CLAT Test: Mock Test - 1 Free Online Test 2026

The mention of these sources underscores the idea that, even today, there are people who rely on human and analog sources of knowledge instead of the internet. This frames a broader contrast between traditional inquiry and modern digital access. Option (a) is inaccurate because the passage does not dismiss these older sources. Option (c) misreads the tone, which is warm, not critical. Option (d) is too narrow and not the author's primary intent. Hence (b).

The phrase “comforting fiction’" suggests that people once preferred to believe the Earth was static and eternal, and that this belief was psychologically reassuring. The revolution in geology disrupted this mental comfort. Option (a) wrongly suggests affirmation. Option (b) introduces a religious angle not explicitly addressed. Option (d) is irrelevant to the specific phrase. Hence (c).

The passage frames Tharp's seafloor maps as instrumental in overturning long-held geological assumptions and initiating the “Plate Tectonic Revolution.” Option (a) is incorrect because the theory was not widely accepted at the time. Option (b) understates her scientific significance. Option (d) is inaccurate as her work was in a completely different domain. Hence (c).

Option (c) is correct because the passage explains that “Section 7 penalized a public servant for accepting any undue gratification beyond lawful remuneration in connection with their official functions.” In this scenario, the fee of Rs. 3,457 is a statutory payment required by government regulation; thus, its acceptance does not exceed lawful remuneration. Option (a) is incorrect because it incorrectly treats all monetary receipts as undue, ignoring the statutory requirement. Option (b) is incorrect because the issue is not about misappropriation for personal gain but whether the payment itself was undue, and here it was lawful. Option (d) is incorrect because, it incorrectly notes that the fee was an inducement.

Option (b) is correct because the passage states that “before the 2018 amendment, merely offering a bribe without it being accepted did not constitute an offence.” The reasoning was that Section 7 PCA required proof of “acceptance of bribe or its demand” by the public official, and since there is no acceptance or demand of bribe, an offence under Section 7 could not be established. Consequently, the abetment charge under Section 12 PCA also failed. In this case, Inspector Vidhan Singh refused the bribe and made no demand; therefore, Vidit Kumar’s offer does not satisfy the elements needed to constitute an offence under the pre-2018 legal framework. Option (a) is incorrect because section 7 is an offence with respect to acceptance of bribeiy by public official.
Option (c) is incorrect because there is no evidence of any prior demand, and the offence cannot be established on mere implication. Option (d) is incorrect because the legal requirement is not that both demand and acceptance must occur. Further the question is with respect to section 12 and not section 7.

Option (a) is correct because the passage clarifies that the 2018 amendment introduced Section 8 PCA, which explicitly criminalizes any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to a public servant as an independent offence, separate from the abetment clause under Section 12, thereby making the mere offer of a bribe punishable regardless of whether it is accepted. In this complex scenario, Vidya Gupta’s covert offer of Rs. 100,000—even though Inspector Vidhan Singh refused it—is sufficient to establish the offence under Section 8 PCA. Option (b) is incorrect because it relies on the pre-2018 interpretation where acceptance was necessary, which is no longer applicable after the amendment. Option (c) is incorrect because Section 8 PCA does not require proof of influence on the tender process; the offence is complete on the offer alone. Option (d) is incorrect because, under the amended law, the requirement of acceptance or solicitation is expressly removed with respect to offence under section 8, thereby rendering the recorded offer itself sufficient for prosecution.

Option (c) is correct because the passage confirms that before the 2018 amendment, the act of offering a bribe was not expressly treated as an independent offence under the PCA; it was only punishable as an abetment offence under Section 12. However, the claim that courts uniformly interpreted Section 12 PCA to require acceptance of the bribe is false, as evidenced by conflicting judgments—while the Bombay High Court held that an unaccepted bribe did not constitute an offence, the Madras High Court ruled that merely offering a bribe was punishable.

According to the Bombay High Court’s interpretation in Kishor Khachand Wadhwani v. State of Maharashtra (2019), before the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) —

• The act of offering a bribe without its acceptance did not amount to an offence.

• Section 7 PCA penalized only a public servant’s demand or acceptance of undue gratification.

• Section 12 PCA punished abetment of such offences, but since abetment required the existence of a primary offence under Section 7, it could not stand independently if the bribe was merely offered and not accepted.

Option (c) cannot be inferred because the said legal standing was that of the Bombay High Court and not Madras High Court. Madras High Court, in Ghanshyam Aggarwal v. The State (2020), took an opposing view and ruled that merely offering a bribe, even if refused, was an offence under Section 12 PCA. Option (a) is incorrect because it can be inferred as through section 12 offering of bribe was considered offence by some state and accepting is an offence under section 7 and 11. Option (b) is incorrect because it can be inferred as only after the amendment, offering has been made a standalone offence under section 12. Option (d) is incorrect because it has been directly provided in the passage.

Option (a) is correct because the passage states that “vehicle producers have to meet annual mandatory EPR targets for scrapping ELVs, covering all transport and nontransport vehicles,” with the only exceptions being specific agricultural vehicles, and that the scrapping obligations apply based solely on age criteria (transport vehicles older than 15 years and non-transport vehicles older than 20 years). This means Vidit Automotives is obligated to include all eligible vehicles in its scrapping target without subjective exclusions. Option (b) is incorrect because the rules do not permit any exclusion based on assessments of environmental harm beyond the stated statutory exceptions. Option (c) is incorrect as the obligation clearly applies to both transport and non-transport vehicles, not just one category. Option (d) is incorrect because the rules mandate scrapping under the EPR scheme and do not provide an alternative compliance mechanism based on environmental measures.

Option (b) is correct because the passage explicitly requires that RVSFs must ensure that all recovered and segregated materials are sent only to registered recyclers, refurbishers, or co-processors, and that any non-recyclable or hazardous waste is disposed of at designated TSDFs. Further the passage provides that State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) oversee RVSFs and bulk consumers and SPCBs may inspect, audit, suspend, or cancel registrations for non-compliance. Therefore there can be sanction upon RVSF for non-complaince. Vidya Scrap Facility’s failure to fully depollute ELVs, its diversion of materials to an unregistered recycler, and the improper disposal of hazardous waste clearly breach these requirements. Option (a) is incorrect as voluntary remedial plans do not retroactively validate non-compliant practices. Option (c) is incorrect because the rules do not provide for a leniency threshold based on repeated violations; any significant breach can trigger sanctions. Option (d) is incorrect because subsequent registration of the recycler or temporary waste disposal does not excuse the initial non-compliance mandated by the rules.

Option (b) is correct. The passage reflects on the difficult nature of waiting but also identifies it as an opportunity to focus on the present moment. The author discusses how the pandemic has forced a reevaluation of waiting, leading to a deeper appreciation of the present despite the stresses and griefs it brings. Option (a) is incorrect because the author does not claim that waiting is universally positive; rather, it is acknowledged as challenging. Option (c) is incorrect as the passage criticizes, rather than praises, the commercialization of annihilating waiting. Option (d) is incorrect because the author does not advocate for the eradication of waiting; instead, they discuss learning from the experience of waiting during the pandemic. Hence (b).

Cost price of 20 t-shirts of brand A = Rs. 6,000
Cost price of 1 t-shirt of brand A = 6,000 ÷ 20 = Rs. 300
We know that he made 15% profit on selling 15 t-shirts of brand A and 12% profit on selling 5 t-shirts of the same brand.
Total profit made by the shopkeeper on selling 20 t-shirts of brand A = (15/100 × 300 × 15) + (12/100 × 300 × 5) = 675 + 180 = Rs. 855
Now, total profit made on selling t-shirts of brand B = 80% of 855 = Rs. 684
Profit made by selling t-shirts of brand B = 20%
Let total C.P of t-shirts of brand B = Rs. x
A.T.Q,
0.2x = 684
x = 684 ÷ 0.2 = Rs. 3,420
Total S.P of t-shirts of brand B = Rs. 3,420 + 684 = Rs. 4,104
Profit made by selling t-shirts of brand C = 9/4 × 684 = Rs. 1,539
Total S.P of t-shirts of brand C = 4104/4 × 5 = Rs. 5,130

Total C.P of t-shirts of brand C = Rs. 5,130 - 1,539 = Rs. 3,591

Required percentage = 

Let the number of defective green marbles be 3x and that of defective blue marbles be 5x.

We know that the number of non-defective blue marbles is 140% of the number of non-defective green marbles.
Therefore, ratio of the number of non-defective blue marbles to that of non-defective green marbles = 7 : 5
Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

91x + 1435 + 1025 + 25x = 4200
116x + 2460 = 4200
116x = 4200 – 2460
116x = 1740
x = 1740 ÷ 116
x = 15

Number of defective green marbles = 3x = 45

Number of defective blue marbles = 5x = 75

Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x
= 280

Number of non-defective green marbles = 
= 200

Required difference = 200 – 45
= 155
Hence, answer option 2 is correct.

Let the number of defective green marbles be 3x and that of defective blue marbles be 5x.

We know that the number of non-defective blue marbles is 140% of the number of non-defective green marbles.
Therefore, ratio of the number of non-defective blue marbles to that of non-defective green marbles = 7 : 5
Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

91x + 1435 + 1025 + 25x = 4200
116x + 2460 = 4200
116x = 4200 – 2460
116x = 1740
x = 1740 ÷ 116
x = 15

Number of defective green marbles = 3x = 45

Number of defective blue marbles = 5x = 75

Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x
= 280

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

= 200

Required ratio = 45 : 280
= 9 : 56
Hence, answer option 2 is correct.

Let the number of defective green marbles be 3x and that of defective blue marbles be 5x.

We know that the number of non-defective blue marbles is 140% of the number of non-defective green marbles.
Therefore, ratio of the number of non-defective blue marbles to that of non-defective green marbles = 7 : 5
Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

91x + 1435 + 1025 + 25x = 4200
116x + 2460 = 4200
116x = 4200 – 2460
116x = 1740
x = 1740 ÷ 116
x = 15

Number of defective green marbles = 3x = 45

Number of defective blue marbles = 5x = 75

Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x
= 280

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

= 200

Required percentage = 

Hence, answer option 2 is correct.

Let the number of defective green marbles be 3x and that of defective blue marbles be 5x.

We know that the number of non-defective blue marbles is 140% of the number of non-defective green marbles.
Therefore, ratio of the number of non-defective blue marbles to that of non-defective green marbles = 7 : 5
Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

91x + 1435 + 1025 + 25x = 4200
116x + 2460 = 4200
116x = 4200 – 2460
116x = 1740
x = 1740 ÷ 116
x = 15

Number of defective green marbles = 3x = 45

Number of defective blue marbles = 5x = 75

Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x
= 280

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

= 200

Required percentage == 12.5%
Hence, answer option 1 is correct.

Let the number of defective green marbles be 3x and that of defective blue marbles be 5x.

We know that the number of non-defective blue marbles is 140% of the number of non-defective green marbles.
Therefore, ratio of the number of non-defective blue marbles to that of non-defective green marbles = 7 : 5
Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

91x + 1435 + 1025 + 25x = 4200
116x + 2460 = 4200
116x = 4200 – 2460
116x = 1740
x = 1740 ÷ 116
x = 15

Number of defective green marbles = 3x = 45

Number of defective blue marbles = 5x = 75

Number of non-defective blue marbles = 205 + 5x
= 280

Number of non-defective green marbles = 

= 200

Required amount = Rs. 1.5 × 120 = Rs. 180
Hence, answer option 4 is correct.

The amount paid by Rahul was 12.50% of the combined amount paid by all six of them.

Rahul paid = 12.50% of 16,000 = Rs. 2,000

The amount paid by Kushal was 33.33% of the combined amount paid by the other five persons.

33.33% = 1/3

Let the other 5 persons spent = 3x

Kushal spent = x

So amount spent by Kushal

The amount paid by Subhojeet was 40% less than the amount paid by Anant. The amount paid by Chirag was Rs. 2224 less than the amount paid by Anant.

Let Anant paid → 100x

Shubhojeet paid

Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224

The amount paid by Chirag was 25% of the amount that Dhananjay paid.

Dhananjay paid

So, the combined amount paid by all six of them:

2,000 + 4,000 + 100x + 60x + 100x – 2,224 + 400x – 8,896 = 16,000

660x = 21,120

x = 32

So,

Anant paid → 100x = 100 × 32 = 3,200

Shubhojeet paid → 60x = 60 × 32 = 1,920

Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224 = 100 × 32 – 2,224 = 976

Dhananjay paid → 400x – 8,896 = 400 × 32 – 8,896 = 3,904

From the common explanation, we have

Hence, Option D is correct.

Common explanation :

The amount paid by Rahul was 12.50% of the combined amount paid by all six of them.

Rahul paid = 12.50% of 16,000 = Rs. 2,000

The amount paid by Kushal was 33.33% of the combined amount paid by the other five persons.
33.33% = 1/3
Let the other 5 persons spent = 3x
Kushal spent = x
So amount spent by Kushal

The amount paid by Subhojeet was 40% less than the amount paid by Anant. The amount paid by Chirag was Rs. 2224 less than the amount paid by Anant.

Let Anant paid → 100x

Shubhojeet paid

Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224

The amount paid by Chirag was 25% of the amount that Dhananjay paid.

Dhananjay paid

So, the combined amount paid by all six of them:

2,000 + 4,000 + 100x + 60x + 100x – 2,224 + 400x – 8,896 = 16,000

660x = 21,120

x = 32

So,

Anant paid → 100x = 100 × 32 = 3,200

Shubhojeet paid → 60x = 60 × 32 = 1,920

Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224 = 100 × 32 – 2,224 = 976

Dhananjay paid → 400x – 8,896 = 400 × 32 – 8,896 = 3,904

From the common explanation, we have
Dhananjay paid the second highest amount.
Hence, Option B is correct.
Common explanation :
The amount paid by Rahul was 12.50% of the combined amount paid by all six of them.
Rahul paid = 12.50% of 16,000 = Rs. 2,000
The amount paid by Kushal was 33.33% of the combined amount paid by the other five persons.
33.33% = 1/3
Let the other 5 persons spent = 3x
Kushal spent = x
So amount spent by Kushal

The amount paid by Subhojeet was 40% less than the amount paid by Anant. The amount paid by Chirag was Rs. 2224 less than the amount paid by Anant.
Let Anant paid → 100x
Shubhojeet paid

Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224

The amount paid by Chirag was 25% of the amount that Dhananjay paid.

Dhananjay paid

So, the combined amount paid by all six of them:
2,000 + 4,000 + 100x + 60x + 100x – 2,224 + 400x – 8,896 = 16,000
660x = 21,120
x = 32
So,
Anant paid → 100x = 100 × 32 = 3,200
Shubhojeet paid → 60x = 60 × 32 = 1,920
Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224 = 100 × 32 – 2,224 = 976
Dhananjay paid → 400x – 8,896 = 400 × 32 – 8,896 = 3,904

From the common explanation, we have
Reqd. difference = 3904 – 2000 = Rs. 1904
Hence, Option C is correct.
Common explanation :
The amount paid by Rahul was 12.50% of the combined amount paid by all six of them.
Rahul paid = 12.50% of 16,000 = Rs. 2,000

The amount paid by Kushal was 33.33% of the combined amount paid by the other five persons.
33.33% = 1/3
Let the other 5 persons spent = 3x
Kushal spent = x
So amount spent by Kushal

The amount paid by Subhojeet was 40% less than the amount paid by Anant. The amount paid by Chirag was Rs. 2224 less than the amount paid by Anant.
Let Anant paid → 100x
Shubhojeet paid

Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224
The amount paid by Chirag was 25% of the amount that Dhananjay paid.
Dhananjay paid

So, the combined amount paid by all six of them:
2,000 + 4,000 + 100x + 60x + 100x – 2,224 + 400x – 8,896 = 16,000
660x = 21,120
x = 32
So,
Anant paid → 100x = 100 × 32 = 3,200
Shubhojeet paid → 60x = 60 × 32 = 1,920
Chirag paid = 100x – 2,224 = 100 × 32 – 2,224 = 976
Dhananjay paid → 400x – 8,896 = 400 × 32 – 8,896 = 3,904

The EU’s Cyber Resilience Directive enforces minimum cybersecurity standards, demonstrating a preventive and legally binding approach that strengthens resilience against attacks.

AI and IoT devices create new attack vectors and interconnected systems, making it easier for malware or hackers to exploit vulnerabilities and trigger cascading failures.

Public awareness campaigns educate citizens on safe online practices, supporting technical and regulatory measures to reduce risks effectively.

Employee training is essential to strengthen defenses, and neglecting it leaves systems more vulnerable to cyberattacks.

The malware exploited weak systems and caused blackouts across multiple countries, showing that interconnected infrastructures amplify the impact of attacks.

Potential state sponsorship raises concerns about trust between nations and can escalate geopolitical tensions, affecting collaboration in critical sectors.

According to UNCLOS, a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends up to 200 nautical miles from its coast. Waters beyond this limit are considered high seas, beyond any national jurisdiction.

The passage states that two-thirds of the world's oceans are international waters, meaning countries can fish, ship, and conduct research there. Only a small proportion had legal protection prior to the treaty.