CLAT Practice Test - 13 - CLAT MCQ

YOU say that our government is inefficient. YOU say that our laws are too old. YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage. YOU say, say and say.

What do YOU do about it? In Singapore you don’t throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity. YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 kph) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, “Do you know who I am? I am so and so’s son. Take your two bucks and get lost.” YOU wouldn’t chuck an empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand. We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU, who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country why cannot you be the same here in India?

We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility. We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms. We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity. When it comes to burning social issues, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? “It’s the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons’ rights to a dowry.”

So who’s going to change the system? What does a system consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbors, other households, other cities, other communities and the government. But, definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we look at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand. Or we leave the country and run away. Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their glory and praise their system. Everybody is out to abuse the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.

Q. According to the passage, what is the mistake being done by an Indian voter?

YOU say that our government is inefficient. YOU say that our laws are too old. YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage. YOU say, say and say.

What do YOU do about it? In Singapore you don’t throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity. YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 kph) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, “Do you know who I am? I am so and so’s son. Take your two bucks and get lost.” YOU wouldn’t chuck an empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand. We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU, who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country why cannot you be the same here in India?

We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility. We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms. We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity. When it comes to burning social issues, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? “It’s the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons’ rights to a dowry.”

So who’s going to change the system? What does a system consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbors, other households, other cities, other communities and the government. But, definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we look at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand. Or we leave the country and run away. Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their glory and praise their system. Everybody is out to abuse the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.

Q. According to the author of the passage, 'YOU' is forgetting to include whom in the system?

YOU say that our government is inefficient. YOU say that our laws are too old. YOU say that the municipality does not pick up the garbage. YOU say, say and say.

What do YOU do about it? In Singapore you don’t throw cigarette butts on the roads or eat in the stores. YOU come back to the parking lot to punch your parking ticket if you have over stayed in a restaurant or a shopping mall irrespective of your status identity. YOU would not dare to speed beyond 55 mph (88 kph) in Washington and then tell the traffic cop, “Do you know who I am? I am so and so’s son. Take your two bucks and get lost.” YOU wouldn’t chuck an empty coconut shell anywhere other than the garbage pail on the beaches in Australia and New Zealand. We are still talking of the same YOU. YOU, who can respect and conform to a foreign system in other countries but cannot in your own. You who will throw papers and cigarettes on the road the moment you touch Indian ground. If you can be an involved and appreciative citizen in an alien country why cannot you be the same here in India?

We go to the polls to choose a government and after that forfeit all responsibility. We sit back wanting to be pampered and expect the government to do everything for us whilst our contribution is totally negative. We expect the railways to provide clean bathrooms but we are not going to learn the proper use of bathrooms. We want Indian Airlines and Air India to provide the best of food and toiletries but we are not going to stop pilfering at the least opportunity. When it comes to burning social issues, we make loud drawing room protestations and continue to do the reverse at home. Our excuse? “It’s the whole system which has to change, how will it matter if I alone forego my sons’ rights to a dowry.”

So who’s going to change the system? What does a system consist of? Very conveniently for us it consists of our neighbors, other households, other cities, other communities and the government. But, definitely not me and YOU. When it comes to us actually making a positive contribution to the system we look at countries far away and wait for a Mr. Clean to come along & work miracles for us with a majestic sweep of his hand. Or we leave the country and run away. Like lazy cowards hounded by our fears we run to America to bask in their glory and praise their system. Everybody is out to abuse the country. Nobody thinks of feeding the system. Our conscience is mortgaged to money.

Q. What does the author mean by doing the reverse of drawing room protestations?

‘He was different because he could play long innings even when he was very young, just nine or ten years old. He was very powerful; he could throw the ball from the boundary.’ Sharma was forthright as he explained to Virat’s father Prem Kohli, that while Virat was promising, his older brother Vikas, who was also training with Sharma, did not possess stupendous talent like Virat does. Sharma was honest because he could make out that Prem Kohli was not like the other parents who wanted to put their children into cricket academies so that it shaved off some TV time, rather than hope that they make it big in the game. ‘I leave it to you. You are like his father now and must take care of him. Whatever you do will be best for him,’ Sharma remembers Prem Kohli saying. The coach cannot forget the hope that sparkled in the father’s eyes. ‘He always wanted Virat to play for the country, but unfortunately, he died before he could see his son play for India.

‘Virat was always ambitious, but at that age, everyone dreams of playing for the country and we did not expect too much till he started playing junior state-level cricket.’ says Vikas. ‘He always woke up early, prepared thoroughly for matches, and never missed practice sessions. At times, our mother used to tell him to skip a practice session or two, but he showed the kind of self-discipline I didn’t think someone of his age could ever show,’ he adds. Seeing Kohli on the prowl on the field or while batting during his international career, one could presume that he had always been an out-and-out natural cricketer, especially when it came to fielding. But this was not so and Coach Sharma believes it was Kohli’s dedication and hard work, more than flair, that ensured he improved with each season. ‘Kohli worked really hard on his fielding as he understood its importance early on. He was always willing to come in early for practice and slog out more than others, even at a young age,’ remembers Sharma. Kohli showed signs of being a good captain even when he was a young boy. ‘He used to lead our academy sides with confidence and had the killer instinct needed to win games for the team. Confidence was not a problem with him, in fact, he was over-confident at times. For example, if the team needed wickets desperately, he would start bowling “seam-up” himself, while neglecting the main bowlers of the side. Things like that needed to be curbed, but he was always a good listener and willing learner,’ remembers Sharma.

Q. Which of the following best describes the passage?

‘He was different because he could play long innings even when he was very young, just nine or ten years old. He was very powerful; he could throw the ball from the boundary.’ Sharma was forthright as he explained to Virat’s father Prem Kohli, that while Virat was promising, his older brother Vikas, who was also training with Sharma, did not possess stupendous talent like Virat does. Sharma was honest because he could make out that Prem Kohli was not like the other parents who wanted to put their children into cricket academies so that it shaved off some TV time, rather than hope that they make it big in the game. ‘I leave it to you. You are like his father now and must take care of him. Whatever you do will be best for him,’ Sharma remembers Prem Kohli saying. The coach cannot forget the hope that sparkled in the father’s eyes. ‘He always wanted Virat to play for the country, but unfortunately, he died before he could see his son play for India.

‘Virat was always ambitious, but at that age, everyone dreams of playing for the country and we did not expect too much till he started playing junior state-level cricket.’ says Vikas. ‘He always woke up early, prepared thoroughly for matches, and never missed practice sessions. At times, our mother used to tell him to skip a practice session or two, but he showed the kind of self-discipline I didn’t think someone of his age could ever show,’ he adds. Seeing Kohli on the prowl on the field or while batting during his international career, one could presume that he had always been an out-and-out natural cricketer, especially when it came to fielding. But this was not so and Coach Sharma believes it was Kohli’s dedication and hard work, more than flair, that ensured he improved with each season. ‘Kohli worked really hard on his fielding as he understood its importance early on. He was always willing to come in early for practice and slog out more than others, even at a young age,’ remembers Sharma. Kohli showed signs of being a good captain even when he was a young boy. ‘He used to lead our academy sides with confidence and had the killer instinct needed to win games for the team. Confidence was not a problem with him, in fact, he was over-confident at times. For example, if the team needed wickets desperately, he would start bowling “seam-up” himself, while neglecting the main bowlers of the side. Things like that needed to be curbed, but he was always a good listener and willing learner,’ remembers Sharma.

Q. What makes Prem Kohli unique among other fathers, according to Mr. Sharma?

‘He was different because he could play long innings even when he was very young, just nine or ten years old. He was very powerful; he could throw the ball from the boundary.’ Sharma was forthright as he explained to Virat’s father Prem Kohli, that while Virat was promising, his older brother Vikas, who was also training with Sharma, did not possess stupendous talent like Virat does. Sharma was honest because he could make out that Prem Kohli was not like the other parents who wanted to put their children into cricket academies so that it shaved off some TV time, rather than hope that they make it big in the game. ‘I leave it to you. You are like his father now and must take care of him. Whatever you do will be best for him,’ Sharma remembers Prem Kohli saying. The coach cannot forget the hope that sparkled in the father’s eyes. ‘He always wanted Virat to play for the country, but unfortunately, he died before he could see his son play for India.

‘Virat was always ambitious, but at that age, everyone dreams of playing for the country and we did not expect too much till he started playing junior state-level cricket.’ says Vikas. ‘He always woke up early, prepared thoroughly for matches, and never missed practice sessions. At times, our mother used to tell him to skip a practice session or two, but he showed the kind of self-discipline I didn’t think someone of his age could ever show,’ he adds. Seeing Kohli on the prowl on the field or while batting during his international career, one could presume that he had always been an out-and-out natural cricketer, especially when it came to fielding. But this was not so and Coach Sharma believes it was Kohli’s dedication and hard work, more than flair, that ensured he improved with each season. ‘Kohli worked really hard on his fielding as he understood its importance early on. He was always willing to come in early for practice and slog out more than others, even at a young age,’ remembers Sharma. Kohli showed signs of being a good captain even when he was a young boy. ‘He used to lead our academy sides with confidence and had the killer instinct needed to win games for the team. Confidence was not a problem with him, in fact, he was over-confident at times. For example, if the team needed wickets desperately, he would start bowling “seam-up” himself, while neglecting the main bowlers of the side. Things like that needed to be curbed, but he was always a good listener and willing learner,’ remembers Sharma.

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

‘He was different because he could play long innings even when he was very young, just nine or ten years old. He was very powerful; he could throw the ball from the boundary.’ Sharma was forthright as he explained to Virat’s father Prem Kohli, that while Virat was promising, his older brother Vikas, who was also training with Sharma, did not possess stupendous talent like Virat does. Sharma was honest because he could make out that Prem Kohli was not like the other parents who wanted to put their children into cricket academies so that it shaved off some TV time, rather than hope that they make it big in the game. ‘I leave it to you. You are like his father now and must take care of him. Whatever you do will be best for him,’ Sharma remembers Prem Kohli saying. The coach cannot forget the hope that sparkled in the father’s eyes. ‘He always wanted Virat to play for the country, but unfortunately, he died before he could see his son play for India.

‘Virat was always ambitious, but at that age, everyone dreams of playing for the country and we did not expect too much till he started playing junior state-level cricket.’ says Vikas. ‘He always woke up early, prepared thoroughly for matches, and never missed practice sessions. At times, our mother used to tell him to skip a practice session or two, but he showed the kind of self-discipline I didn’t think someone of his age could ever show,’ he adds. Seeing Kohli on the prowl on the field or while batting during his international career, one could presume that he had always been an out-and-out natural cricketer, especially when it came to fielding. But this was not so and Coach Sharma believes it was Kohli’s dedication and hard work, more than flair, that ensured he improved with each season. ‘Kohli worked really hard on his fielding as he understood its importance early on. He was always willing to come in early for practice and slog out more than others, even at a young age,’ remembers Sharma. Kohli showed signs of being a good captain even when he was a young boy. ‘He used to lead our academy sides with confidence and had the killer instinct needed to win games for the team. Confidence was not a problem with him, in fact, he was over-confident at times. For example, if the team needed wickets desperately, he would start bowling “seam-up” himself, while neglecting the main bowlers of the side. Things like that needed to be curbed, but he was always a good listener and willing learner,’ remembers Sharma.

Q. Why was Kohli considered different by Mr. Sharma, when he was young?

‘He was different because he could play long innings even when he was very young, just nine or ten years old. He was very powerful; he could throw the ball from the boundary.’ Sharma was forthright as he explained to Virat’s father Prem Kohli, that while Virat was promising, his older brother Vikas, who was also training with Sharma, did not possess stupendous talent like Virat does. Sharma was honest because he could make out that Prem Kohli was not like the other parents who wanted to put their children into cricket academies so that it shaved off some TV time, rather than hope that they make it big in the game. ‘I leave it to you. You are like his father now and must take care of him. Whatever you do will be best for him,’ Sharma remembers Prem Kohli saying. The coach cannot forget the hope that sparkled in the father’s eyes. ‘He always wanted Virat to play for the country, but unfortunately, he died before he could see his son play for India.

‘Virat was always ambitious, but at that age, everyone dreams of playing for the country and we did not expect too much till he started playing junior state-level cricket.’ says Vikas. ‘He always woke up early, prepared thoroughly for matches, and never missed practice sessions. At times, our mother used to tell him to skip a practice session or two, but he showed the kind of self-discipline I didn’t think someone of his age could ever show,’ he adds. Seeing Kohli on the prowl on the field or while batting during his international career, one could presume that he had always been an out-and-out natural cricketer, especially when it came to fielding. But this was not so and Coach Sharma believes it was Kohli’s dedication and hard work, more than flair, that ensured he improved with each season. ‘Kohli worked really hard on his fielding as he understood its importance early on. He was always willing to come in early for practice and slog out more than others, even at a young age,’ remembers Sharma. Kohli showed signs of being a good captain even when he was a young boy. ‘He used to lead our academy sides with confidence and had the killer instinct needed to win games for the team. Confidence was not a problem with him, in fact, he was over-confident at times. For example, if the team needed wickets desperately, he would start bowling “seam-up” himself, while neglecting the main bowlers of the side. Things like that needed to be curbed, but he was always a good listener and willing learner,’ remembers Sharma.

Q. What are the meanings of the words in the given order, stupendous, prowl and slog-out in order, according to the passage?

‘He was different because he could play long innings even when he was very young, just nine or ten years old. He was very powerful; he could throw the ball from the boundary.’ Sharma was forthright as he explained to Virat’s father Prem Kohli, that while Virat was promising, his older brother Vikas, who was also training with Sharma, did not possess stupendous talent like Virat does. Sharma was honest because he could make out that Prem Kohli was not like the other parents who wanted to put their children into cricket academies so that it shaved off some TV time, rather than hope that they make it big in the game. ‘I leave it to you. You are like his father now and must take care of him. Whatever you do will be best for him,’ Sharma remembers Prem Kohli saying. The coach cannot forget the hope that sparkled in the father’s eyes. ‘He always wanted Virat to play for the country, but unfortunately, he died before he could see his son play for India.

‘Virat was always ambitious, but at that age, everyone dreams of playing for the country and we did not expect too much till he started playing junior state-level cricket.’ says Vikas. ‘He always woke up early, prepared thoroughly for matches, and never missed practice sessions. At times, our mother used to tell him to skip a practice session or two, but he showed the kind of self-discipline I didn’t think someone of his age could ever show,’ he adds. Seeing Kohli on the prowl on the field or while batting during his international career, one could presume that he had always been an out-and-out natural cricketer, especially when it came to fielding. But this was not so and Coach Sharma believes it was Kohli’s dedication and hard work, more than flair, that ensured he improved with each season. ‘Kohli worked really hard on his fielding as he understood its importance early on. He was always willing to come in early for practice and slog out more than others, even at a young age,’ remembers Sharma. Kohli showed signs of being a good captain even when he was a young boy. ‘He used to lead our academy sides with confidence and had the killer instinct needed to win games for the team. Confidence was not a problem with him, in fact, he was over-confident at times. For example, if the team needed wickets desperately, he would start bowling “seam-up” himself, while neglecting the main bowlers of the side. Things like that needed to be curbed, but he was always a good listener and willing learner,’ remembers Sharma.

Q. Which of the following is/are the primary reason(s) for Kohli’s success as an all-round cricketer, according to Sharma?

I. Natural talent

II. Hard work and dedication

III. Confidence and killer-instinct

"What's the hardest part of writing?" I suggest four words on the board: "madman," "architect," "carpenter," "judge."

'Madman ' is full of ideas, writes crazily and perhaps rather sloppily, gets carried away by enthusiasm or anger, and if really let loose, could turn out ten pages an hour.

The second is a kind of critical energy-what I'll call the 'judge.' He's been educated and knows a sentence fragment when he sees one. He peers over your shoulder and says, 'That's trash!' with such authority that the madman loses his crazy confidence and shrivels up. You know the judge is right-after all, he speaks with the voice of your most imperious English teacher. But for all his sharpness of eye, he can't create anything.

"Every time your madman starts to write, your judge pounces on him".

Whatever joy there is in the writing process can come only when the energies are flowing freely-when you're not stuck.

And the trick to not getting stuck involves separating the energies. If you let the judge with his intimidating carping come too close to the madman and his playful, creative energies, the ideas which form the basis for your writing will never have a chance to surface. But you can't simply throw out the judge. The subjective personal outpourings of your madman must be balanced by the objective, impersonal vision of the educated critic within you. Writing is not just self-expression; it is communication as well.

So start by promising your judge that you'll get around to asking his opinion, but not now. And then let the madman energy flow. Find what interests you in the topic, the question or emotion that it raises in you, and respond as you might to a friend-or an enemy.

Next, ask your 'architect' to enter. She will read the wild scribblings and pick out maybe a tenth of the jottings as relevant or interesting. (You can see immediately that the architect is not sentimental about what the madman wrote; she is not going to save every crumb for posterity.) Her job is simply to select large chunks of material and to arrange them in a pattern that might form an argument. The thinking here is large, organizational, paragraph level thinking-the architect doesn't worry about sentence structure.

No, the sentence structure is left for the 'carpenter' who enters after the essay has been hewn into large chunks of related ideas. The carpenter nails these ideas together in a logical sequence, making sure each sentence is clearly written, contributes to the argument of the paragraph, and leads logically and gracefully to the next sentence. When the carpenter finishes, the essay should be smooth and watertight.

Q. What is ‘Madman’ according to the above passage?

"What's the hardest part of writing?" I suggest four words on the board: "madman," "architect," "carpenter," "judge."

'Madman ' is full of ideas, writes crazily and perhaps rather sloppily, gets carried away by enthusiasm or anger, and if really let loose, could turn out ten pages an hour.

The second is a kind of critical energy-what I'll call the 'judge.' He's been educated and knows a sentence fragment when he sees one. He peers over your shoulder and says, 'That's trash!' with such authority that the madman loses his crazy confidence and shrivels up. You know the judge is right-after all, he speaks with the voice of your most imperious English teacher. But for all his sharpness of eye, he can't create anything.

"Every time your madman starts to write, your judge pounces on him".

Whatever joy there is in the writing process can come only when the energies are flowing freely-when you're not stuck.

And the trick to not getting stuck involves separating the energies. If you let the judge with his intimidating carping come too close to the madman and his playful, creative energies, the ideas which form the basis for your writing will never have a chance to surface. But you can't simply throw out the judge. The subjective personal outpourings of your madman must be balanced by the objective, impersonal vision of the educated critic within you. Writing is not just self-expression; it is communication as well.

So start by promising your judge that you'll get around to asking his opinion, but not now. And then let the madman energy flow. Find what interests you in the topic, the question or emotion that it raises in you, and respond as you might to a friend-or an enemy.

Next, ask your 'architect' to enter. She will read the wild scribblings and pick out maybe a tenth of the jottings as relevant or interesting. (You can see immediately that the architect is not sentimental about what the madman wrote; she is not going to save every crumb for posterity.) Her job is simply to select large chunks of material and to arrange them in a pattern that might form an argument. The thinking here is large, organizational, paragraph level thinking-the architect doesn't worry about sentence structure.

No, the sentence structure is left for the 'carpenter' who enters after the essay has been hewn into large chunks of related ideas. The carpenter nails these ideas together in a logical sequence, making sure each sentence is clearly written, contributes to the argument of the paragraph, and leads logically and gracefully to the next sentence. When the carpenter finishes, the essay should be smooth and watertight.

Q. How has the author explained the word “Judge” in the above passage?

"What's the hardest part of writing?" I suggest four words on the board: "madman," "architect," "carpenter," "judge."

'Madman ' is full of ideas, writes crazily and perhaps rather sloppily, gets carried away by enthusiasm or anger, and if really let loose, could turn out ten pages an hour.

The second is a kind of critical energy-what I'll call the 'judge.' He's been educated and knows a sentence fragment when he sees one. He peers over your shoulder and says, 'That's trash!' with such authority that the madman loses his crazy confidence and shrivels up. You know the judge is right-after all, he speaks with the voice of your most imperious English teacher. But for all his sharpness of eye, he can't create anything.

"Every time your madman starts to write, your judge pounces on him".

Whatever joy there is in the writing process can come only when the energies are flowing freely-when you're not stuck.

And the trick to not getting stuck involves separating the energies. If you let the judge with his intimidating carping come too close to the madman and his playful, creative energies, the ideas which form the basis for your writing will never have a chance to surface. But you can't simply throw out the judge. The subjective personal outpourings of your madman must be balanced by the objective, impersonal vision of the educated critic within you. Writing is not just self-expression; it is communication as well.

So start by promising your judge that you'll get around to asking his opinion, but not now. And then let the madman energy flow. Find what interests you in the topic, the question or emotion that it raises in you, and respond as you might to a friend-or an enemy.

Next, ask your 'architect' to enter. She will read the wild scribblings and pick out maybe a tenth of the jottings as relevant or interesting. (You can see immediately that the architect is not sentimental about what the madman wrote; she is not going to save every crumb for posterity.) Her job is simply to select large chunks of material and to arrange them in a pattern that might form an argument. The thinking here is large, organizational, paragraph level thinking-the architect doesn't worry about sentence structure.

No, the sentence structure is left for the 'carpenter' who enters after the essay has been hewn into large chunks of related ideas. The carpenter nails these ideas together in a logical sequence, making sure each sentence is clearly written, contributes to the argument of the paragraph, and leads logically and gracefully to the next sentence. When the carpenter finishes, the essay should be smooth and watertight.

Q. What is ‘Architect’’ according to the above passage?

"What's the hardest part of writing?" I suggest four words on the board: "madman," "architect," "carpenter," "judge."

'Madman ' is full of ideas, writes crazily and perhaps rather sloppily, gets carried away by enthusiasm or anger, and if really let loose, could turn out ten pages an hour.

The second is a kind of critical energy-what I'll call the 'judge.' He's been educated and knows a sentence fragment when he sees one. He peers over your shoulder and says, 'That's trash!' with such authority that the madman loses his crazy confidence and shrivels up. You know the judge is right-after all, he speaks with the voice of your most imperious English teacher. But for all his sharpness of eye, he can't create anything.

"Every time your madman starts to write, your judge pounces on him".

Whatever joy there is in the writing process can come only when the energies are flowing freely-when you're not stuck.

And the trick to not getting stuck involves separating the energies. If you let the judge with his intimidating carping come too close to the madman and his playful, creative energies, the ideas which form the basis for your writing will never have a chance to surface. But you can't simply throw out the judge. The subjective personal outpourings of your madman must be balanced by the objective, impersonal vision of the educated critic within you. Writing is not just self-expression; it is communication as well.

So start by promising your judge that you'll get around to asking his opinion, but not now. And then let the madman energy flow. Find what interests you in the topic, the question or emotion that it raises in you, and respond as you might to a friend-or an enemy.

Next, ask your 'architect' to enter. She will read the wild scribblings and pick out maybe a tenth of the jottings as relevant or interesting. (You can see immediately that the architect is not sentimental about what the madman wrote; she is not going to save every crumb for posterity.) Her job is simply to select large chunks of material and to arrange them in a pattern that might form an argument. The thinking here is large, organizational, paragraph level thinking-the architect doesn't worry about sentence structure.

No, the sentence structure is left for the 'carpenter' who enters after the essay has been hewn into large chunks of related ideas. The carpenter nails these ideas together in a logical sequence, making sure each sentence is clearly written, contributes to the argument of the paragraph, and leads logically and gracefully to the next sentence. When the carpenter finishes, the essay should be smooth and watertight.

Q. What is ‘Carpenter’ according to the above passage?

"What's the hardest part of writing?" I suggest four words on the board: "madman," "architect," "carpenter," "judge."

'Madman ' is full of ideas, writes crazily and perhaps rather sloppily, gets carried away by enthusiasm or anger, and if really let loose, could turn out ten pages an hour.

The second is a kind of critical energy-what I'll call the 'judge.' He's been educated and knows a sentence fragment when he sees one. He peers over your shoulder and says, 'That's trash!' with such authority that the madman loses his crazy confidence and shrivels up. You know the judge is right-after all, he speaks with the voice of your most imperious English teacher. But for all his sharpness of eye, he can't create anything.

"Every time your madman starts to write, your judge pounces on him".

Whatever joy there is in the writing process can come only when the energies are flowing freely-when you're not stuck.

And the trick to not getting stuck involves separating the energies. If you let the judge with his intimidating carping come too close to the madman and his playful, creative energies, the ideas which form the basis for your writing will never have a chance to surface. But you can't simply throw out the judge. The subjective personal outpourings of your madman must be balanced by the objective, impersonal vision of the educated critic within you. Writing is not just self-expression; it is communication as well.

So start by promising your judge that you'll get around to asking his opinion, but not now. And then let the madman energy flow. Find what interests you in the topic, the question or emotion that it raises in you, and respond as you might to a friend-or an enemy.

Next, ask your 'architect' to enter. She will read the wild scribblings and pick out maybe a tenth of the jottings as relevant or interesting. (You can see immediately that the architect is not sentimental about what the madman wrote; she is not going to save every crumb for posterity.) Her job is simply to select large chunks of material and to arrange them in a pattern that might form an argument. The thinking here is large, organizational, paragraph level thinking-the architect doesn't worry about sentence structure.

No, the sentence structure is left for the 'carpenter' who enters after the essay has been hewn into large chunks of related ideas. The carpenter nails these ideas together in a logical sequence, making sure each sentence is clearly written, contributes to the argument of the paragraph, and leads logically and gracefully to the next sentence. When the carpenter finishes, the essay should be smooth and watertight.

Q. What is the trick of writing as per the author in the above passage?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following explains the tone of the author?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following could be the title to the passage?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following could be said to be the importance of the agreement between ECB and BCCI?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following has been the underlying reason for shifting the venue for the Indian Premier League?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following is true on the basis of the passage?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following reasons could be impediment in holding the India-England Cricket Series?

In the first week of the IPL, it is the stories around the tournament that might turn out to be more significant than the accounts of matches lost and won. As the number of COVID-19 cases in India keeps rising, cricket will have to look beyond the boundary if television is to survive. Hence the importance of the agreement between the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB) to “boost cricketing ties.

We know about the agreement, thanks to a tweet from the BCCI secretary Jay Shah. The BCCI probably thinks what is good enough for President Trump is good enough for its office-bearers – social media news-dispensation. This probably means India is looking to the UAE to help honour their international commitments. In January-March next year, India is scheduled to play England at home. Is this series being shifted to the UAE? India is reluctant to give up the home advantage but that could change. These are early days yet.

If the BCCI has worked out an understanding, then it must be commended for foresight and keenness to avoid last-minute confusion. This is, of course, assuming that things don’t get worse in either country, and the tour goes ahead. The same applies if the “boosting” means UAE might host next year’s IPL too. At the time of writing, India has nearly 56 lakh cases and 89 thousand deaths.

The UAE has 85 thousand cases and 405 deaths. As the IPL progresses, both cricket boards will learn how well the bio-secure system in the UAE has worked. There is no need to rush to a decision on either England's tour or the IPL, but it is not a bad idea while hoping for the best to prepare for the worst. In times of uncertainty, beacons of possibility are comforting. The UAE – for a decade Pakistan’s ‘home’ ground, and later for a while Afghanistan’s too – thus emerges as the cricket world’s favourite substitute venue, now including India’s. Twice now India has taken the IPL there, earlier in 2014 owing to the general elections.

Another significant take-away from the current tournament is the sense that large stadiums exclusively for cricket might soon be a thing of the past. For one, packed houses can no longer be guaranteed. And for another, telecast of matches, with ambient crowd noises in empty stadiums has shown that auricular illusions are possible. It needs fine tuning but there is promise.

Technology is already telling us if a batsman is in or out when there is an appeal for a run-out; technology is also telling us that it doesn’t matter if the audiences are in or out, it is the sound they might have made that lends texture to a telecast.

Q. Which of the following has been made possible by the use of technology in the game?

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.

For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.

Q. What could be an appropriate title to the given passage?

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.

For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.

Q. Which of the following defines the word “pyrrhic”?

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.

For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.

Q. According to the passage, for how long has Vodafone been stuck in this taxation matter, considering the author penned down the piece in September 2020?

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.

For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.

Q. Which of the following would have probably reduced the span of time for which the case has been dragged?

1. Prospective application of amended law in the tax regime, instead of retrospective application of law.

2. The deal between Hutch and Vodafone would have taken place with permission of the government.

3. Payment of Gross Revenue Dues by Vodafone.

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.

For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.

Q. Which of the following is making it difficult for the Vodafone to sustain in the market?

Vodafone Group Plc has won yet another round in its 13-year-long battle with India’s tax authorities. On Friday, an international arbitration tribunal ruled that the Indian government’s efforts to claim more than ₹20,000 crore in tax (including related interest and penalties) from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in clear breach of the ‘fair and equitable treatment’ protections afforded under Article 4(1) of the Bilateral Investment Treaty between India and the Netherlands. The ruling upholding the British multinational’s stand ought to end India’s protracted and often perverse pursuit of what at the very outset was a highly contentious claim. The dispute began in September 2007 when tax authorities served a demand on Vodafone International Holdings BV for tax that it said Vodafone’s Dutch unit ought to have withheld while acquiring the controlling stake in the erstwhile Hutchison Essar Ltd. from Hutchison Telecommunications International Ltd. Since the stake purchase transaction took place outside India between two overseas entities, Vodafone was emphatic from the start that it was not liable for any tax relating to the deal. Following a setback at the Bombay High Court, Vodafone presented its position to the Supreme Court, which ruled in its favour in 2012. In a move, fraught with implications for all its international investment treaties, the government of the day, however, amended the tax legislation to give retrospective effect to its claims. This was the trigger for the U.K.-based company to seek arbitral recourse.

For Vodafone, the legal win is at best a pyrrhic victory. After having spent about $11 billion in 2007 for acquiring the 67% stake in Hutchison Essar, the telecom services provider has struggled with challenges that forced it, in November 2019, to write down the book value of its Indian holdings to zero. While the Indian operation has gained size and market share including through its merger with the erstwhile Idea Cellular — from, respectively, 44 million subscribers in 2007 to 305 million users, and 26.7% at the end of June — there have been continued losses in the face of intense competition and unviable tariffs. Add to the mix the substantial sum of money it owes the government in the form of adjusted gross revenue dues and the future fund requirements of a rapidly technologically evolving and highly capital intensive industry, Vodafone’s wariness to commit more equity to the Indian venture becomes understandable. The government must not seek to litigate the matter any further. The cost of doing otherwise will surely be bruisingly high, especially at a time when Prime Minister Narenda Modi spares no opportunity to woo foreign investment. Any failure to learn a salutary lesson from this loss would only serve to undermine overseas investors’ faith in India’s commitment to international treaties and the rule of law.

Q. Which of the following is true regarding the tones used by the author in the passage?