Test: Verbal Ability - 3 - CLAT MCQ

Passage - 1

Power in all its forms is irrational; - it is like the horse that drags the carriage blindfolded. The moral element in it is only represented in the man who drives the horse. Passive resistance is a force which is not necessarily moral in itself; it can be used against truth as well as for it. The danger inherent in all force grows stronger when it is likely to gain success, for then it becomes temptation. I know your teaching is to fight against evil by the help of good. But such a fight is for heroes and not for men led by impulses of the moment. Evil on one side naturally begets evil on the other, injustice leading to violence and insult to vengefulness. Unfortunately, such a force has already been started, and either through panic or through wrath our authorities has shown us the claws whose sure effect is to drive some of us into the secret path of resentment and others into utter demoralization. In this crisis you, as a great leader of men, have stood among us to proclaim your faith in the ideal which you know to be that of India, the ideal which is both against the cowardliness of hidden revenge and the cowed submissiveness of the terror-stricken. This power of good must prove its truth and strength by its fearlessness, by its refusal to accept any imposition which depends for its success upon its power to produce frightfulness and is not ashamed to use its machines of destruction to terrorize a population completely disarmed. We must know that moral conquest does not consist in success, that failure does not deprive it of its dignity and worth. Those who believe in spiritual life know that to stand against wrong which has overwhelming material power behind it is victory itself, it is the victory of the active faith in the ideal in the teeth of evident defeat. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from selected letters from the selected works of Mahatma Gandhi, a letter from Rabindranath Tagore to Gandhi.]

Which of the following best reflects the ideals of Gandhi as mentioned in the passage?

Passage - 1

Power in all its forms is irrational; - it is like the horse that drags the carriage blindfolded. The moral element in it is only represented in the man who drives the horse. Passive resistance is a force which is not necessarily moral in itself; it can be used against truth as well as for it. The danger inherent in all force grows stronger when it is likely to gain success, for then it becomes temptation. I know your teaching is to fight against evil by the help of good. But such a fight is for heroes and not for men led by impulses of the moment. Evil on one side naturally begets evil on the other, injustice leading to violence and insult to vengefulness. Unfortunately, such a force has already been started, and either through panic or through wrath our authorities has shown us the claws whose sure effect is to drive some of us into the secret path of resentment and others into utter demoralization. In this crisis you, as a great leader of men, have stood among us to proclaim your faith in the ideal which you know to be that of India, the ideal which is both against the cowardliness of hidden revenge and the cowed submissiveness of the terror-stricken. This power of good must prove its truth and strength by its fearlessness, by its refusal to accept any imposition which depends for its success upon its power to produce frightfulness and is not ashamed to use its machines of destruction to terrorize a population completely disarmed. We must know that moral conquest does not consist in success, that failure does not deprive it of its dignity and worth. Those who believe in spiritual life know that to stand against wrong which has overwhelming material power behind it is victory itself, it is the victory of the active faith in the ideal in the teeth of evident defeat. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from selected letters from the selected works of Mahatma Gandhi, a letter from Rabindranath Tagore to Gandhi.]

How has the passage defined victory?

Passage - 2

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office. Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines. The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country. Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too - those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution. [Extracted from an article of The Hindu titled: The origin of the Constitution by Uday Balakrishnan, January 24, 2020.]

Which of the following is a quality that the world admires about India?

Passage - 2

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office. Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines. The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country. Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too - those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution. [Extracted from an article of The Hindu titled: The origin of the Constitution by Uday Balakrishnan, January 24, 2020.]

What does the phase "working flat out" as used in the passage mean?

Passage - 2

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office. Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines. The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country. Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too - those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution. [Extracted from an article of The Hindu titled: The origin of the Constitution by Uday Balakrishnan, January 24, 2020.]

Which of the following was one of the major flaws of the "Government of India Act, 1919"?

Passage - 2

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office. Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines. The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country. Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too - those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution. [Extracted from an article of The Hindu titled: The origin of the Constitution by Uday Balakrishnan, January 24, 2020.]

Which of the following serves as an evidence for the participation of the Congress in the second conference?

Passage - 2

The world marvels at how well the Indian Constitution has kept a diverse country together for more than 70 years. Its robustness and durability rest on its many built-in safeguards securing citizens' rights to freedom and justice and fair play which no government, however powerful, can hope to effectively recast within the space of a single or even multiple tenures in office. Mistakenly, however, this lengthy founding document of the Indian Republic is believed to have been completed solely by the Constituent Assembly, working flat out in just two years, eleven months and 17 days. In fact, the Constitution's long history stretches to over 40 years before its enactment, going all the way back to the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This law, for the first time, brought Indians into governance at central and provincial levels, albeit in a very limited way, through a highly restricted and unrepresentative electorate split on communal lines. The Government of India Act, 1919 was a vast improvement on the Indian Councils Act but remained unrepresentative. It also persisted with communal representation, which had earlier been endorsed by the Congress and the Muslim League through the Lucknow Pact of 1916. In its report submitted in 1930, the Simon Commission, constituted to evaluate the Government of India Act of 1919, recommended much greater Indian involvement in the governance of the country. What followed its report were three extraordinary roundtable conferences - in 1930, 1931 and 1932 - all held in London to see how best Indians could administer their country. Deliberations in these conferences brought out the concerns of different communities, especially the Depressed Classes of which Ambedkar was the de facto leader, and the Muslims led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Except the second conference, which Gandhi attended, the other two were boycotted by the Congress. These conferences gave voice to other interest groups too - those representing women and Anglo-Indians, for instance - and led to the passage of the Government of India Act of 1935, much of which found its way into the Constitution. [Extracted from an article of The Hindu titled: The origin of the Constitution by Uday Balakrishnan, January 24, 2020.]

Which of the following chiefly advocates the primary idea of the passage?

Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos. And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to. So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - worker- owned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly. The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life. This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from aljazeera.com, Opinion/Poverty & Development: How can we bridge the widening global inequality gap? by Winnie Byanyima, 23 Jan 2018]

Which of the following is the primary concern expressed in the passage?

Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos. And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to. So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - worker- owned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly. The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life. This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from aljazeera.com, Opinion/Poverty & Development: How can we bridge the widening global inequality gap? by Winnie Byanyima, 23 Jan 2018]

Why are corporate leaders not willing to work towards the collective interest of people?

Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos. And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to. So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - worker- owned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly. The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life. This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from aljazeera.com, Opinion/Poverty & Development: How can we bridge the widening global inequality gap? by Winnie Byanyima, 23 Jan 2018]

Which of the following best reflects the economic model that the author prefers?

Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos. And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to. So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - worker- owned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly. The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life. This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from aljazeera.com, Opinion/Poverty & Development: How can we bridge the widening global inequality gap? by Winnie Byanyima, 23 Jan 2018]

Which of the following offers an appropriate reasoning behind the lack of government intervention in pursuing the welfare of the masses?

Today's economy is designed near-perfectly to reward wealth ahead of work. This is Oxfam's story at Davos. And we're not even seriously attacked any more for saying it. It's as if inequality apologists can barely be bothered because - and this does worry me - they don't feel their cosy system is threatened enough that they need to. So this year, more than ever, I am wondering who really holds the answers here. Are some of us waiting for science to come up with some new technology that will magically solve the problem, as I suspect many people are anxiously hoping for a discovery that will stop climate change? Are we waiting for the enfranchised masses to vote for "change", for the next radical option presented to them? For a revolution?
Or do we think that corporate and political leaders will finally be moved towards enlightened collective interest all of a sudden?
I'm afraid the answer to the last one is that, beyond some notable exceptions, there is no appeal for capitalist elites to be nice. Business ethics are either imposed by regulation or else they exist off-balance-sheet, maybe on a voluntary basis - something that companies can pick up and pay lip service to when necessary. Instead, we need to look to the business trailblazers like those leading innovative models based upon equity - worker- owned companies such as the multibillion-dollar Mondragon in Spain and Amul in India, for example.
Or those willing to consider a visionary idea. We are putting the case to business leaders that they should not pay a penny in shareholder dividends and executive bonuses until all their workers are getting a living wage and their producers a fair price. We need to be less worried about disruptive new technologies, but more proactive in understanding and harnessing them properly. The utility of every invention depends on how it is owned and controlled for the public good.
Law has the power to ensure that nobody should work on a level of pay that they cannot live a decent life. This means governments getting back into the driving seat. In days gone by, governments would value the masses because they needed them for their factories and armies, and so they would feed, educate and keep them healthy. That's changed today.
Then we were sold the idea that trade-fueled growth would spread around the world, carried by democracy, on a rising tide that would "lift up all boats". That's failed, too. The unspoken contract between the elites and the 99 percent that unfettered market globalization and liberalization should benefit us all is broken. Globalization has lifted many people out of the most abject poverty and we celebrate that. But it has been even more successful in boosting an elite few into super-yachts stuffed with stupendous wealth, while dumping hundreds of millions of people onto the flotsam and jetsam at the bottom. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from aljazeera.com, Opinion/Poverty & Development: How can we bridge the widening global inequality gap? by Winnie Byanyima, 23 Jan 2018]

Which of the following comparison has the author employed to point the difference between the rich and the poor?

In 1920, the congress, first at an extraordinary session held at Calcutta and later at the consistent session held at Nagpur under Gandhiji's authority, embraced another program of battle against the administration. At the Nagpur session which was gone to by around 15,000 representatives, the congress constitution was revised and "the fulfillment of Swarajya by the general population of India by all real and quiet signifies" turned into the primary article of the constitution of the congress. Gandhi's confidence in the British Government was staggered in the year 1920. He had foreseen no equity from it. He was against the Rowlatt Bills, which abridged even the base opportunity of each native. The Jallianwala Bagh slaughter and the consequent military law abuses and abominations on the individuals of Punjab blended the rage of the entire of India. Gandhi was amazingly furious about the happenings. The report of the Hunter Committee distributed in May 1920, and the civil arguments in the House of Lords securing and adulating Dyer's direct at Amritsar blushed the Indian suppositions. Another real occasion, which had an imperative impact in propelling the Non-co-task development, was Khilafat issue. The Khilafat was a religious establishment of the Sunni Muslims. Gandhi and different pioneers of the Indian national development bolstered the Muslim request with respect to the Khilafat for different reasons. Therefore, it was high time to dispatch and enlist a challenge development on National premise against the British monstrosities. Under the initiative of Gandhi the movement made swift progress until the appalling occasion of Chauri Chaura occurred, which turned into the quick reason for the end of Non-co-activity development. 
The non-cooperation movement was started to address the shameful acts done to Punjab and Turkey, and the achievement of Swaraj. It is known as the noncollaboration development as a result of the strategies embraced in this development. It started with the renunciation of privileged titles like 'Sir' that Indians had gotten from the British government. Subramania Iyer and Rabindranath Tagore had effectively done as such. Gandhiji returned his Kaiser-I-Hind award in August 1920. Numerous others followed the example. Indians no longer considered getting titles from the British government a desirable action. This was followed by the blacklisting of governing bodies.
A great many people declined to cast their votes when decisions to the councils were held. A great many understudies and educators left schools and universities. New instructive foundations like the Jamia Millia at Aligarh (later moved to Delhi) and Kashi Vidyapeeth at Benaras were established by patriots. Government workers surrendered their employments. Legal counselors boycotted law courts. Imported fabric was scorched in campfires. There were strikes and hartals everywhere throughout the nation. The development was an incredible achievement and government lash back could not stop it.
[Extracted, with revisions and edits, from Ignited Minds Journal: A Study of Non-Cooperation Movement History: Causes, Result and Importance, by Jyoti, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education]

Which of the following formally established Swarajya as a goal?

In 1920, the congress, first at an extraordinary session held at Calcutta and later at the consistent session held at Nagpur under Gandhiji's authority, embraced another program of battle against the administration. At the Nagpur session which was gone to by around 15,000 representatives, the congress constitution was revised and "the fulfillment of Swarajya by the general population of India by all real and quiet signifies" turned into the primary article of the constitution of the congress. Gandhi's confidence in the British Government was staggered in the year 1920. He had foreseen no equity from it. He was against the Rowlatt Bills, which abridged even the base opportunity of each native. The Jallianwala Bagh slaughter and the consequent military law abuses and abominations on the individuals of Punjab blended the rage of the entire of India. Gandhi was amazingly furious about the happenings. The report of the Hunter Committee distributed in May 1920, and the civil arguments in the House of Lords securing and adulating Dyer's direct at Amritsar blushed the Indian suppositions. Another real occasion, which had an imperative impact in propelling the Non-co-task development, was Khilafat issue. The Khilafat was a religious establishment of the Sunni Muslims. Gandhi and different pioneers of the Indian national development bolstered the Muslim request with respect to the Khilafat for different reasons. Therefore, it was high time to dispatch and enlist a challenge development on National premise against the British monstrosities. Under the initiative of Gandhi the movement made swift progress until the appalling occasion of Chauri Chaura occurred, which turned into the quick reason for the end of Non-co-activity development. 
The non-cooperation movement was started to address the shameful acts done to Punjab and Turkey, and the achievement of Swaraj. It is known as the noncollaboration development as a result of the strategies embraced in this development. It started with the renunciation of privileged titles like 'Sir' that Indians had gotten from the British government. Subramania Iyer and Rabindranath Tagore had effectively done as such. Gandhiji returned his Kaiser-I-Hind award in August 1920. Numerous others followed the example. Indians no longer considered getting titles from the British government a desirable action. This was followed by the blacklisting of governing bodies.
A great many people declined to cast their votes when decisions to the councils were held. A great many understudies and educators left schools and universities. New instructive foundations like the Jamia Millia at Aligarh (later moved to Delhi) and Kashi Vidyapeeth at Benaras were established by patriots. Government workers surrendered their employments. Legal counselors boycotted law courts. Imported fabric was scorched in campfires. There were strikes and hartals everywhere throughout the nation. The development was an incredible achievement and government lash back could not stop it.
[Extracted, with revisions and edits, from Ignited Minds Journal: A Study of Non-Cooperation Movement History: Causes, Result and Importance, by Jyoti, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education]

Which of the following blushed Indian suppositions towards the British rule?

In 1920, the congress, first at an extraordinary session held at Calcutta and later at the consistent session held at Nagpur under Gandhiji's authority, embraced another program of battle against the administration. At the Nagpur session which was gone to by around 15,000 representatives, the congress constitution was revised and "the fulfillment of Swarajya by the general population of India by all real and quiet signifies" turned into the primary article of the constitution of the congress. Gandhi's confidence in the British Government was staggered in the year 1920. He had foreseen no equity from it. He was against the Rowlatt Bills, which abridged even the base opportunity of each native. The Jallianwala Bagh slaughter and the consequent military law abuses and abominations on the individuals of Punjab blended the rage of the entire of India. Gandhi was amazingly furious about the happenings. The report of the Hunter Committee distributed in May 1920, and the civil arguments in the House of Lords securing and adulating Dyer's direct at Amritsar blushed the Indian suppositions. Another real occasion, which had an imperative impact in propelling the Non-co-task development, was Khilafat issue. The Khilafat was a religious establishment of the Sunni Muslims. Gandhi and different pioneers of the Indian national development bolstered the Muslim request with respect to the Khilafat for different reasons. Therefore, it was high time to dispatch and enlist a challenge development on National premise against the British monstrosities. Under the initiative of Gandhi the movement made swift progress until the appalling occasion of Chauri Chaura occurred, which turned into the quick reason for the end of Non-co-activity development. 
The non-cooperation movement was started to address the shameful acts done to Punjab and Turkey, and the achievement of Swaraj. It is known as the noncollaboration development as a result of the strategies embraced in this development. It started with the renunciation of privileged titles like 'Sir' that Indians had gotten from the British government. Subramania Iyer and Rabindranath Tagore had effectively done as such. Gandhiji returned his Kaiser-I-Hind award in August 1920. Numerous others followed the example. Indians no longer considered getting titles from the British government a desirable action. This was followed by the blacklisting of governing bodies.
A great many people declined to cast their votes when decisions to the councils were held. A great many understudies and educators left schools and universities. New instructive foundations like the Jamia Millia at Aligarh (later moved to Delhi) and Kashi Vidyapeeth at Benaras were established by patriots. Government workers surrendered their employments. Legal counselors boycotted law courts. Imported fabric was scorched in campfires. There were strikes and hartals everywhere throughout the nation. The development was an incredible achievement and government lash back could not stop it.
[Extracted, with revisions and edits, from Ignited Minds Journal: A Study of Non-Cooperation Movement History: Causes, Result and Importance, by Jyoti, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education]

As used in the passage, the word "monstrosities" most nearly means

In 1920, the congress, first at an extraordinary session held at Calcutta and later at the consistent session held at Nagpur under Gandhiji's authority, embraced another program of battle against the administration. At the Nagpur session which was gone to by around 15,000 representatives, the congress constitution was revised and "the fulfillment of Swarajya by the general population of India by all real and quiet signifies" turned into the primary article of the constitution of the congress. Gandhi's confidence in the British Government was staggered in the year 1920. He had foreseen no equity from it. He was against the Rowlatt Bills, which abridged even the base opportunity of each native. The Jallianwala Bagh slaughter and the consequent military law abuses and abominations on the individuals of Punjab blended the rage of the entire of India. Gandhi was amazingly furious about the happenings. The report of the Hunter Committee distributed in May 1920, and the civil arguments in the House of Lords securing and adulating Dyer's direct at Amritsar blushed the Indian suppositions. Another real occasion, which had an imperative impact in propelling the Non-co-task development, was Khilafat issue. The Khilafat was a religious establishment of the Sunni Muslims. Gandhi and different pioneers of the Indian national development bolstered the Muslim request with respect to the Khilafat for different reasons. Therefore, it was high time to dispatch and enlist a challenge development on National premise against the British monstrosities. Under the initiative of Gandhi the movement made swift progress until the appalling occasion of Chauri Chaura occurred, which turned into the quick reason for the end of Non-co-activity development. 
The non-cooperation movement was started to address the shameful acts done to Punjab and Turkey, and the achievement of Swaraj. It is known as the noncollaboration development as a result of the strategies embraced in this development. It started with the renunciation of privileged titles like 'Sir' that Indians had gotten from the British government. Subramania Iyer and Rabindranath Tagore had effectively done as such. Gandhiji returned his Kaiser-I-Hind award in August 1920. Numerous others followed the example. Indians no longer considered getting titles from the British government a desirable action. This was followed by the blacklisting of governing bodies.
A great many people declined to cast their votes when decisions to the councils were held. A great many understudies and educators left schools and universities. New instructive foundations like the Jamia Millia at Aligarh (later moved to Delhi) and Kashi Vidyapeeth at Benaras were established by patriots. Government workers surrendered their employments. Legal counselors boycotted law courts. Imported fabric was scorched in campfires. There were strikes and hartals everywhere throughout the nation. The development was an incredible achievement and government lash back could not stop it.
[Extracted, with revisions and edits, from Ignited Minds Journal: A Study of Non-Cooperation Movement History: Causes, Result and Importance, by Jyoti, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education]

What was the intention behind the renunciation of titles and awards by Indians given to them by the British?

In 1920, the congress, first at an extraordinary session held at Calcutta and later at the consistent session held at Nagpur under Gandhiji's authority, embraced another program of battle against the administration. At the Nagpur session which was gone to by around 15,000 representatives, the congress constitution was revised and "the fulfillment of Swarajya by the general population of India by all real and quiet signifies" turned into the primary article of the constitution of the congress. Gandhi's confidence in the British Government was staggered in the year 1920. He had foreseen no equity from it. He was against the Rowlatt Bills, which abridged even the base opportunity of each native. The Jallianwala Bagh slaughter and the consequent military law abuses and abominations on the individuals of Punjab blended the rage of the entire of India. Gandhi was amazingly furious about the happenings. The report of the Hunter Committee distributed in May 1920, and the civil arguments in the House of Lords securing and adulating Dyer's direct at Amritsar blushed the Indian suppositions. Another real occasion, which had an imperative impact in propelling the Non-co-task development, was Khilafat issue. The Khilafat was a religious establishment of the Sunni Muslims. Gandhi and different pioneers of the Indian national development bolstered the Muslim request with respect to the Khilafat for different reasons. Therefore, it was high time to dispatch and enlist a challenge development on National premise against the British monstrosities. Under the initiative of Gandhi the movement made swift progress until the appalling occasion of Chauri Chaura occurred, which turned into the quick reason for the end of Non-co-activity development. 
The non-cooperation movement was started to address the shameful acts done to Punjab and Turkey, and the achievement of Swaraj. It is known as the noncollaboration development as a result of the strategies embraced in this development. It started with the renunciation of privileged titles like 'Sir' that Indians had gotten from the British government. Subramania Iyer and Rabindranath Tagore had effectively done as such. Gandhiji returned his Kaiser-I-Hind award in August 1920. Numerous others followed the example. Indians no longer considered getting titles from the British government a desirable action. This was followed by the blacklisting of governing bodies.
A great many people declined to cast their votes when decisions to the councils were held. A great many understudies and educators left schools and universities. New instructive foundations like the Jamia Millia at Aligarh (later moved to Delhi) and Kashi Vidyapeeth at Benaras were established by patriots. Government workers surrendered their employments. Legal counselors boycotted law courts. Imported fabric was scorched in campfires. There were strikes and hartals everywhere throughout the nation. The development was an incredible achievement and government lash back could not stop it.
[Extracted, with revisions and edits, from Ignited Minds Journal: A Study of Non-Cooperation Movement History: Causes, Result and Importance, by Jyoti, in Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education]

Which of the following could be inferred by the burning of foreign clothing in the movement?

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements. As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, close- ups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on. [Extracted from The Art of Movie-Making, excerpts from Chapter 1: "Cinema Art, Film Technology and the Movie Industry," by Richard Beck Peacock.]

What makes movies such a powerful medium of expressive art?

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements. As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, close- ups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on. [Extracted from The Art of Movie-Making, excerpts from Chapter 1: "Cinema Art, Film Technology and the Movie Industry," by Richard Beck Peacock.]

What is the necessary element of compromise in every movie?

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements. As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, close- ups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on. [Extracted from The Art of Movie-Making, excerpts from Chapter 1: "Cinema Art, Film Technology and the Movie Industry," by Richard Beck Peacock.]

Why do movies tend to often reflect the culture and prevalent norms of a society?

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements. As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, close- ups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on. [Extracted from The Art of Movie-Making, excerpts from Chapter 1: "Cinema Art, Film Technology and the Movie Industry," by Richard Beck Peacock.]

What causes movies to create myths in their process of storytelling?

Film is an inherently illusionist and enormously powerful medium, one that even acknowledged masters of the form claim not to fully understand. Film may be the most pervasive and influential art form of the twentieth century, changing our culture and our perception of it, especially since television was introduced and the public began spending 40 percent of its free time watching. For many people, knowledge of a particular place, culture or historical event is likely to have been gleaned only from the movies. There are three principle influences on film: art, business and technology. Ideally, the artist would create films unencumbered by the other two, but the high costs and extreme technical demands of filmmaking ensure that every movie is inevitably the result of a collaboration or compromise between these three elements. As literature has its own language and grammar, so does film, and the setup for a simple idea such as the opening of a horror film involves a complicated series of ingredients - long shots, close- ups, lighting effects, set decoration, music, camera movement, and every one of these demands the involvement of several artists and technicians. Movies are invaluable reflectors of twentieth century culture, not only from filmic commentary by intelligent and socially aware filmmakers, but often inadvertently; the escapist musical Top Hat (1935) tells us something about the grim realities of the Depression. Movies will often shape themselves to appeal to perceived cultural attitudes, and as a result they will not only reflect their culture but actively influence it. This penchant for distorting a reflected vision of reality can often lead movies to create myths, with the heroic leads of action melodramas and presentations of historical characters that succeed more by their emotional resonance than their accuracy. A continuing question of the movies is whether or not they can ever fully be welcomed into the arts and accorded the same degree of respect that has long been given to other, older forms and mediums; universities were slow to offer courses in cinema, and indeed the avalanche of formula films makes it difficult to find the quality buried in the schlock. Mostly it seems to depend on the difference between art and entertainment, which several filmmakers and critics have offered opinions on. [Extracted from The Art of Movie-Making, excerpts from Chapter 1: "Cinema Art, Film Technology and the Movie Industry," by Richard Beck Peacock.]

Which of the following is the biggest cause for the lack of respect imparted to movies in comparison to other art forms?

The term 'Emotional Intelligence', first coined by psychologists Mayer and Salovey (1990), refers to one's capacity to perceive, process and regulate emotional information accurately and effectively, both within oneself and in others and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions and to influence those of others. Emotional intelligence can lead us on the path to a fulfilled and happy life by providing a framework through which to apply standards of intelligence to emotional responses and understand that these responses may be logically consistent or inconsistent with particular beliefs about emotion.
As the workplace evolves, so too does the body of research supporting that individuals (from interns to managers) with higher EI are better equipped to work cohesively within teams, deal with change more effectively, and manage stress - thus enabling them to more efficiently pursue business objectives. Goleman (1995) recognized five distinct categories of skills which form the key characteristics of EI and proposed that, unlike one's intelligence quotient (IQ), these categorical skills can be learned where absent and improved upon where present. Thus, EI, unlike its relatively fixed cousin, IQ, is instead a dynamic aspect of one's psyche and includes behavioral traits that, when worked upon, can yield significant benefits, from personal happiness and well-being to elevated success in a professional context. Emotional intelligence has been shown to play a meaningful role in academic success, mental and physical health, as well as attainment in professional domains; the findings of Bar-On (1997) suggested that people with higher EI performed better than those with lower EI in life. In the modern, agile workplace, there is an ever-increasing emphasis from employers on the importance of EI over academic qualifications. The importance of EI should not go unappreciated; the ability to understand and manage your emotions is the first step in realizing your true potential. How can we achieve meaningful progress if we don't recognize and acknowledge the point from where we're starting? When checking directions on your sat-nav, a destination is useless unless we know the origin.
Whether it be connecting with others and improving interpersonal communication, achieving success in the workplace or social relationships, dealing with stress and improving motivation or refining decision-making skills - emotional intelligence plays a central role in realizing success in both personal and professional life. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from an article from positivepsychology.com, titled: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence, by Elaine Houston]

What is the primary motive of the author in the passage?

The term 'Emotional Intelligence', first coined by psychologists Mayer and Salovey (1990), refers to one's capacity to perceive, process and regulate emotional information accurately and effectively, both within oneself and in others and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions and to influence those of others. Emotional intelligence can lead us on the path to a fulfilled and happy life by providing a framework through which to apply standards of intelligence to emotional responses and understand that these responses may be logically consistent or inconsistent with particular beliefs about emotion.
As the workplace evolves, so too does the body of research supporting that individuals (from interns to managers) with higher EI are better equipped to work cohesively within teams, deal with change more effectively, and manage stress - thus enabling them to more efficiently pursue business objectives. Goleman (1995) recognized five distinct categories of skills which form the key characteristics of EI and proposed that, unlike one's intelligence quotient (IQ), these categorical skills can be learned where absent and improved upon where present. Thus, EI, unlike its relatively fixed cousin, IQ, is instead a dynamic aspect of one's psyche and includes behavioral traits that, when worked upon, can yield significant benefits, from personal happiness and well-being to elevated success in a professional context. Emotional intelligence has been shown to play a meaningful role in academic success, mental and physical health, as well as attainment in professional domains; the findings of Bar-On (1997) suggested that people with higher EI performed better than those with lower EI in life. In the modern, agile workplace, there is an ever-increasing emphasis from employers on the importance of EI over academic qualifications. The importance of EI should not go unappreciated; the ability to understand and manage your emotions is the first step in realizing your true potential. How can we achieve meaningful progress if we don't recognize and acknowledge the point from where we're starting? When checking directions on your sat-nav, a destination is useless unless we know the origin.
Whether it be connecting with others and improving interpersonal communication, achieving success in the workplace or social relationships, dealing with stress and improving motivation or refining decision-making skills - emotional intelligence plays a central role in realizing success in both personal and professional life. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from an article from positivepsychology.com, titled: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence, by Elaine Houston]

How is EI connected to conventional intelligence?

The term 'Emotional Intelligence', first coined by psychologists Mayer and Salovey (1990), refers to one's capacity to perceive, process and regulate emotional information accurately and effectively, both within oneself and in others and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions and to influence those of others. Emotional intelligence can lead us on the path to a fulfilled and happy life by providing a framework through which to apply standards of intelligence to emotional responses and understand that these responses may be logically consistent or inconsistent with particular beliefs about emotion.
As the workplace evolves, so too does the body of research supporting that individuals (from interns to managers) with higher EI are better equipped to work cohesively within teams, deal with change more effectively, and manage stress - thus enabling them to more efficiently pursue business objectives. Goleman (1995) recognized five distinct categories of skills which form the key characteristics of EI and proposed that, unlike one's intelligence quotient (IQ), these categorical skills can be learned where absent and improved upon where present. Thus, EI, unlike its relatively fixed cousin, IQ, is instead a dynamic aspect of one's psyche and includes behavioral traits that, when worked upon, can yield significant benefits, from personal happiness and well-being to elevated success in a professional context. Emotional intelligence has been shown to play a meaningful role in academic success, mental and physical health, as well as attainment in professional domains; the findings of Bar-On (1997) suggested that people with higher EI performed better than those with lower EI in life. In the modern, agile workplace, there is an ever-increasing emphasis from employers on the importance of EI over academic qualifications. The importance of EI should not go unappreciated; the ability to understand and manage your emotions is the first step in realizing your true potential. How can we achieve meaningful progress if we don't recognize and acknowledge the point from where we're starting? When checking directions on your sat-nav, a destination is useless unless we know the origin.
Whether it be connecting with others and improving interpersonal communication, achieving success in the workplace or social relationships, dealing with stress and improving motivation or refining decision-making skills - emotional intelligence plays a central role in realizing success in both personal and professional life. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from an article from positivepsychology.com, titled: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence, by Elaine Houston]

What is the key point of difference between EQ and IQ?

The term 'Emotional Intelligence', first coined by psychologists Mayer and Salovey (1990), refers to one's capacity to perceive, process and regulate emotional information accurately and effectively, both within oneself and in others and to use this information to guide one's thinking and actions and to influence those of others. Emotional intelligence can lead us on the path to a fulfilled and happy life by providing a framework through which to apply standards of intelligence to emotional responses and understand that these responses may be logically consistent or inconsistent with particular beliefs about emotion.
As the workplace evolves, so too does the body of research supporting that individuals (from interns to managers) with higher EI are better equipped to work cohesively within teams, deal with change more effectively, and manage stress - thus enabling them to more efficiently pursue business objectives. Goleman (1995) recognized five distinct categories of skills which form the key characteristics of EI and proposed that, unlike one's intelligence quotient (IQ), these categorical skills can be learned where absent and improved upon where present. Thus, EI, unlike its relatively fixed cousin, IQ, is instead a dynamic aspect of one's psyche and includes behavioral traits that, when worked upon, can yield significant benefits, from personal happiness and well-being to elevated success in a professional context. Emotional intelligence has been shown to play a meaningful role in academic success, mental and physical health, as well as attainment in professional domains; the findings of Bar-On (1997) suggested that people with higher EI performed better than those with lower EI in life. In the modern, agile workplace, there is an ever-increasing emphasis from employers on the importance of EI over academic qualifications. The importance of EI should not go unappreciated; the ability to understand and manage your emotions is the first step in realizing your true potential. How can we achieve meaningful progress if we don't recognize and acknowledge the point from where we're starting? When checking directions on your sat-nav, a destination is useless unless we know the origin.
Whether it be connecting with others and improving interpersonal communication, achieving success in the workplace or social relationships, dealing with stress and improving motivation or refining decision-making skills - emotional intelligence plays a central role in realizing success in both personal and professional life. [Extracted, with edits and revisions, from an article from positivepsychology.com, titled: The Importance of Emotional Intelligence, by Elaine Houston]

What can be inferred from the metaphorical reference to sat-navs in the passage?