicated their duty in Jessica Lall's case. You did not have to be K.P.S. Gill to discern that investigation was being botched up from day one. Had the media bestirred themselves, the damage might have been repaired in time. In the Rahul Mahajan case, the media are guilty of excess. It is a sad state of things when a TV anchor feels free to ask a lawyer whether his client had taken drugs or not. "Tell us something to show that he is innocent.” That is a plea to enter in court, not before TV. But, why was the lawyer there? It is little realised that this practice violates professional norms fundamentally. Lord Justice John Singleton stated without qualification in his classic. 'Conduct at the Bar’: “No advocate, in any circumstances, should ever permit himself to assert his own belief on the merits of the case which he is arguing or in the innocence of the prisoner whom he is defending. The moment he does so, he steps outside his role of advocate” - and becomes a PRO. In 1998, the Master of Rolls, Lord Woolf, said: “The defendants are entitled to have the issues involved determined by the courts without improper interference with the administration of justice. The situation is one in which it is easy to fan emotions that will make the task of the courts to resolve the complex issues involved and do justice between the parties - more difficult.”
Extra-judicial statements by legal representatives can be especially unhelpful since they are likely to be received by the media as especially authoritative even if they are inaccurate. The professionalism and the sense of duty of legal advisors who conduct litigation of this nature should mean that the courts arc able to rely on the legal advisors to exercise great self-restraint when making comments to the press, while at the same time recognising the need for the media to be properly informed of what is happening in the proceedings. Possible cooperation and an absence of excessive adversarial behaviour on the part of the legal advisors of all parties is essential if multi-party litigation such as this is to be conducted in the proportionate manner that the interest of their clients and justice require. Law correspondents are there to report the proceedings. As the BBC’s law correspondent does outside the royal courts of justice. Lawyers need not go before TV cameras on the grounds of the Supreme Court. Correspondents can be briefed by lawyers on complexities if the correspondents so desire. The biggest offender is the police. Its officials hold press conferences to announce the arrest of a ‘Naxalite’ or ‘terrorist’ and even present him to the media. Interviews are arranged in jails and ‘confessions' by the hapless man are telecast, In 1995, the French Minister of the Interior, who held a press conference with police officials in which they named a man as one of the instigators of the murder of an MP, was ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay him 2 million French francs for violating a human right - the presumption of innocence.
Investigating journalism and the TV came well after the Contempt of Court Act. 1971. Earlier, the law operated when proceedings became ‘imminent". Rejecting the recommendation of the Sanyal Committee, Parliament made the law operable only when a chargesheet is filed or when the court issues summons or warrant. Comment is free during the entire course of police investigation, even if it poisons "‘the fountain of justice before it begins to flow” (Ss.2[c][ii], 3 and Explanation to S.3). If a private complaint is filed, the Act operates when the court takes cognisance. Applying this principle, it would be but fair to make the Act operable from the time of arrest or when criminal proceedings become ‘active', as the Bombay High Court suggested in 1973. Right now, we sail on uncharted seas in an “atmosphere of a Roman Holiday for the news media”, as an American judge put it. It is free to air evidence inadmissible in court, regale its patrons with the suspect and "the witnesses' past, including past convictions for crime that no prosecutor can cite in court. An Australian court hauled up a radio station for contempt for suggesting that the arrest of a particular suspect marked a successful conclusion to police investigations - something our police and TV channels revel in merrily.
Equally culpable are assertions of innocence of the suspect. The Premier of New South Wales was lined £25,000 for contempt when he told the press, apropos a judge awaiting trial, that he had “a deep conviction” that the judge was innocent. If there is a substantial risk of prejudice, it does not matter that the daily had exposed a conspiracy and cooperated with the police. Asghar Mahmood unearthed a conspiracy and informed the police, which decided to widen and prolong the probe. But News of the World did not wait, its help was acknowledged. So was its interference with justice. It was fined £50,000. C J Miller, an authority on contempt of court, makes a fair comment: “It is unrealistic to expect a newspaper simply to hand over its material and publish it only after the conclusion of the trial. The business is a highly competitive one and scoops have commercial value. If it publishes it without alerting the police, the suspects might well vanish, but in all probability it will not commit a strict liability contempt. However, if it alerts the police, who then arrest the suspects, the danger of committing a contempt by publication is clear.” The solution lies in recognising ‘the public interest’ as a valid defence Publication of the photograph of a dangerous suspect on the run is a service, not a contempt. The media have rendered services in exposure of fraud, corruption in police and perversion of investigation. But one must recognise the potentiality of conflict to the harm of the public interest. In the Sixties, David Frost exposed Savundra's frauds on TV. This warned off many small investors who would otherwise have lost their savings. He was, nonetheless, severely criticised by Lord Justice Salmon in the appeal court for endangering Savundra's fair trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud. This is a risk inherent in the game unless the media, the Bar and the police draw up rules, based on modern realities, for incorporation in the Act of 1971.

Q. Which of the following statements arc correct or can be inferred according to the passage?
(I) The media played an active role in Jessica Lall's case right from the beginning.
(II) Investigative journalism has helped in exposing fraud, corruption in police and perversion investigation in the past, though not always without obstructing the justice.
(III) The lawyers are not supposed to assert their own beliefs to the media regarding the case(s) they are arguing.
(IV) Newspapers should publish the reports only after the conclusion of the trial.

The media have a right and a duty to investigate into and comment on the integrity and efficiency of police investigation of crime. They have no right to usurp the functions of the court and pronounce on the suspect's guilt. That is contempt of court, a violation of his right to a free trial a competing, but overriding, right - and public interest. The media abdicated their duty in Jessica Lall's case. You did not have to be K.P.S. Gill to discern that investigation was being botched up from day one. Had the media bestirred themselves, the damage might have been repaired in time. In the Rahul Mahajan case, the media are guilty of excess. It is a sad state of things when a TV anchor feels free to ask a lawyer whether his client had taken drugs or not. "Tell us something to show that he is innocent.” That is a plea to enter in court, not before TV. But, why was the lawyer there? It is little realised that this practice violates professional norms fundamentally. Lord Justice John Singleton stated without qualification in his classic. 'Conduct at the Bar’: “No advocate, in any circumstances, should ever permit himself to assert his own belief on the merits of the case which he is arguing or in the innocence of the prisoner whom he is defending. The moment he does so, he steps outside his role of advocate” - and becomes a PRO. In 1998, the Master of Rolls, Lord Woolf, said: “The defendants are entitled to have the issues involved determined by the courts without improper interference with the administration of justice. The situation is one in which it is easy to fan emotions that will make the task of the courts to resolve the complex issues involved and do justice between the parties - more difficult.”
Extra-judicial statements by legal representatives can be especially unhelpful since they are likely to be received by the media as especially authoritative even if they are inaccurate. The professionalism and the sense of duty of legal advisors who conduct litigation of this nature should mean that the courts arc able to rely on the legal advisors to exercise great self-restraint when making comments to the press, while at the same time recognising the need for the media to be properly informed of what is happening in the proceedings. Possible cooperation and an absence of excessive adversarial behaviour on the part of the legal advisors of all parties is essential if multi-party litigation such as this is to be conducted in the proportionate manner that the interest of their clients and justice require. Law correspondents are there to report the proceedings. As the BBC’s law correspondent does outside the royal courts of justice. Lawyers need not go before TV cameras on the grounds of the Supreme Court. Correspondents can be briefed by lawyers on complexities if the correspondents so desire. The biggest offender is the police. Its officials hold press conferences to announce the arrest of a ‘Naxalite’ or ‘terrorist’ and even present him to the media. Interviews are arranged in jails and ‘confessions' by the hapless man are telecast, In 1995, the French Minister of the Interior, who held a press conference with police officials in which they named a man as one of the instigators of the murder of an MP, was ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay him 2 million French francs for violating a human right - the presumption of innocence.
Investigating journalism and the TV came well after the Contempt of Court Act. 1971. Earlier, the law operated when proceedings became ‘imminent". Rejecting the recommendation of the Sanyal Committee, Parliament made the law operable only when a chargesheet is filed or when the court issues summons or warrant. Comment is free during the entire course of police investigation, even if it poisons "‘the fountain of justice before it begins to flow” (Ss.2[c][ii], 3 and Explanation to S.3). If a private complaint is filed, the Act operates when the court takes cognisance. Applying this principle, it would be but fair to make the Act operable from the time of arrest or when criminal proceedings become ‘active', as the Bombay High Court suggested in 1973. Right now, we sail on uncharted seas in an “atmosphere of a Roman Holiday for the news media”, as an American judge put it. It is free to air evidence inadmissible in court, regale its patrons with the suspect and "the witnesses' past, including past convictions for crime that no prosecutor can cite in court. An Australian court hauled up a radio station for contempt for suggesting that the arrest of a particular suspect marked a successful conclusion to police investigations - something our police and TV channels revel in merrily.
Equally culpable are assertions of innocence of the suspect. The Premier of New South Wales was lined £25,000 for contempt when he told the press, apropos a judge awaiting trial, that he had “a deep conviction” that the judge was innocent. If there is a substantial risk of prejudice, it does not matter that the daily had exposed a conspiracy and cooperated with the police. Asghar Mahmood unearthed a conspiracy and informed the police, which decided to widen and prolong the probe. But News of the World did not wait, its help was acknowledged. So was its interference with justice. It was fined £50,000. C J Miller, an authority on contempt of court, makes a fair comment: “It is unrealistic to expect a newspaper simply to hand over its material and publish it only after the conclusion of the trial. The business is a highly competitive one and scoops have commercial value. If it publishes it without alerting the police, the suspects might well vanish, but in all probability it will not commit a strict liability contempt. However, if it alerts the police, who then arrest the suspects, the danger of committing a contempt by publication is clear.” The solution lies in recognising ‘the public interest’ as a valid defence Publication of the photograph of a dangerous suspect on the run is a service, not a contempt. The media have rendered services in exposure of fraud, corruption in police and perversion of investigation. But one must recognise the potentiality of conflict to the harm of the public interest. In the Sixties, David Frost exposed Savundra's frauds on TV. This warned off many small investors who would otherwise have lost their savings. He was, nonetheless, severely criticised by Lord Justice Salmon in the appeal court for endangering Savundra's fair trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud. This is a risk inherent in the game unless the media, the Bar and the police draw up rules, based on modern realities, for incorporation in the Act of 1971.

Q. Which of the following best describes the author's overall altitude towards the role of the media in investigating crimes?

The media have a right and a duty to investigate into and comment on the integrity and efficiency of police investigation of crime. They have no right to usurp the functions of the court and pronounce on the suspect's guilt. That is contempt of court, a violation of his right to a free trial a competing, but overriding, right - and public interest. The media abdicated their duty in Jessica Lall's case. You did not have to be K.P.S. Gill to discern that investigation was being botched up from day one. Had the media bestirred themselves, the damage might have been repaired in time. In the Rahul Mahajan case, the media are guilty of excess. It is a sad state of things when a TV anchor feels free to ask a lawyer whether his client had taken drugs or not. "Tell us something to show that he is innocent.” That is a plea to enter in court, not before TV. But, why was the lawyer there? It is little realised that this practice violates professional norms fundamentally. Lord Justice John Singleton stated without qualification in his classic. 'Conduct at the Bar’: “No advocate, in any circumstances, should ever permit himself to assert his own belief on the merits of the case which he is arguing or in the innocence of the prisoner whom he is defending. The moment he does so, he steps outside his role of advocate” - and becomes a PRO. In 1998, the Master of Rolls, Lord Woolf, said: “The defendants are entitled to have the issues involved determined by the courts without improper interference with the administration of justice. The situation is one in which it is easy to fan emotions that will make the task of the courts to resolve the complex issues involved and do justice between the parties - more difficult.”
Extra-judicial statements by legal representatives can be especially unhelpful since they are likely to be received by the media as especially authoritative even if they are inaccurate. The professionalism and the sense of duty of legal advisors who conduct litigation of this nature should mean that the courts arc able to rely on the legal advisors to exercise great self-restraint when making comments to the press, while at the same time recognising the need for the media to be properly informed of what is happening in the proceedings. Possible cooperation and an absence of excessive adversarial behaviour on the part of the legal advisors of all parties is essential if multi-party litigation such as this is to be conducted in the proportionate manner that the interest of their clients and justice require. Law correspondents are there to report the proceedings. As the BBC’s law correspondent does outside the royal courts of justice. Lawyers need not go before TV cameras on the grounds of the Supreme Court. Correspondents can be briefed by lawyers on complexities if the correspondents so desire. The biggest offender is the police. Its officials hold press conferences to announce the arrest of a ‘Naxalite’ or ‘terrorist’ and even present him to the media. Interviews are arranged in jails and ‘confessions' by the hapless man are telecast, In 1995, the French Minister of the Interior, who held a press conference with police officials in which they named a man as one of the instigators of the murder of an MP, was ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay him 2 million French francs for violating a human right - the presumption of innocence.
Investigating journalism and the TV came well after the Contempt of Court Act. 1971. Earlier, the law operated when proceedings became ‘imminent". Rejecting the recommendation of the Sanyal Committee, Parliament made the law operable only when a chargesheet is filed or when the court issues summons or warrant. Comment is free during the entire course of police investigation, even if it poisons "‘the fountain of justice before it begins to flow” (Ss.2[c][ii], 3 and Explanation to S.3). If a private complaint is filed, the Act operates when the court takes cognisance. Applying this principle, it would be but fair to make the Act operable from the time of arrest or when criminal proceedings become ‘active', as the Bombay High Court suggested in 1973. Right now, we sail on uncharted seas in an “atmosphere of a Roman Holiday for the news media”, as an American judge put it. It is free to air evidence inadmissible in court, regale its patrons with the suspect and "the witnesses' past, including past convictions for crime that no prosecutor can cite in court. An Australian court hauled up a radio station for contempt for suggesting that the arrest of a particular suspect marked a successful conclusion to police investigations - something our police and TV channels revel in merrily.
Equally culpable are assertions of innocence of the suspect. The Premier of New South Wales was lined £25,000 for contempt when he told the press, apropos a judge awaiting trial, that he had “a deep conviction” that the judge was innocent. If there is a substantial risk of prejudice, it does not matter that the daily had exposed a conspiracy and cooperated with the police. Asghar Mahmood unearthed a conspiracy and informed the police, which decided to widen and prolong the probe. But News of the World did not wait, its help was acknowledged. So was its interference with justice. It was fined £50,000. C J Miller, an authority on contempt of court, makes a fair comment: “It is unrealistic to expect a newspaper simply to hand over its material and publish it only after the conclusion of the trial. The business is a highly competitive one and scoops have commercial value. If it publishes it without alerting the police, the suspects might well vanish, but in all probability it will not commit a strict liability contempt. However, if it alerts the police, who then arrest the suspects, the danger of committing a contempt by publication is clear.” The solution lies in recognising ‘the public interest’ as a valid defence Publication of the photograph of a dangerous suspect on the run is a service, not a contempt. The media have rendered services in exposure of fraud, corruption in police and perversion of investigation. But one must recognise the potentiality of conflict to the harm of the public interest. In the Sixties, David Frost exposed Savundra's frauds on TV. This warned off many small investors who would otherwise have lost their savings. He was, nonetheless, severely criticised by Lord Justice Salmon in the appeal court for endangering Savundra's fair trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud. This is a risk inherent in the game unless the media, the Bar and the police draw up rules, based on modern realities, for incorporation in the Act of 1971.

Q. It is a contempt of court by the media if it

The media have a right and a duty to investigate into and comment on the integrity and efficiency of police investigation of crime. They have no right to usurp the functions of the court and pronounce on the suspect's guilt. That is contempt of court, a violation of his right to a free trial a competing, but overriding, right - and public interest. The media abdicated their duty in Jessica Lall's case. You did not have to be K.P.S. Gill to discern that investigation was being botched up from day one. Had the media bestirred themselves, the damage might have been repaired in time. In the Rahul Mahajan case, the media are guilty of excess. It is a sad state of things when a TV anchor feels free to ask a lawyer whether his client had taken drugs or not. "Tell us something to show that he is innocent.” That is a plea to enter in court, not before TV. But, why was the lawyer there? It is little realised that this practice violates professional norms fundamentally. Lord Justice John Singleton stated without qualification in his classic. 'Conduct at the Bar’: “No advocate, in any circumstances, should ever permit himself to assert his own belief on the merits of the case which he is arguing or in the innocence of the prisoner whom he is defending. The moment he does so, he steps outside his role of advocate” - and becomes a PRO. In 1998, the Master of Rolls, Lord Woolf, said: “The defendants are entitled to have the issues involved determined by the courts without improper interference with the administration of justice. The situation is one in which it is easy to fan emotions that will make the task of the courts to resolve the complex issues involved and do justice between the parties - more difficult.”
Extra-judicial statements by legal representatives can be especially unhelpful since they are likely to be received by the media as especially authoritative even if they are inaccurate. The professionalism and the sense of duty of legal advisors who conduct litigation of this nature should mean that the courts arc able to rely on the legal advisors to exercise great self-restraint when making comments to the press, while at the same time recognising the need for the media to be properly informed of what is happening in the proceedings. Possible cooperation and an absence of excessive adversarial behaviour on the part of the legal advisors of all parties is essential if multi-party litigation such as this is to be conducted in the proportionate manner that the interest of their clients and justice require. Law correspondents are there to report the proceedings. As the BBC’s law correspondent does outside the royal courts of justice. Lawyers need not go before TV cameras on the grounds of the Supreme Court. Correspondents can be briefed by lawyers on complexities if the correspondents so desire. The biggest offender is the police. Its officials hold press conferences to announce the arrest of a ‘Naxalite’ or ‘terrorist’ and even present him to the media. Interviews are arranged in jails and ‘confessions' by the hapless man are telecast, In 1995, the French Minister of the Interior, who held a press conference with police officials in which they named a man as one of the instigators of the murder of an MP, was ordered by the European Court of Human Rights to pay him 2 million French francs for violating a human right - the presumption of innocence.
Investigating journalism and the TV came well after the Contempt of Court Act. 1971. Earlier, the law operated when proceedings became ‘imminent". Rejecting the recommendation of the Sanyal Committee, Parliament made the law operable only when a chargesheet is filed or when the court issues summons or warrant. Comment is free during the entire course of police investigation, even if it poisons "‘the fountain of justice before it begins to flow” (Ss.2[c][ii], 3 and Explanation to S.3). If a private complaint is filed, the Act operates when the court takes cognisance. Applying this principle, it would be but fair to make the Act operable from the time of arrest or when criminal proceedings become ‘active', as the Bombay High Court suggested in 1973. Right now, we sail on uncharted seas in an “atmosphere of a Roman Holiday for the news media”, as an American judge put it. It is free to air evidence inadmissible in court, regale its patrons with the suspect and "the witnesses' past, including past convictions for crime that no prosecutor can cite in court. An Australian court hauled up a radio station for contempt for suggesting that the arrest of a particular suspect marked a successful conclusion to police investigations - something our police and TV channels revel in merrily.
Equally culpable are assertions of innocence of the suspect. The Premier of New South Wales was lined £25,000 for contempt when he told the press, apropos a judge awaiting trial, that he had “a deep conviction” that the judge was innocent. If there is a substantial risk of prejudice, it does not matter that the daily had exposed a conspiracy and cooperated with the police. Asghar Mahmood unearthed a conspiracy and informed the police, which decided to widen and prolong the probe. But News of the World did not wait, its help was acknowledged. So was its interference with justice. It was fined £50,000. C J Miller, an authority on contempt of court, makes a fair comment: “It is unrealistic to expect a newspaper simply to hand over its material and publish it only after the conclusion of the trial. The business is a highly competitive one and scoops have commercial value. If it publishes it without alerting the police, the suspects might well vanish, but in all probability it will not commit a strict liability contempt. However, if it alerts the police, who then arrest the suspects, the danger of committing a contempt by publication is clear.” The solution lies in recognising ‘the public interest’ as a valid defence Publication of the photograph of a dangerous suspect on the run is a service, not a contempt. The media have rendered services in exposure of fraud, corruption in police and perversion of investigation. But one must recognise the potentiality of conflict to the harm of the public interest. In the Sixties, David Frost exposed Savundra's frauds on TV. This warned off many small investors who would otherwise have lost their savings. He was, nonetheless, severely criticised by Lord Justice Salmon in the appeal court for endangering Savundra's fair trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud. This is a risk inherent in the game unless the media, the Bar and the police draw up rules, based on modern realities, for incorporation in the Act of 1971.

Q. The main idea conveyed by the author in this passage is that:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Small beginnings can have great endings—sometimes. As a case in point, note what came of the small, original effort of a selftrained back-country Quaker youth named John Dalton, who along towards the close of the eighteenth century became interested in the weather, and was led to construct and use a crude water-gauge to test the amount of the rainfall. The simple experiments thus inaugurated led to no fewer than two hundred thousand recorded observations regarding the weather, which formed the basis for some of the most epochal discoveries in meteorology, as we have seen. But this was only a beginning. The simple rain-gauge pointed the way to the most important generalization of the nineteenth century in a field of science with which, to the casual observer, it might seem to have no alliance whatever. The wonderful theory of atoms, on which the whole gigantic structure of modern chemistry is founded, was the logical outgrowth, in the mind of John Dalton, of those early studies in meteorology.
The way it happened was this: From studying the rainfall, Dalton turned naturally to the complementary process of evaporation.
He was soon led to believe that vapor exists, in the atmosphere as an independent gas. But since two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, this implies that the various atmospheric gases are really composed of discrete particles. These ultimate particles are so small that we cannot see them—cannot, indeed, more than vaguely imagine them—yet each particle of vapor, for example, is just as much a portion of water as if it were a drop out of the ocean, or, for that matter, the ocean itself.
But, again, water is a compound substance, for it may be separated, as Cavendish has shown, into the two elementary substances hydrogen and oxygen. Hence the atom of water must be composed of two lesser atoms joined together. Imagine an atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Unite them, and we have an atom of water; sever them, and the water no longer exists; but whether united or separate the atoms of hydrogen and of oxygen remain hydrogen and oxygen and nothing else.
Differently mixed together or united, atoms produce different gross substances; but the elementary atoms never change their chemical nature—their distinct personality.
It was about the year 1803 that Dalton first gained a full grasp of the conception of the chemical atom. At once he saw that the hypothesis, if true, furnished a marvellous key to secrets of matter hitherto insoluble - questions relating to the relative proportions of the atoms themselves. It is known, for example, that a certain bulk of hydrogen gas unites with a certain bulk of oxygen gas to form water. If it be true that this combination consists essentially of the union of atoms one with another (each single atom of hydrogen united to a single atom of oxygen), then the relative weights of the original masses of hydrogen and of oxygen must be also the relative weights of each of their respective atoms. If one pound of hydrogen unites with five and one-half pounds of oxygen (as, according to Dalton's experiments, it did), then the weight of the oxygen atom must be five and one-half times that of the hydrogen atom. Other compounds may plainly be tested in the same way. Dalton made numerous tests before he published his theory. He found that hydrogen enters into compounds in smaller proportions than any other element known to him, and so, for convenience, determined to take the weight of the hydrogen atom as unity. The atomic weight of oxygen then becomes (as given in Dalton's first table of 1803) 5.5; that of water (hydrogen plus oxygen) being of course 6.5. The atomic weights of about a score of substances are given in Dalton's first paper, which was read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, October 21, 1803. I wonder if Dalton himself, great and acute intellect though he had, suspected, when he read that paper, that he was inaugurating one of the most fertile movements ever entered on in the whole history of science?

Q. The organisation of the passage can be identified as:

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Small beginnings can have great endings—sometimes. As a case in point, note what came of the small, original effort of a selftrained back-country Quaker youth named John Dalton, who along towards the close of the eighteenth century became interested in the weather, and was led to construct and use a crude water-gauge to test the amount of the rainfall. The simple experiments thus inaugurated led to no fewer than two hundred thousand recorded observations regarding the weather, which formed the basis for some of the most epochal discoveries in meteorology, as we have seen. But this was only a beginning. The simple rain-gauge pointed the way to the most important generalization of the nineteenth century in a field of science with which, to the casual observer, it might seem to have no alliance whatever. The wonderful theory of atoms, on which the whole gigantic structure of modern chemistry is founded, was the logical outgrowth, in the mind of John Dalton, of those early studies in meteorology.
The way it happened was this: From studying the rainfall, Dalton turned naturally to the complementary process of evaporation.
He was soon led to believe that vapor exists, in the atmosphere as an independent gas. But since two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, this implies that the various atmospheric gases are really composed of discrete particles. These ultimate particles are so small that we cannot see them—cannot, indeed, more than vaguely imagine them—yet each particle of vapor, for example, is just as much a portion of water as if it were a drop out of the ocean, or, for that matter, the ocean itself.
But, again, water is a compound substance, for it may be separated, as Cavendish has shown, into the two elementary substances hydrogen and oxygen. Hence the atom of water must be composed of two lesser atoms joined together. Imagine an atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Unite them, and we have an atom of water; sever them, and the water no longer exists; but whether united or separate the atoms of hydrogen and of oxygen remain hydrogen and oxygen and nothing else.
Differently mixed together or united, atoms produce different gross substances; but the elementary atoms never change their chemical nature—their distinct personality.
It was about the year 1803 that Dalton first gained a full grasp of the conception of the chemical atom. At once he saw that the hypothesis, if true, furnished a marvellous key to secrets of matter hitherto insoluble - questions relating to the relative proportions of the atoms themselves. It is known, for example, that a certain bulk of hydrogen gas unites with a certain bulk of oxygen gas to form water. If it be true that this combination consists essentially of the union of atoms one with another (each single atom of hydrogen united to a single atom of oxygen), then the relative weights of the original masses of hydrogen and of oxygen must be also the relative weights of each of their respective atoms. If one pound of hydrogen unites with five and one-half pounds of oxygen (as, according to Dalton's experiments, it did), then the weight of the oxygen atom must be five and one-half times that of the hydrogen atom. Other compounds may plainly be tested in the same way. Dalton made numerous tests before he published his theory. He found that hydrogen enters into compounds in smaller proportions than any other element known to him, and so, for convenience, determined to take the weight of the hydrogen atom as unity. The atomic weight of oxygen then becomes (as given in Dalton's first table of 1803) 5.5; that of water (hydrogen plus oxygen) being of course 6.5. The atomic weights of about a score of substances are given in Dalton's first paper, which was read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, October 21, 1803. I wonder if Dalton himself, great and acute intellect though he had, suspected, when he read that paper, that he was inaugurating one of the most fertile movements ever entered on in the whole history of science?

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

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Small beginnings can have great endings—sometimes. As a case in point, note what came of the small, original effort of a selftrained back-country Quaker youth named John Dalton, who along towards the close of the eighteenth century became interested in the weather, and was led to construct and use a crude water-gauge to test the amount of the rainfall. The simple experiments thus inaugurated led to no fewer than two hundred thousand recorded observations regarding the weather, which formed the basis for some of the most epochal discoveries in meteorology, as we have seen. But this was only a beginning. The simple rain-gauge pointed the way to the most important generalization of the nineteenth century in a field of science with which, to the casual observer, it might seem to have no alliance whatever. The wonderful theory of atoms, on which the whole gigantic structure of modern chemistry is founded, was the logical outgrowth, in the mind of John Dalton, of those early studies in meteorology.
The way it happened was this: From studying the rainfall, Dalton turned naturally to the complementary process of evaporation.
He was soon led to believe that vapor exists, in the atmosphere as an independent gas. But since two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, this implies that the various atmospheric gases are really composed of discrete particles. These ultimate particles are so small that we cannot see them—cannot, indeed, more than vaguely imagine them—yet each particle of vapor, for example, is just as much a portion of water as if it were a drop out of the ocean, or, for that matter, the ocean itself.
But, again, water is a compound substance, for it may be separated, as Cavendish has shown, into the two elementary substances hydrogen and oxygen. Hence the atom of water must be composed of two lesser atoms joined together. Imagine an atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Unite them, and we have an atom of water; sever them, and the water no longer exists; but whether united or separate the atoms of hydrogen and of oxygen remain hydrogen and oxygen and nothing else.
Differently mixed together or united, atoms produce different gross substances; but the elementary atoms never change their chemical nature—their distinct personality.
It was about the year 1803 that Dalton first gained a full grasp of the conception of the chemical atom. At once he saw that the hypothesis, if true, furnished a marvellous key to secrets of matter hitherto insoluble - questions relating to the relative proportions of the atoms themselves. It is known, for example, that a certain bulk of hydrogen gas unites with a certain bulk of oxygen gas to form water. If it be true that this combination consists essentially of the union of atoms one with another (each single atom of hydrogen united to a single atom of oxygen), then the relative weights of the original masses of hydrogen and of oxygen must be also the relative weights of each of their respective atoms. If one pound of hydrogen unites with five and one-half pounds of oxygen (as, according to Dalton's experiments, it did), then the weight of the oxygen atom must be five and one-half times that of the hydrogen atom. Other compounds may plainly be tested in the same way. Dalton made numerous tests before he published his theory. He found that hydrogen enters into compounds in smaller proportions than any other element known to him, and so, for convenience, determined to take the weight of the hydrogen atom as unity. The atomic weight of oxygen then becomes (as given in Dalton's first table of 1803) 5.5; that of water (hydrogen plus oxygen) being of course 6.5. The atomic weights of about a score of substances are given in Dalton's first paper, which was read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, October 21, 1803. I wonder if Dalton himself, great and acute intellect though he had, suspected, when he read that paper, that he was inaugurating one of the most fertile movements ever entered on in the whole history of science?

Q. Identify the statements that are correct as per the information given in the passage:
I. Atoms have their unique identity.
II. Dalton's theories have been proven to be incorrect over time.
III. Dalton used reverse analysis to form some of his early observations.

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Small beginnings can have great endings—sometimes. As a case in point, note what came of the small, original effort of a selftrained back-country Quaker youth named John Dalton, who along towards the close of the eighteenth century became interested in the weather, and was led to construct and use a crude water-gauge to test the amount of the rainfall. The simple experiments thus inaugurated led to no fewer than two hundred thousand recorded observations regarding the weather, which formed the basis for some of the most epochal discoveries in meteorology, as we have seen. But this was only a beginning. The simple rain-gauge pointed the way to the most important generalization of the nineteenth century in a field of science with which, to the casual observer, it might seem to have no alliance whatever. The wonderful theory of atoms, on which the whole gigantic structure of modern chemistry is founded, was the logical outgrowth, in the mind of John Dalton, of those early studies in meteorology.
The way it happened was this: From studying the rainfall, Dalton turned naturally to the complementary process of evaporation.
He was soon led to believe that vapor exists, in the atmosphere as an independent gas. But since two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, this implies that the various atmospheric gases are really composed of discrete particles. These ultimate particles are so small that we cannot see them—cannot, indeed, more than vaguely imagine them—yet each particle of vapor, for example, is just as much a portion of water as if it were a drop out of the ocean, or, for that matter, the ocean itself.
But, again, water is a compound substance, for it may be separated, as Cavendish has shown, into the two elementary substances hydrogen and oxygen. Hence the atom of water must be composed of two lesser atoms joined together. Imagine an atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Unite them, and we have an atom of water; sever them, and the water no longer exists; but whether united or separate the atoms of hydrogen and of oxygen remain hydrogen and oxygen and nothing else.
Differently mixed together or united, atoms produce different gross substances; but the elementary atoms never change their chemical nature—their distinct personality.
It was about the year 1803 that Dalton first gained a full grasp of the conception of the chemical atom. At once he saw that the hypothesis, if true, furnished a marvellous key to secrets of matter hitherto insoluble - questions relating to the relative proportions of the atoms themselves. It is known, for example, that a certain bulk of hydrogen gas unites with a certain bulk of oxygen gas to form water. If it be true that this combination consists essentially of the union of atoms one with another (each single atom of hydrogen united to a single atom of oxygen), then the relative weights of the original masses of hydrogen and of oxygen must be also the relative weights of each of their respective atoms. If one pound of hydrogen unites with five and one-half pounds of oxygen (as, according to Dalton's experiments, it did), then the weight of the oxygen atom must be five and one-half times that of the hydrogen atom. Other compounds may plainly be tested in the same way. Dalton made numerous tests before he published his theory. He found that hydrogen enters into compounds in smaller proportions than any other element known to him, and so, for convenience, determined to take the weight of the hydrogen atom as unity. The atomic weight of oxygen then becomes (as given in Dalton's first table of 1803) 5.5; that of water (hydrogen plus oxygen) being of course 6.5. The atomic weights of about a score of substances are given in Dalton's first paper, which was read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, October 21, 1803. I wonder if Dalton himself, great and acute intellect though he had, suspected, when he read that paper, that he was inaugurating one of the most fertile movements ever entered on in the whole history of science?

Q. Identify the incorrect statements:
I. The core of Dalton's work is based on the assumption that atmospheric gases are made of discreet particles.
II. Dalton was meteorologist who discovered atoms accidently.
III. When atoms are mixed in different ratios, different substances, gases, etc. are produced.

Read the passage and answer the question based on it.
Small beginnings can have great endings—sometimes. As a case in point, note what came of the small, original effort of a selftrained back-country Quaker youth named John Dalton, who along towards the close of the eighteenth century became interested in the weather, and was led to construct and use a crude water-gauge to test the amount of the rainfall. The simple experiments thus inaugurated led to no fewer than two hundred thousand recorded observations regarding the weather, which formed the basis for some of the most epochal discoveries in meteorology, as we have seen. But this was only a beginning. The simple rain-gauge pointed the way to the most important generalization of the nineteenth century in a field of science with which, to the casual observer, it might seem to have no alliance whatever. The wonderful theory of atoms, on which the whole gigantic structure of modern chemistry is founded, was the logical outgrowth, in the mind of John Dalton, of those early studies in meteorology.
The way it happened was this: From studying the rainfall, Dalton turned naturally to the complementary process of evaporation.
He was soon led to believe that vapor exists, in the atmosphere as an independent gas. But since two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time, this implies that the various atmospheric gases are really composed of discrete particles. These ultimate particles are so small that we cannot see them—cannot, indeed, more than vaguely imagine them—yet each particle of vapor, for example, is just as much a portion of water as if it were a drop out of the ocean, or, for that matter, the ocean itself.
But, again, water is a compound substance, for it may be separated, as Cavendish has shown, into the two elementary substances hydrogen and oxygen. Hence the atom of water must be composed of two lesser atoms joined together. Imagine an atom of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Unite them, and we have an atom of water; sever them, and the water no longer exists; but whether united or separate the atoms of hydrogen and of oxygen remain hydrogen and oxygen and nothing else.
Differently mixed together or united, atoms produce different gross substances; but the elementary atoms never change their chemical nature—their distinct personality.
It was about the year 1803 that Dalton first gained a full grasp of the conception of the chemical atom. At once he saw that the hypothesis, if true, furnished a marvellous key to secrets of matter hitherto insoluble - questions relating to the relative proportions of the atoms themselves. It is known, for example, that a certain bulk of hydrogen gas unites with a certain bulk of oxygen gas to form water. If it be true that this combination consists essentially of the union of atoms one with another (each single atom of hydrogen united to a single atom of oxygen), then the relative weights of the original masses of hydrogen and of oxygen must be also the relative weights of each of their respective atoms. If one pound of hydrogen unites with five and one-half pounds of oxygen (as, according to Dalton's experiments, it did), then the weight of the oxygen atom must be five and one-half times that of the hydrogen atom. Other compounds may plainly be tested in the same way. Dalton made numerous tests before he published his theory. He found that hydrogen enters into compounds in smaller proportions than any other element known to him, and so, for convenience, determined to take the weight of the hydrogen atom as unity. The atomic weight of oxygen then becomes (as given in Dalton's first table of 1803) 5.5; that of water (hydrogen plus oxygen) being of course 6.5. The atomic weights of about a score of substances are given in Dalton's first paper, which was read before the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, October 21, 1803. I wonder if Dalton himself, great and acute intellect though he had, suspected, when he read that paper, that he was inaugurating one of the most fertile movements ever entered on in the whole history of science?

Q. It can be inferred from the passage that:

Five successive years of debilitating drought. It had rained for barely a few hours last year in the region of Rajasthan I was visiting. I expected wasted lands, desolation and nearly-abandoned villages. Instead, I could see greenery, irrigated agriculture, people tending to vegetable crops and livestock. The village dairy — a one room stop-shop with an electronic machine to detect fat content in the milk — was lined with people bringing their product for sale. I found out they had sold Rs.34 lakh worth of milk last year. I asked about water and was told that there were 103 wells in the village. People could use the wells is for 1 hour each day to irrigate fields. The water was visible to the naked eye — some 50 feet below ground level.
How could this be? I was asking this question in Laporiya village, located some 2 hours from Jaipur in Rajasthan. My hosts were the Gram Vikas Yuvak MandaI and its head Laxman Singh. He took me to a map displayed in the village centre. The green painted area was the village common land — grazing land under government control. This, explained Singh, was the land they had to fight to regain control over, as it was encroached and degraded. On the map, squares had been painted. These denoted chaukas —a unique water harvesting system designed by Singh and his colleagues to retain every drop of rainwater and to recharge the aquifer. All over the common land, villagers had dug rectangular trenches less than a feet deep, so that rainwater would ‘jump' across the land till it flowed into the village tanks.
With this system in place, the village common land became a grand water collection area. Every drop was channelled and stored in the village's 3 connected tanks deepened by voluntary labour. Of the 1000-odd hectares (ha) of agricultural land, roughly 600 ha were irrigated. There was a gleam in Singh's eyes as he told me about the years of good rain when tanks would overflow. For the past few years the tanks had barely filled; today, they were bone dry. Still, the wells have water. Laporiya practices the conjunctive use of irrigation structures — surface and ground — that engineers love to boast about, hut have no clue how to build.
But what was clear — and this is the key policy message — is that it was the years of water harvesting (over 10 years in this case) that had built up groundwater reserves. Built it up so well that even repeated years of drought and scarcity could be withstood. Rainwater harvesting is like putting hard-earned money in a bank account: we prudently and repeatedly replenish the aquifer, then live off the interest and not mine the capital of the groundwater reserves. But this takes time. It takes people who care about their land, so that they care to harvest their water. This, unfortunately, is where policy goes horrendously wrong. Land is managed by a multitude of obdurate bureaucracies, water by another. By policy and in practice, we ensure that villagers are disenfranchised from the management of their resources.

Q. Which of the following can best replace the word 'debilitating’ in first paragraph of the passage?

Five successive years of debilitating drought. It had rained for barely a few hours last year in the region of Rajasthan I was visiting. I expected wasted lands, desolation and nearly-abandoned villages. Instead, I could see greenery, irrigated agriculture, people tending to vegetable crops and livestock. The village dairy — a one room stop-shop with an electronic machine to detect fat content in the milk — was lined with people bringing their product for sale. I found out they had sold Rs.34 lakh worth of milk last year. I asked about water and was told that there were 103 wells in the village. People could use the wells is for 1 hour each day to irrigate fields. The water was visible to the naked eye — some 50 feet below ground level.
How could this be? I was asking this question in Laporiya village, located some 2 hours from Jaipur in Rajasthan. My hosts were the Gram Vikas Yuvak MandaI and its head Laxman Singh. He took me to a map displayed in the village centre. The green painted area was the village common land — grazing land under government control. This, explained Singh, was the land they had to fight to regain control over, as it was encroached and degraded. On the map, squares had been painted. These denoted chaukas —a unique water harvesting system designed by Singh and his colleagues to retain every drop of rainwater and to recharge the aquifer. All over the common land, villagers had dug rectangular trenches less than a feet deep, so that rainwater would ‘jump' across the land till it flowed into the village tanks.
With this system in place, the village common land became a grand water collection area. Every drop was channelled and stored in the village's 3 connected tanks deepened by voluntary labour. Of the 1000-odd hectares (ha) of agricultural land, roughly 600 ha were irrigated. There was a gleam in Singh's eyes as he told me about the years of good rain when tanks would overflow. For the past few years the tanks had barely filled; today, they were bone dry. Still, the wells have water. Laporiya practices the conjunctive use of irrigation structures — surface and ground — that engineers love to boast about, hut have no clue how to build.
But what was clear — and this is the key policy message — is that it was the years of water harvesting (over 10 years in this case) that had built up groundwater reserves. Built it up so well that even repeated years of drought and scarcity could be withstood. Rainwater harvesting is like putting hard-earned money in a bank account: we prudently and repeatedly replenish the aquifer, then live off the interest and not mine the capital of the groundwater reserves. But this takes time. It takes people who care about their land, so that they care to harvest their water. This, unfortunately, is where policy goes horrendously wrong. Land is managed by a multitude of obdurate bureaucracies, water by another. By policy and in practice, we ensure that villagers are disenfranchised from the management of their resources.

Q. Which of the following statements is false about the village Laporiya and/or its villagers?

Five successive years of debilitating drought. It had rained for barely a few hours last year in the region of Rajasthan I was visiting. I expected wasted lands, desolation and nearly-abandoned villages. Instead, I could see greenery, irrigated agriculture, people tending to vegetable crops and livestock. The village dairy — a one room stop-shop with an electronic machine to detect fat content in the milk — was lined with people bringing their product for sale. I found out they had sold Rs.34 lakh worth of milk last year. I asked about water and was told that there were 103 wells in the village. People could use the wells is for 1 hour each day to irrigate fields. The water was visible to the naked eye — some 50 feet below ground level.
How could this be? I was asking this question in Laporiya village, located some 2 hours from Jaipur in Rajasthan. My hosts were the Gram Vikas Yuvak MandaI and its head Laxman Singh. He took me to a map displayed in the village centre. The green painted area was the village common land — grazing land under government control. This, explained Singh, was the land they had to fight to regain control over, as it was encroached and degraded. On the map, squares had been painted. These denoted chaukas —a unique water harvesting system designed by Singh and his colleagues to retain every drop of rainwater and to recharge the aquifer. All over the common land, villagers had dug rectangular trenches less than a feet deep, so that rainwater would ‘jump' across the land till it flowed into the village tanks.
With this system in place, the village common land became a grand water collection area. Every drop was channelled and stored in the village's 3 connected tanks deepened by voluntary labour. Of the 1000-odd hectares (ha) of agricultural land, roughly 600 ha were irrigated. There was a gleam in Singh's eyes as he told me about the years of good rain when tanks would overflow. For the past few years the tanks had barely filled; today, they were bone dry. Still, the wells have water. Laporiya practices the conjunctive use of irrigation structures — surface and ground — that engineers love to boast about, hut have no clue how to build.
But what was clear — and this is the key policy message — is that it was the years of water harvesting (over 10 years in this case) that had built up groundwater reserves. Built it up so well that even repeated years of drought and scarcity could be withstood. Rainwater harvesting is like putting hard-earned money in a bank account: we prudently and repeatedly replenish the aquifer, then live off the interest and not mine the capital of the groundwater reserves. But this takes time. It takes people who care about their land, so that they care to harvest their water. This, unfortunately, is where policy goes horrendously wrong. Land is managed by a multitude of obdurate bureaucracies, water by another. By policy and in practice, we ensure that villagers are disenfranchised from the management of their resources.

Q. Which of the following statements is true according to the passage?

Five successive years of debilitating drought. It had rained for barely a few hours last year in the region of Rajasthan I was visiting. I expected wasted lands, desolation and nearly-abandoned villages. Instead, I could see greenery, irrigated agriculture, people tending to vegetable crops and livestock. The village dairy — a one room stop-shop with an electronic machine to detect fat content in the milk — was lined with people bringing their product for sale. I found out they had sold Rs.34 lakh worth of milk last year. I asked about water and was told that there were 103 wells in the village. People could use the wells is for 1 hour each day to irrigate fields. The water was visible to the naked eye — some 50 feet below ground level.
How could this be? I was asking this question in Laporiya village, located some 2 hours from Jaipur in Rajasthan. My hosts were the Gram Vikas Yuvak MandaI and its head Laxman Singh. He took me to a map displayed in the village centre. The green painted area was the village common land — grazing land under government control. This, explained Singh, was the land they had to fight to regain control over, as it was encroached and degraded. On the map, squares had been painted. These denoted chaukas —a unique water harvesting system designed by Singh and his colleagues to retain every drop of rainwater and to recharge the aquifer. All over the common land, villagers had dug rectangular trenches less than a feet deep, so that rainwater would ‘jump' across the land till it flowed into the village tanks.
With this system in place, the village common land became a grand water collection area. Every drop was channelled and stored in the village's 3 connected tanks deepened by voluntary labour. Of the 1000-odd hectares (ha) of agricultural land, roughly 600 ha were irrigated. There was a gleam in Singh's eyes as he told me about the years of good rain when tanks would overflow. For the past few years the tanks had barely filled; today, they were bone dry. Still, the wells have water. Laporiya practices the conjunctive use of irrigation structures — surface and ground — that engineers love to boast about, hut have no clue how to build.
But what was clear — and this is the key policy message — is that it was the years of water harvesting (over 10 years in this case) that had built up groundwater reserves. Built it up so well that even repeated years of drought and scarcity could be withstood. Rainwater harvesting is like putting hard-earned money in a bank account: we prudently and repeatedly replenish the aquifer, then live off the interest and not mine the capital of the groundwater reserves. But this takes time. It takes people who care about their land, so that they care to harvest their water. This, unfortunately, is where policy goes horrendously wrong. Land is managed by a multitude of obdurate bureaucracies, water by another. By policy and in practice, we ensure that villagers are disenfranchised from the management of their resources.

Q. What is the main point that the author wants to convey?

Five successive years of debilitating drought. It had rained for barely a few hours last year in the region of Rajasthan I was visiting. I expected wasted lands, desolation and nearly-abandoned villages. Instead, I could see greenery, irrigated agriculture, people tending to vegetable crops and livestock. The village dairy — a one room stop-shop with an electronic machine to detect fat content in the milk — was lined with people bringing their product for sale. I found out they had sold Rs.34 lakh worth of milk last year. I asked about water and was told that there were 103 wells in the village. People could use the wells is for 1 hour each day to irrigate fields. The water was visible to the naked eye — some 50 feet below ground level.
How could this be? I was asking this question in Laporiya village, located some 2 hours from Jaipur in Rajasthan. My hosts were the Gram Vikas Yuvak MandaI and its head Laxman Singh. He took me to a map displayed in the village centre. The green painted area was the village common land — grazing land under government control. This, explained Singh, was the land they had to fight to regain control over, as it was encroached and degraded. On the map, squares had been painted. These denoted chaukas —a unique water harvesting system designed by Singh and his colleagues to retain every drop of rainwater and to recharge the aquifer. All over the common land, villagers had dug rectangular trenches less than a feet deep, so that rainwater would ‘jump' across the land till it flowed into the village tanks.
With this system in place, the village common land became a grand water collection area. Every drop was channelled and stored in the village's 3 connected tanks deepened by voluntary labour. Of the 1000-odd hectares (ha) of agricultural land, roughly 600 ha were irrigated. There was a gleam in Singh's eyes as he told me about the years of good rain when tanks would overflow. For the past few years the tanks had barely filled; today, they were bone dry. Still, the wells have water. Laporiya practices the conjunctive use of irrigation structures — surface and ground — that engineers love to boast about, hut have no clue how to build.
But what was clear — and this is the key policy message — is that it was the years of water harvesting (over 10 years in this case) that had built up groundwater reserves. Built it up so well that even repeated years of drought and scarcity could be withstood. Rainwater harvesting is like putting hard-earned money in a bank account: we prudently and repeatedly replenish the aquifer, then live off the interest and not mine the capital of the groundwater reserves. But this takes time. It takes people who care about their land, so that they care to harvest their water. This, unfortunately, is where policy goes horrendously wrong. Land is managed by a multitude of obdurate bureaucracies, water by another. By policy and in practice, we ensure that villagers are disenfranchised from the management of their resources.

Q. What are chaukas according to the passage?

Is depression a chemical problem or a psychological problem? And does it need a chemical cure or a philosophical cure?
Actually, we aren't advanced enough in either area for it to explain things fully. The chemical cure and the psychological cure both have a role to play and depression is braided so deep into us that there is no separating it from our character and personality.
There are three things people tend to confuse: depression, grief and sadness. Grief is explicitly reactive. If you have a loss and you feel incredibly unhappy, and then, six months later, you are still deeply sad, but you're functioning a little better, it's probably grief, and it will probably ultimately resolve itself in some measure. If you experience a catastrophic loss, and you feel terrible, and six months later you can barely function at all, then it's probably a depression that was triggered by the catastrophic circumstances. The trajectory tells us a great deal. People think of depression as being just sadness. It's much, much too much sadness, much too much grief at far too slight a cause.
You don't think in depression that you've put on a gray veil and are seeing the world through the haze of a bad mood. You think that the veil has been taken away, the veil of happiness, and that now you're seeing truly. It's easier to help schizophrenics who perceive that there's something foreign inside of them that needs to be exorcised, but it's difficult with depressives, because they believe they are seeing the truth.
But the truth lies. People will say, "No one loves me." And you say, "I love you, your wife loves you, your mother loves you." But people who are depressed will say, "No matter what we do, we're all just going to die in the end." Or they'll say, "There can be no true communion between two human beings. Each of us is trapped in his own body." To which you have to say, "That's true, but I think we should focus right now on what to have for breakfast."
A lot of the time, what they are expressing is not illness, but insight, and one comes to think what's really extraordinary is that most of us know about those existential questions and they don't distract us very much. There was a study I particularly liked in which a group of depressed and a group of non-depressed people were asked to play a video game for an hour, and at the end of the hour, they were asked how many little monsters they thought they had killed. The depressive group was usually accurate to within about 10 percent, and the non-depressed people guessed between 15 and 20 times as many little monsters as they had actually killed.
I went to Rwanda and I happened to meet someone who described his experience in east Africa. He said, "but we've had a lot of trouble with Western mental health workers, especially the ones who came right after the genocide." And I said, "What kind of trouble did you have?" And he said, "Well, they would do this bizarre thing. They didn't take people out in the sunshine where you begin to feel better. They didn't include drumming or music to get people's blood going. They didn't involve the whole community. They didn't externalize the depression as an invasive spirit. Instead what they did was they took people one at a time into dingy little rooms and had them talk for an hour about bad things that had happened to them." He said, "We had to ask them to leave the country."

Q. Which of the following best defines depression?

Is depression a chemical problem or a psychological problem? And does it need a chemical cure or a philosophical cure?
Actually, we aren't advanced enough in either area for it to explain things fully. The chemical cure and the psychological cure both have a role to play and depression is braided so deep into us that there is no separating it from our character and personality.
There are three things people tend to confuse: depression, grief and sadness. Grief is explicitly reactive. If you have a loss and you feel incredibly unhappy, and then, six months later, you are still deeply sad, but you're functioning a little better, it's probably grief, and it will probably ultimately resolve itself in some measure. If you experience a catastrophic loss, and you feel terrible, and six months later you can barely function at all, then it's probably a depression that was triggered by the catastrophic circumstances. The trajectory tells us a great deal. People think of depression as being just sadness. It's much, much too much sadness, much too much grief at far too slight a cause.
You don't think in depression that you've put on a gray veil and are seeing the world through the haze of a bad mood. You think that the veil has been taken away, the veil of happiness, and that now you're seeing truly. It's easier to help schizophrenics who perceive that there's something foreign inside of them that needs to be exorcised, but it's difficult with depressives, because they believe they are seeing the truth.
But the truth lies. People will say, "No one loves me." And you say, "I love you, your wife loves you, your mother loves you." But people who are depressed will say, "No matter what we do, we're all just going to die in the end." Or they'll say, "There can be no true communion between two human beings. Each of us is trapped in his own body." To which you have to say, "That's true, but I think we should focus right now on what to have for breakfast."
A lot of the time, what they are expressing is not illness, but insight, and one comes to think what's really extraordinary is that most of us know about those existential questions and they don't distract us very much. There was a study I particularly liked in which a group of depressed and a group of non-depressed people were asked to play a video game for an hour, and at the end of the hour, they were asked how many little monsters they thought they had killed. The depressive group was usually accurate to within about 10 percent, and the non-depressed people guessed between 15 and 20 times as many little monsters as they had actually killed.
I went to Rwanda and I happened to meet someone who described his experience in east Africa. He said, "but we've had a lot of trouble with Western mental health workers, especially the ones who came right after the genocide." And I said, "What kind of trouble did you have?" And he said, "Well, they would do this bizarre thing. They didn't take people out in the sunshine where you begin to feel better. They didn't include drumming or music to get people's blood going. They didn't involve the whole community. They didn't externalize the depression as an invasive spirit. Instead what they did was they took people one at a time into dingy little rooms and had them talk for an hour about bad things that had happened to them." He said, "We had to ask them to leave the country."

Q. What does the second last paragraph of the passage serve to do?

Is depression a chemical problem or a psychological problem? And does it need a chemical cure or a philosophical cure?
Actually, we aren't advanced enough in either area for it to explain things fully. The chemical cure and the psychological cure both have a role to play and depression is braided so deep into us that there is no separating it from our character and personality.
There are three things people tend to confuse: depression, grief and sadness. Grief is explicitly reactive. If you have a loss and you feel incredibly unhappy, and then, six months later, you are still deeply sad, but you're functioning a little better, it's probably grief, and it will probably ultimately resolve itself in some measure. If you experience a catastrophic loss, and you feel terrible, and six months later you can barely function at all, then it's probably a depression that was triggered by the catastrophic circumstances. The trajectory tells us a great deal. People think of depression as being just sadness. It's much, much too much sadness, much too much grief at far too slight a cause.
You don't think in depression that you've put on a gray veil and are seeing the world through the haze of a bad mood. You think that the veil has been taken away, the veil of happiness, and that now you're seeing truly. It's easier to help schizophrenics who perceive that there's something foreign inside of them that needs to be exorcised, but it's difficult with depressives, because they believe they are seeing the truth.
But the truth lies. People will say, "No one loves me." And you say, "I love you, your wife loves you, your mother loves you." But people who are depressed will say, "No matter what we do, we're all just going to die in the end." Or they'll say, "There can be no true communion between two human beings. Each of us is trapped in his own body." To which you have to say, "That's true, but I think we should focus right now on what to have for breakfast."
A lot of the time, what they are expressing is not illness, but insight, and one comes to think what's really extraordinary is that most of us know about those existential questions and they don't distract us very much. There was a study I particularly liked in which a group of depressed and a group of non-depressed people were asked to play a video game for an hour, and at the end of the hour, they were asked how many little monsters they thought they had killed. The depressive group was usually accurate to within about 10 percent, and the non-depressed people guessed between 15 and 20 times as many little monsters as they had actually killed.
I went to Rwanda and I happened to meet someone who described his experience in east Africa. He said, "but we've had a lot of trouble with Western mental health workers, especially the ones who came right after the genocide." And I said, "What kind of trouble did you have?" And he said, "Well, they would do this bizarre thing. They didn't take people out in the sunshine where you begin to feel better. They didn't include drumming or music to get people's blood going. They didn't involve the whole community. They didn't externalize the depression as an invasive spirit. Instead what they did was they took people one at a time into dingy little rooms and had them talk for an hour about bad things that had happened to them." He said, "We had to ask them to leave the country."

Q. What is the difference between depression and grief?

Is depression a chemical problem or a psychological problem? And does it need a chemical cure or a philosophical cure?
Actually, we aren't advanced enough in either area for it to explain things fully. The chemical cure and the psychological cure both have a role to play and depression is braided so deep into us that there is no separating it from our character and personality.
There are three things people tend to confuse: depression, grief and sadness. Grief is explicitly reactive. If you have a loss and you feel incredibly unhappy, and then, six months later, you are still deeply sad, but you're functioning a little better, it's probably grief, and it will probably ultimately resolve itself in some measure. If you experience a catastrophic loss, and you feel terrible, and six months later you can barely function at all, then it's probably a depression that was triggered by the catastrophic circumstances. The trajectory tells us a great deal. People think of depression as being just sadness. It's much, much too much sadness, much too much grief at far too slight a cause.
You don't think in depression that you've put on a gray veil and are seeing the world through the haze of a bad mood. You think that the veil has been taken away, the veil of happiness, and that now you're seeing truly. It's easier to help schizophrenics who perceive that there's something foreign inside of them that needs to be exorcised, but it's difficult with depressives, because they believe they are seeing the truth.
But the truth lies. People will say, "No one loves me." And you say, "I love you, your wife loves you, your mother loves you." But people who are depressed will say, "No matter what we do, we're all just going to die in the end." Or they'll say, "There can be no true communion between two human beings. Each of us is trapped in his own body." To which you have to say, "That's true, but I think we should focus right now on what to have for breakfast."
A lot of the time, what they are expressing is not illness, but insight, and one comes to think what's really extraordinary is that most of us know about those existential questions and they don't distract us very much. There was a study I particularly liked in which a group of depressed and a group of non-depressed people were asked to play a video game for an hour, and at the end of the hour, they were asked how many little monsters they thought they had killed. The depressive group was usually accurate to within about 10 percent, and the non-depressed people guessed between 15 and 20 times as many little monsters as they had actually killed.
I went to Rwanda and I happened to meet someone who described his experience in east Africa. He said, "but we've had a lot of trouble with Western mental health workers, especially the ones who came right after the genocide." And I said, "What kind of trouble did you have?" And he said, "Well, they would do this bizarre thing. They didn't take people out in the sunshine where you begin to feel better. They didn't include drumming or music to get people's blood going. They didn't involve the whole community. They didn't externalize the depression as an invasive spirit. Instead what they did was they took people one at a time into dingy little rooms and had them talk for an hour about bad things that had happened to them." He said, "We had to ask them to leave the country."

Q. Which is true for people suffering from depression:

On 26th November 2019, the Rajya Sabha passed the bill on protection of rights of transgender. The Lok Sabha 'passed the Bill on August 5, 2019. It seeks to recognise transgender persons, and confer anti-discriminatory rights and entitlements related to education, employment, health, and welfare measures. Key Provisions of the Act: It defines a transgender person as one whose gender does not match the gender assigned at birth. It includes trans-men and trans-women, persons with intersex variations, gender-queers, and persons with socio-cultural identities, such as kinnar and hijra. Intersex variations is defined to mean a person who at birth shows variation in his or her primary sexual characteristics, external genitalia, chromosomes, or hormones from the normative standard of male or female body. It provides for ‘self-perceived gender identity’ i.e. persons can determine their gender on their own. This is in line with a Supreme Court verdict in NALSA vs Union of India, 2014, which held that the self determination of one’s gender is part of the fundamental right to dignity, freedom and personal autonomy guaranteed under the Constitution. Transgender person may make an application to the (x)for a certificate of identity, indicating the gender as ‘transgender’. A revised certificate may be obtained only if the individual undergoes surgery to change their gender either as a male or a female. It prohibits discrimination against a transgender person, including denial of service or unfair treatment in relation to: (i) education; (ii) employment; (iii) healthcare; (iv) access to, or enjoyment of goods, facilities, opportunities available to the public; (v) right to movement; (vi) right to reside, rent, or otherwise occupy property; (vii) opportunity to hold public or private office; and (viii) access to a government or private establishment in whose care or custody a transgender person is. Every transgender person shall have a right to reside and be included in his household. If the immediate family is unable to care for the transgender person, the person may be placed in a rehabilitation centre, on the orders of a competent court. No government or private entity can discriminate against a transgender person in employment matters, including recruitment, and promotion. Every establishment is required to designate a person to be a complaint officer to deal with complaints in relation to the Act. Educational institutions funded or recognised by the basis of a certificate of identity issued by a district magistrate and proof of surgery contradicts NALSA verdict. Also, there are no avenues open either for appeal in the event a magistrate refuses to hand out such a certificate. Problem with Nomenclature: India’s LGBTQI community wants nomenclature to be ‘Transgender Persons, InterSex and Gender Non-conforming Act’ instead of just ‘Transgender Persons’ as it puts all persons under one binary without giving adequate space to the diversity included within the non-binaries. Disappointment: People are disappointed by the silence on unnecessary and non-consensual sex selective or reassignment surgeries, despite the plea that it be made an offence. No Clarity: Lack of clarity on anti-discriminatory clause makes it difficult to take a legal recourse. It is not clear how the transgender will be treated under existing criminal and civil laws which recognize only two categories, i.e. man and woman. Additionally, the penalties of similar offences may also vary due to gender identity.

Q. Which of the following had initiated rights of transgender persons bill in Rajya Sabha.