IIFT Mock Test - 3 (New Pattern) - CAT MCQ

Pick the odd one out.

Select the option that is grammatically correct.

For the underlined part of the given sentence, choose the option that is grammatically, effective and reduces ambiguity and redundancy.

Although Mahatama Gandhi advocated non-violence during his lifetime, yet his death is considered ironical.

The opening and closing parts of a sentence are given. Rearrange the phrases to form a coherent sentence.

1. I think that what we're seeking is-

i. within our own innermost being and reality,

ii. so that we actually feel,

iii. an experience of being alive,

iv. so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane,

v. will have resonances,

7. the rapture of being alive.

Select the pair of words which is analogous to the given pair.

Lucid : clear

Which of the following words is correctly spelled?

Read the following sets of four sentences and arrange them in the most logical sequence to form a meaningful and coherent paragraph.

(A) I felt nervous till I had an opportunity of thoroughly overhauling my documents.

(B) I found myself in London punctual to the intended hour of my arrival.

(C) The bag had been opened by the Custom House officials, but the words 'private papers' had sufficed to prevent any further examination; and to my unspeakable delight they were intact.

(D) At once I drove to the lodgings in a small street off the Strand which I was accustomed to frequent in such circumstances.

Choose the option that correctly states the language of origin of the word mentioned in the question.

Kindergarten

Fill in the blanks with the idiom or word that completes the sentence correctly.

The protesters have to keep their ______ on if they want to get the solution from the company.

Pick the odd one out.

Read the following sets of four sentences and arrange them in the most logical sequence to form a meaningful and coherent paragraph.

(A) Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the mind.

(B) All sorts of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted.

(C) Many have tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short of the target.

(D) There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain.

Which of the following words is spelled correctly?

Select the pair of words which is analogous to the given pair.

Chaotic : Placid

The opening and closing parts of a sentence are given. Rearrange the phrases to form a coherent sentence.

1. Differences in-

i. currents under the mid-ocean ridges and sinking currents,

ii. and continents are sufficient to produce convection in,

iii. the mantle of the earth with rising convection,

iv. temperature under oceans,

6. under the continents.

For the underlined part of the given sentence, choose the option that is grammatically, effective and reduces ambiguity and redundancy.

The road conditions in New Zealand, unlike any country, are much better and aid transportation industry to flourish.

Select the option that is grammatically correct.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

Let's call it the $7.5 billion lesson.

That's the amount Microsoft wrote off on Nokia's phone unit, which it bought a little over a year ago for what it said was $9.5 billion. Considering that the deal included $1.5 billion in cash, the write-off means Microsoft now values a business that once controlled 41 percent of the global handset market at just a small fraction of the purchase price.

Thanks in large part to the huge accounting charge, Microsoft reported its largest quarterly loss ever last week ($3.2 billion). It was only the third loss in its history as a public company.

"If you were talking about any other industry, this would be considered a catastrophe that's the equivalent to a natural disaster," said Horace Dediu, who spent eight years at Nokia during its heyday and is now at the San Francisco research firm Clayton Christensen Institute, which studies disruptive technologies.

This being the technology business, Microsoft's still relatively new chief executive, Satya Nadella, gets credit for swiftly confronting reality and taking the hit to earnings. This may have been easier given that Mr. Nadella opposed the proposed deal in an initial poll of top Microsoft officials. But Steven A. Ballmer, his predecessor, was determined to push the deal through as a capstone to his long tenure as chief executive. Even after the deal was revised, and Mr. Nadella issued a public statement supporting it, two directors voted against it. Both have since left the board.

Satya Nadella, Microsoft's chief, was quick to unwind the company's Nokia deal. Microsoft's spokesman, Frank X. Shaw, said it was normal for there to be internal debate over major acquisitions. Still, it's rare for there to be open board dissent once final terms of a deal have been struck.

Microsoft is also in good company. Google abandoned its foray into smart-phones when it sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo last year. But it has written off just $378 million related to the $12.5 billion Motorola acquisition. Amazon wrote off an even more modest $170 million last October, acknowledging that its Fire phone was a flop.

"We try to learn from everything we do as we launch new opportunities," said Amazon's chief financial officer at the time, Thomas J. Szkutak, invoking the positive "learning" spin that technology companies typically put on failed ventures.

But far more was at stake for Microsoft than for Google or Amazon, since the main point of the Nokia deal was to support Microsoft's Windows operating system, which, in turn, was a crucial element in Microsoft's "mobile first" strategy. Now both handset operating systems and hardware are pretty much global duopolies, with Google and Apple dominating software and Samsung and Apple dominating hardware. Microsoft has jettisoned the strategy.

Microsoft's "grand scheme was to have a single platform that ran on PCs, laptops, tablets and phones, and to be able to sell applications that run Windows," said Nicholas Economides, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who specializes in network economics and electronic commerce. "That failed."

Mr. Dediu said it was hard to put all the blame on Microsoft, since so many others had met a similar fate. "Most people didn't believe that such a catastrophe could occur this fast," he said. Microsoft "just couldn't imagine that a company that was once as strong and dominant as Nokia could have virtually no value."

He compared the swift rise of Apple and the withering fortunes of Nokia, BlackBerry and other once-thriving manufacturers to the arrival of an infectious virus. "We tend to think the strong will survive," Mr. Dediu said. "But a virus is a very small thing that kills big things."

He continued: "It's easy to say Microsoft was foolish and blame the chief executive. But when it happens to everyone, it's an extinction event. A whole bunch of companies were disrupted. And it happened in the blink of an eye."

Even so, as lessons go, $7.5 billion is pretty steep tuition. When I asked Microsoft what it had gotten for its money, its spokesman, Mr. Shaw, agreed that the speed of the changes in the industry had taken the company by surprise. "Everything always looks different with the benefit of hindsight," he said

Q. What can be inferred about damage the write-off caused Microsoft?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

Let's call it the $7.5 billion lesson.

That's the amount Microsoft wrote off on Nokia's phone unit, which it bought a little over a year ago for what it said was $9.5 billion. Considering that the deal included $1.5 billion in cash, the write-off means Microsoft now values a business that once controlled 41 percent of the global handset market at just a small fraction of the purchase price.

Thanks in large part to the huge accounting charge, Microsoft reported its largest quarterly loss ever last week ($3.2 billion). It was only the third loss in its history as a public company.

"If you were talking about any other industry, this would be considered a catastrophe that's the equivalent to a natural disaster," said Horace Dediu, who spent eight years at Nokia during its heyday and is now at the San Francisco research firm Clayton Christensen Institute, which studies disruptive technologies.

This being the technology business, Microsoft's still relatively new chief executive, Satya Nadella, gets credit for swiftly confronting reality and taking the hit to earnings. This may have been easier given that Mr. Nadella opposed the proposed deal in an initial poll of top Microsoft officials. But Steven A. Ballmer, his predecessor, was determined to push the deal through as a capstone to his long tenure as chief executive. Even after the deal was revised, and Mr. Nadella issued a public statement supporting it, two directors voted against it. Both have since left the board.

Satya Nadella, Microsoft's chief, was quick to unwind the company's Nokia deal. Microsoft's spokesman, Frank X. Shaw, said it was normal for there to be internal debate over major acquisitions. Still, it's rare for there to be open board dissent once final terms of a deal have been struck.

Microsoft is also in good company. Google abandoned its foray into smart-phones when it sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo last year. But it has written off just $378 million related to the $12.5 billion Motorola acquisition. Amazon wrote off an even more modest $170 million last October, acknowledging that its Fire phone was a flop.

"We try to learn from everything we do as we launch new opportunities," said Amazon's chief financial officer at the time, Thomas J. Szkutak, invoking the positive "learning" spin that technology companies typically put on failed ventures.

But far more was at stake for Microsoft than for Google or Amazon, since the main point of the Nokia deal was to support Microsoft's Windows operating system, which, in turn, was a crucial element in Microsoft's "mobile first" strategy. Now both handset operating systems and hardware are pretty much global duopolies, with Google and Apple dominating software and Samsung and Apple dominating hardware. Microsoft has jettisoned the strategy.

Microsoft's "grand scheme was to have a single platform that ran on PCs, laptops, tablets and phones, and to be able to sell applications that run Windows," said Nicholas Economides, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who specializes in network economics and electronic commerce. "That failed."

Mr. Dediu said it was hard to put all the blame on Microsoft, since so many others had met a similar fate. "Most people didn't believe that such a catastrophe could occur this fast," he said. Microsoft "just couldn't imagine that a company that was once as strong and dominant as Nokia could have virtually no value."

He compared the swift rise of Apple and the withering fortunes of Nokia, BlackBerry and other once-thriving manufacturers to the arrival of an infectious virus. "We tend to think the strong will survive," Mr. Dediu said. "But a virus is a very small thing that kills big things."

He continued: "It's easy to say Microsoft was foolish and blame the chief executive. But when it happens to everyone, it's an extinction event. A whole bunch of companies were disrupted. And it happened in the blink of an eye."

Even so, as lessons go, $7.5 billion is pretty steep tuition. When I asked Microsoft what it had gotten for its money, its spokesman, Mr. Shaw, agreed that the speed of the changes in the industry had taken the company by surprise. "Everything always looks different with the benefit of hindsight," he said

Q. What reasons are given for Microsoft to acquire Nokia?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

Let's call it the $7.5 billion lesson.

That's the amount Microsoft wrote off on Nokia's phone unit, which it bought a little over a year ago for what it said was $9.5 billion. Considering that the deal included $1.5 billion in cash, the write-off means Microsoft now values a business that once controlled 41 percent of the global handset market at just a small fraction of the purchase price.

Thanks in large part to the huge accounting charge, Microsoft reported its largest quarterly loss ever last week ($3.2 billion). It was only the third loss in its history as a public company.

"If you were talking about any other industry, this would be considered a catastrophe that's the equivalent to a natural disaster," said Horace Dediu, who spent eight years at Nokia during its heyday and is now at the San Francisco research firm Clayton Christensen Institute, which studies disruptive technologies.

This being the technology business, Microsoft's still relatively new chief executive, Satya Nadella, gets credit for swiftly confronting reality and taking the hit to earnings. This may have been easier given that Mr. Nadella opposed the proposed deal in an initial poll of top Microsoft officials. But Steven A. Ballmer, his predecessor, was determined to push the deal through as a capstone to his long tenure as chief executive. Even after the deal was revised, and Mr. Nadella issued a public statement supporting it, two directors voted against it. Both have since left the board.

Satya Nadella, Microsoft's chief, was quick to unwind the company's Nokia deal. Microsoft's spokesman, Frank X. Shaw, said it was normal for there to be internal debate over major acquisitions. Still, it's rare for there to be open board dissent once final terms of a deal have been struck.

Microsoft is also in good company. Google abandoned its foray into smart-phones when it sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo last year. But it has written off just $378 million related to the $12.5 billion Motorola acquisition. Amazon wrote off an even more modest $170 million last October, acknowledging that its Fire phone was a flop.

"We try to learn from everything we do as we launch new opportunities," said Amazon's chief financial officer at the time, Thomas J. Szkutak, invoking the positive "learning" spin that technology companies typically put on failed ventures.

But far more was at stake for Microsoft than for Google or Amazon, since the main point of the Nokia deal was to support Microsoft's Windows operating system, which, in turn, was a crucial element in Microsoft's "mobile first" strategy. Now both handset operating systems and hardware are pretty much global duopolies, with Google and Apple dominating software and Samsung and Apple dominating hardware. Microsoft has jettisoned the strategy.

Microsoft's "grand scheme was to have a single platform that ran on PCs, laptops, tablets and phones, and to be able to sell applications that run Windows," said Nicholas Economides, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who specializes in network economics and electronic commerce. "That failed."

Mr. Dediu said it was hard to put all the blame on Microsoft, since so many others had met a similar fate. "Most people didn't believe that such a catastrophe could occur this fast," he said. Microsoft "just couldn't imagine that a company that was once as strong and dominant as Nokia could have virtually no value."

He compared the swift rise of Apple and the withering fortunes of Nokia, BlackBerry and other once-thriving manufacturers to the arrival of an infectious virus. "We tend to think the strong will survive," Mr. Dediu said. "But a virus is a very small thing that kills big things."

He continued: "It's easy to say Microsoft was foolish and blame the chief executive. But when it happens to everyone, it's an extinction event. A whole bunch of companies were disrupted. And it happened in the blink of an eye."

Even so, as lessons go, $7.5 billion is pretty steep tuition. When I asked Microsoft what it had gotten for its money, its spokesman, Mr. Shaw, agreed that the speed of the changes in the industry had taken the company by surprise. "Everything always looks different with the benefit of hindsight," he said

Q. Why does the author start the passage with the line "let's call.."?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

Let's call it the $7.5 billion lesson.

That's the amount Microsoft wrote off on Nokia's phone unit, which it bought a little over a year ago for what it said was $9.5 billion. Considering that the deal included $1.5 billion in cash, the write-off means Microsoft now values a business that once controlled 41 percent of the global handset market at just a small fraction of the purchase price.

Thanks in large part to the huge accounting charge, Microsoft reported its largest quarterly loss ever last week ($3.2 billion). It was only the third loss in its history as a public company.

"If you were talking about any other industry, this would be considered a catastrophe that's the equivalent to a natural disaster," said Horace Dediu, who spent eight years at Nokia during its heyday and is now at the San Francisco research firm Clayton Christensen Institute, which studies disruptive technologies.

This being the technology business, Microsoft's still relatively new chief executive, Satya Nadella, gets credit for swiftly confronting reality and taking the hit to earnings. This may have been easier given that Mr. Nadella opposed the proposed deal in an initial poll of top Microsoft officials. But Steven A. Ballmer, his predecessor, was determined to push the deal through as a capstone to his long tenure as chief executive. Even after the deal was revised, and Mr. Nadella issued a public statement supporting it, two directors voted against it. Both have since left the board.

Satya Nadella, Microsoft's chief, was quick to unwind the company's Nokia deal. Microsoft's spokesman, Frank X. Shaw, said it was normal for there to be internal debate over major acquisitions. Still, it's rare for there to be open board dissent once final terms of a deal have been struck.

Microsoft is also in good company. Google abandoned its foray into smart-phones when it sold Motorola Mobility to Lenovo last year. But it has written off just $378 million related to the $12.5 billion Motorola acquisition. Amazon wrote off an even more modest $170 million last October, acknowledging that its Fire phone was a flop.

"We try to learn from everything we do as we launch new opportunities," said Amazon's chief financial officer at the time, Thomas J. Szkutak, invoking the positive "learning" spin that technology companies typically put on failed ventures.

But far more was at stake for Microsoft than for Google or Amazon, since the main point of the Nokia deal was to support Microsoft's Windows operating system, which, in turn, was a crucial element in Microsoft's "mobile first" strategy. Now both handset operating systems and hardware are pretty much global duopolies, with Google and Apple dominating software and Samsung and Apple dominating hardware. Microsoft has jettisoned the strategy.

Microsoft's "grand scheme was to have a single platform that ran on PCs, laptops, tablets and phones, and to be able to sell applications that run Windows," said Nicholas Economides, an economics professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who specializes in network economics and electronic commerce. "That failed."

Mr. Dediu said it was hard to put all the blame on Microsoft, since so many others had met a similar fate. "Most people didn't believe that such a catastrophe could occur this fast," he said. Microsoft "just couldn't imagine that a company that was once as strong and dominant as Nokia could have virtually no value."

He compared the swift rise of Apple and the withering fortunes of Nokia, BlackBerry and other once-thriving manufacturers to the arrival of an infectious virus. "We tend to think the strong will survive," Mr. Dediu said. "But a virus is a very small thing that kills big things."

He continued: "It's easy to say Microsoft was foolish and blame the chief executive. But when it happens to everyone, it's an extinction event. A whole bunch of companies were disrupted. And it happened in the blink of an eye."

Even so, as lessons go, $7.5 billion is pretty steep tuition. When I asked Microsoft what it had gotten for its money, its spokesman, Mr. Shaw, agreed that the speed of the changes in the industry had taken the company by surprise. "Everything always looks different with the benefit of hindsight," he said

Q. Which of the following is true?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.

If the case proceeded, Switzerland's largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement - an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

From that point on, UBS's engagement with the Clinton family's charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House. There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the case and the bank's donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons' private and political activities overlap.

UBS is just one of a series of companies that engaged with both the Clinton family's charitable organization and the State Department under Mrs. Clinton. And it is an unusual one: Unlike cases in which Mrs. Clinton went to bat for American companies seeking business abroad, such as General Electric Co. and Boeing Co., the UBS matter involved her helping solve a problem for a foreign bank - not a popular constituency among Democrats - and stepping into an area where government prosecutors had been taking the lead.

The flood of donations and speech income that followed exemplifies why the charity and its fund raising have been a running problem for the presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Republicans as well as some Democrats have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

"They've engaged in behavior to make people wonder: What was this about?" says Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is a Democrat. "Was there something other than deciding the merits of these cases?"

Critics also have hit the charity for accepting donations from foreign governments, which they say could pose problems for her if she is elected, potentially opening her to criticism that she is obligated to foreign donors.

The Clintons have said accepting donations posed no conflicts of interest and broke no rule or law. To address the criticism, the Clinton Foundation decided to release donation information more frequently, and the foundation said earlier this year that the first disclosure is expected by the end of July.

UBS officials deny any connection between the legal case and the foundation donations. "Any insinuation that any of our philanthropic or business initiatives stems from support received from any current or former government official is ludicrous and without merit," a bank spokeswoman said. UBS said the speeches by Mr. Clinton and the donations were part of a program to respond to the 2008 economic downturn.

A Clinton campaign spokesman said Mrs. Clinton is proud of the foundation's work and her record as secretary of state. "Any suggestion that she was driven by anything but what's in America's best interest would be false. Period," he said. He referred questions about the UBS matter to the State Department.

A State Department spokesman said that "UBS was a topic of serious discussion, among other issues, in our bilateral relations at that time" with the Swiss government. A spokeswoman in the Swiss embassy in Washington said the government had no comment.

In a CNN interview last month, Bill Clinton was asked if any foundation donors ever sought anything from the State Department. "I don't know," he replied. "I know of no example. But I - you never know what people's motives are."

UBS's troubles began in 2007 when an American banker working in Switzerland told the U.S. Justice Department that UBS had recruited thousands of U.S. customers seeking to avoid U.S. taxes. The disclosure led UBS to enter into a deferred-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2009. The bank admitted to helping set up sham companies, creating phony paperwork and deceiving customs officials. It paid a $780 million fine and turned over the names of 250 account holders.

The agreement left unresolved a separate legal standoff over whether UBS - in response to a summons from the IRS - would turn over the names of U.S. citizens who owned 52,000 secret accounts estimated to be worth $18 billion. "We should get all the accounts," IRS Commissioner Dan Shulman maintained at a Senate hearing in 2009.

After a federal judge indicated he would rule quickly, UBS enlisted the Swiss government to approach the State Department.

Q. What was the result of Clinton's intervention in the UBS case?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.

If the case proceeded, Switzerland's largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement - an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

From that point on, UBS's engagement with the Clinton family's charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House. There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the case and the bank's donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons' private and political activities overlap.

UBS is just one of a series of companies that engaged with both the Clinton family's charitable organization and the State Department under Mrs. Clinton. And it is an unusual one: Unlike cases in which Mrs. Clinton went to bat for American companies seeking business abroad, such as General Electric Co. and Boeing Co., the UBS matter involved her helping solve a problem for a foreign bank - not a popular constituency among Democrats - and stepping into an area where government prosecutors had been taking the lead.

The flood of donations and speech income that followed exemplifies why the charity and its fund raising have been a running problem for the presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Republicans as well as some Democrats have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

"They've engaged in behavior to make people wonder: What was this about?" says Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is a Democrat. "Was there something other than deciding the merits of these cases?"

Critics also have hit the charity for accepting donations from foreign governments, which they say could pose problems for her if she is elected, potentially opening her to criticism that she is obligated to foreign donors.

The Clintons have said accepting donations posed no conflicts of interest and broke no rule or law. To address the criticism, the Clinton Foundation decided to release donation information more frequently, and the foundation said earlier this year that the first disclosure is expected by the end of July.

UBS officials deny any connection between the legal case and the foundation donations. "Any insinuation that any of our philanthropic or business initiatives stems from support received from any current or former government official is ludicrous and without merit," a bank spokeswoman said. UBS said the speeches by Mr. Clinton and the donations were part of a program to respond to the 2008 economic downturn.

A Clinton campaign spokesman said Mrs. Clinton is proud of the foundation's work and her record as secretary of state. "Any suggestion that she was driven by anything but what's in America's best interest would be false. Period," he said. He referred questions about the UBS matter to the State Department.

A State Department spokesman said that "UBS was a topic of serious discussion, among other issues, in our bilateral relations at that time" with the Swiss government. A spokeswoman in the Swiss embassy in Washington said the government had no comment.

In a CNN interview last month, Bill Clinton was asked if any foundation donors ever sought anything from the State Department. "I don't know," he replied. "I know of no example. But I - you never know what people's motives are."

UBS's troubles began in 2007 when an American banker working in Switzerland told the U.S. Justice Department that UBS had recruited thousands of U.S. customers seeking to avoid U.S. taxes. The disclosure led UBS to enter into a deferred-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2009. The bank admitted to helping set up sham companies, creating phony paperwork and deceiving customs officials. It paid a $780 million fine and turned over the names of 250 account holders.

The agreement left unresolved a separate legal standoff over whether UBS - in response to a summons from the IRS - would turn over the names of U.S. citizens who owned 52,000 secret accounts estimated to be worth $18 billion. "We should get all the accounts," IRS Commissioner Dan Shulman maintained at a Senate hearing in 2009.

After a federal judge indicated he would rule quickly, UBS enlisted the Swiss government to approach the State Department.

Q. What is true as per passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.

If the case proceeded, Switzerland's largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement - an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

From that point on, UBS's engagement with the Clinton family's charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House. There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the case and the bank's donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons' private and political activities overlap.

UBS is just one of a series of companies that engaged with both the Clinton family's charitable organization and the State Department under Mrs. Clinton. And it is an unusual one: Unlike cases in which Mrs. Clinton went to bat for American companies seeking business abroad, such as General Electric Co. and Boeing Co., the UBS matter involved her helping solve a problem for a foreign bank - not a popular constituency among Democrats - and stepping into an area where government prosecutors had been taking the lead.

The flood of donations and speech income that followed exemplifies why the charity and its fund raising have been a running problem for the presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Republicans as well as some Democrats have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

"They've engaged in behavior to make people wonder: What was this about?" says Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is a Democrat. "Was there something other than deciding the merits of these cases?"

Critics also have hit the charity for accepting donations from foreign governments, which they say could pose problems for her if she is elected, potentially opening her to criticism that she is obligated to foreign donors.

The Clintons have said accepting donations posed no conflicts of interest and broke no rule or law. To address the criticism, the Clinton Foundation decided to release donation information more frequently, and the foundation said earlier this year that the first disclosure is expected by the end of July.

UBS officials deny any connection between the legal case and the foundation donations. "Any insinuation that any of our philanthropic or business initiatives stems from support received from any current or former government official is ludicrous and without merit," a bank spokeswoman said. UBS said the speeches by Mr. Clinton and the donations were part of a program to respond to the 2008 economic downturn.

A Clinton campaign spokesman said Mrs. Clinton is proud of the foundation's work and her record as secretary of state. "Any suggestion that she was driven by anything but what's in America's best interest would be false. Period," he said. He referred questions about the UBS matter to the State Department.

A State Department spokesman said that "UBS was a topic of serious discussion, among other issues, in our bilateral relations at that time" with the Swiss government. A spokeswoman in the Swiss embassy in Washington said the government had no comment.

In a CNN interview last month, Bill Clinton was asked if any foundation donors ever sought anything from the State Department. "I don't know," he replied. "I know of no example. But I - you never know what people's motives are."

UBS's troubles began in 2007 when an American banker working in Switzerland told the U.S. Justice Department that UBS had recruited thousands of U.S. customers seeking to avoid U.S. taxes. The disclosure led UBS to enter into a deferred-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2009. The bank admitted to helping set up sham companies, creating phony paperwork and deceiving customs officials. It paid a $780 million fine and turned over the names of 250 account holders.

The agreement left unresolved a separate legal standoff over whether UBS - in response to a summons from the IRS - would turn over the names of U.S. citizens who owned 52,000 secret accounts estimated to be worth $18 billion. "We should get all the accounts," IRS Commissioner Dan Shulman maintained at a Senate hearing in 2009.

After a federal judge indicated he would rule quickly, UBS enlisted the Swiss government to approach the State Department.

Q. What is the main point made by the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given at the end.

A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts.

If the case proceeded, Switzerland's largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.

Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement - an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS, an outcome that drew criticism from some lawmakers who wanted a more extensive crackdown.

From that point on, UBS's engagement with the Clinton family's charitable organization increased. Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according the foundation and the bank.

The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House. There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the case and the bank's donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons' private and political activities overlap.

UBS is just one of a series of companies that engaged with both the Clinton family's charitable organization and the State Department under Mrs. Clinton. And it is an unusual one: Unlike cases in which Mrs. Clinton went to bat for American companies seeking business abroad, such as General Electric Co. and Boeing Co., the UBS matter involved her helping solve a problem for a foreign bank - not a popular constituency among Democrats - and stepping into an area where government prosecutors had been taking the lead.

The flood of donations and speech income that followed exemplifies why the charity and its fund raising have been a running problem for the presidential campaign of Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. Republicans as well as some Democrats have raised questions about potential conflicts of interest.

"They've engaged in behavior to make people wonder: What was this about?" says Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who is a Democrat. "Was there something other than deciding the merits of these cases?"

Critics also have hit the charity for accepting donations from foreign governments, which they say could pose problems for her if she is elected, potentially opening her to criticism that she is obligated to foreign donors.

The Clintons have said accepting donations posed no conflicts of interest and broke no rule or law. To address the criticism, the Clinton Foundation decided to release donation information more frequently, and the foundation said earlier this year that the first disclosure is expected by the end of July.

UBS officials deny any connection between the legal case and the foundation donations. "Any insinuation that any of our philanthropic or business initiatives stems from support received from any current or former government official is ludicrous and without merit," a bank spokeswoman said. UBS said the speeches by Mr. Clinton and the donations were part of a program to respond to the 2008 economic downturn.

A Clinton campaign spokesman said Mrs. Clinton is proud of the foundation's work and her record as secretary of state. "Any suggestion that she was driven by anything but what's in America's best interest would be false. Period," he said. He referred questions about the UBS matter to the State Department.

A State Department spokesman said that "UBS was a topic of serious discussion, among other issues, in our bilateral relations at that time" with the Swiss government. A spokeswoman in the Swiss embassy in Washington said the government had no comment.

In a CNN interview last month, Bill Clinton was asked if any foundation donors ever sought anything from the State Department. "I don't know," he replied. "I know of no example. But I - you never know what people's motives are."

UBS's troubles began in 2007 when an American banker working in Switzerland told the U.S. Justice Department that UBS had recruited thousands of U.S. customers seeking to avoid U.S. taxes. The disclosure led UBS to enter into a deferred-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2009. The bank admitted to helping set up sham companies, creating phony paperwork and deceiving customs officials. It paid a $780 million fine and turned over the names of 250 account holders.

The agreement left unresolved a separate legal standoff over whether UBS - in response to a summons from the IRS - would turn over the names of U.S. citizens who owned 52,000 secret accounts estimated to be worth $18 billion. "We should get all the accounts," IRS Commissioner Dan Shulman maintained at a Senate hearing in 2009.

After a federal judge indicated he would rule quickly, UBS enlisted the Swiss government to approach the State Department.

Q. Why did UBS's engagement with Clinton's Family increase?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question-

The 543 elected MPs will be elected from single-member constituencies using first-past-the-post voting. The President of India nominates an additional two members from the Anglo-Indian community if he believes the community is under-represented.

Eligible voters must be Indian citizens, 18 or older, an ordinary resident of the polling area of the constituency and possess a valid voter identification card issued by the Election Commission of India. Some people convicted of electoral or other offences are barred from voting.

Earlier there were speculations that the Modi Government might advance the 2019 general election to counter the anti-incumbency factor, however learning from its past blunder of preponing election made by the Vajpayee Government it decided to go into election as per the normal schedule which was announced by Election Commission of India (ECI) on 10 March 2019, after which Model Code of Conduct was applied with immediate effect.

Q. What can be inferred about the Saffron Revolution?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question-

The 543 elected MPs will be elected from single-member constituencies using first-past-the-post voting. The President of India nominates an additional two members from the Anglo-Indian community if he believes the community is under-represented.

Eligible voters must be Indian citizens, 18 or older, an ordinary resident of the polling area of the constituency and possess a valid voter identification card issued by the Election Commission of India. Some people convicted of electoral or other offences are barred from voting.

Earlier there were speculations that the Modi Government might advance the 2019 general election to counter the anti-incumbency factor, however learning from its past blunder of preponing election made by the Vajpayee Government it decided to go into election as per the normal schedule which was announced by Election Commission of India (ECI) on 10 March 2019, after which Model Code of Conduct was applied with immediate effect.

Q. Since when was the Model Code of Conduct applied with immediate effect?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question-

The 543 elected MPs will be elected from single-member constituencies using first-past-the-post voting. The President of India nominates an additional two members from the Anglo-Indian community if he believes the community is under-represented.

Eligible voters must be Indian citizens, 18 or older, an ordinary resident of the polling area of the constituency and possess a valid voter identification card issued by the Election Commission of India. Some people convicted of electoral or other offences are barred from voting.

Earlier there were speculations that the Modi Government might advance the 2019 general election to counter the anti-incumbency factor, however learning from its past blunder of preponing election made by the Vajpayee Government it decided to go into election as per the normal schedule which was announced by Election Commission of India (ECI) on 10 March 2019, after which Model Code of Conduct was applied with immediate effect.

Q. What can be inferred about Aung San Suu Kyi?