Test: English - CLAT MCQ
30 Questions MCQ Test - Test: English
Directions: Ques 1 to 5: Below mentioned are questions based on sentence construction. Out of the given multiple choice answer select one that completes the sentence given in the question.
So much of the literature of the western world, including a large part of its greatest literature was either written for actual speaking or in a mode of speech. That we are likely to deform it if we apply our comparatively recent norm of writing for silent reading. It is only that so much of this work is drama or oratory (the latter including the modern forms of sermons, lectures and addresses which as late as the nineteenth century play a most important part). It is also that through classical and medieval times, and in many cases beyond these, most reading was either aloud or silently articulated as if speaking : a habit we now recognize mainly in the slang. Most classical histories were indeed quite close to oratory and public speech, rather than silent reading of an artifact, was the central condition of linguistic composition.
Q.
Until the nineteenth century, most people could only read with difficulty.
So much of the literature of the western world, including a large part of its greatest literature was either written for actual speaking or in a mode of speech. That we are likely to deform it if we apply our comparatively recent norm of writing for silent reading. It is only that so much of this work is drama or oratory (the latter including the modern forms of sermons, lectures and addresses which as late as the nineteenth century play a most important part). It is also that through classical and medieval times, and in many cases beyond these, most reading was either aloud or silently articulated as if speaking : a habit we now recognize mainly in the slang. Most classical histories were indeed quite close to oratory and public speech, rather than silent reading of an artifact, was the central condition of linguistic composition.
Q.
In ancient time, literature was intended to be read aloud.
| 1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App |
So much of the literature of the western world, including a large part of its greatest literature was either written for actual speaking or in a mode of speech. That we are likely to deform it if we apply our comparatively recent norm of writing for silent reading. It is only that so much of this work is drama or oratory (the latter including the modern forms of sermons, lectures and addresses which as late as the nineteenth century play a most important part). It is also that through classical and medieval times, and in many cases beyond these, most reading was either aloud or silently articulated as if speaking : a habit we now recognize mainly in the slang. Most classical histories were indeed quite close to oratory and public speech, rather than silent reading of an artifact, was the central condition of linguistic composition.
Q.
Classical histories were passed on orally and never written down
So much of the literature of the western world, including a large part of its greatest literature was either written for actual speaking or in a mode of speech. That we are likely to deform it if we apply our comparatively recent norm of writing for silent reading. It is only that so much of this work is drama or oratory (the latter including the modern forms of sermons, lectures and addresses which as late as the nineteenth century play a most important part). It is also that through classical and medieval times, and in many cases beyond these, most reading was either aloud or silently articulated as if speaking : a habit we now recognize mainly in the slang. Most classical histories were indeed quite close to oratory and public speech, rather than silent reading of an artifact, was the central condition of linguistic composition.
Q.
Only people with literacy problems now read aloud
So much of the literature of the western world, including a large part of its greatest literature was either written for actual speaking or in a mode of speech. That we are likely to deform it if we apply our comparatively recent norm of writing for silent reading. It is only that so much of this work is drama or oratory (the latter including the modern forms of sermons, lectures and addresses which as late as the nineteenth century play a most important part). It is also that through classical and medieval times, and in many cases beyond these, most reading was either aloud or silently articulated as if speaking : a habit we now recognize mainly in the slang. Most classical histories were indeed quite close to oratory and public speech, rather than silent reading of an artifact, was the central condition of linguistic composition.
Q.
Oratory includes sermons and lectures but not the modern forms
Directions: Ques 6 to10: In each of the following questions there are two words to the left of the sign [::] which are connected in some way. The same relationship exists between the third word and the one of the four choices given under each question. Find the correct choice in each question.
Q.
Pain : Sedative :: Grief : ?
Directions: Ques 11 to 20: Read the following passage carefully and mark the correct answer from among the multiple choices given below each question under the passage.
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Does Francis D. Fisher consider intellectual property rights important for growth and development of software?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
What Harry C. Reinstein contemplates about software market?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Which one of the following is a correct deduction from the given passage?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Which one of the following is correct?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Which one of the following relates to Copyright and Patent Law?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Which one of the following explains, “shift the burden of proof’ as stated in the passage?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Who amongst the following is unconvinced according to Richard Stallman ?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
According to the passage which one of the following is the Constitutional aim of intellectual property law?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Which one of the following explains public goods as contemplated in the passage?
Software and intellectual property have come a long way to provided new dimension to the markets. For a firm to be satisfied with the performance and functionality of an existing product was to risk losing market share to a competitor that targeted the same market. The nature of competition in the industry has been such that, if there is a perceived market for a particular software product, “someone will build it, and someone else will, as well, “said Harry C. Reinstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Aion Corp.
While many software firms were aware of what intellectual property protection applied to software primarily trade secret law and copyright law, the actions of most of the firms suggested the legal concerns rarely entered into product-development decisions. The collective behavior of firms served to achieve the constitutional aim on which intellectual property law based: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. More specifically, the software industry achieved the intent of intellectual property law, that is, to advance the public good, an objective widely interpreted to mean the generation and wide dissemination of ideas and innovations.
Today’s legal ferment indicates that software firms are much more attuned to intellectual property issues. And why not copyright law and patent law exist to encourage innovation. Both award limited monopolies to those who invest their resources, effort, and ingenuity in developing products that society may deem useful. Thus intellectual property law offers the potential for private financial gain as an incentive for undertaking the risks of innovation.
To Francis D. Fisher, adviser to the Educational Technology Group at the Harvard Law School concerns that intellectuals property protection seem at odds with the industry’s historically high rate of innovation.” It is not enough to suggest that the incentives of monopoly are needed,” Fisher maintained. “We need evidence. We need to shift the burden of proof, so that those who believe that the public interest gains from extending property rights to software must prove their case.” Among those who believe this case is unproven is Richard Stallman, whose Free Software Foundation and League for Progra-mming Freedom provide a test of his conviction that innovation is best served absent prices based on commercial monopoly. While Firms be unconvinced of the need to accord strict intellectual property right to software, by competitors and user is widespread. Firms trying to position themselves in the market to earn returns on their investment often devote considerable thought to protection strategies.
Q.
Which one of the following could be a possible conclusion in the light of arguments led by Harry C. Rein Stein, Richard Stallman, and Francis D. Fisher?
Directions: Ques 21 to 25: Below mentioned are questions based on sentence construction. Out of given multiple choice answers select one that completes the sentence given in the questions.
Q.
I never miss a cricket match; I ______ fond of cricket since childhood.
Even though the principle of citizen’ participation in government ______ proclaimed, several provisions of the Constitution contain the fundamental principles of the democratic participation
Directions: Ques 26 to 30: Below mentioned are pairs of words, which are synonyms based on the nature of pair given in the question, select one pair based on the same nature from the given four choices.
Q.
Serenade : Melody
Below mentioned are pairs of words, which are synonyms based on the nature of pair given in the question, select one pair based on the same nature from the given four choices.
Q.
Melange : Meddle
Below mentioned are pairs of words, which are synonyms based on the nature of pair given in the question, select one pair based on the same nature from the given four choices.
Q.
Seignior age : tax
Below mentioned are pairs of words, which are synonyms based on the nature of pair given in the question, select one pair based on the same nature from the given four choices.
Q.
Luxury : Destitution
Below mentioned are pairs of words, which are synonyms based on the nature of pair given in the question, select one pair based on the same nature from the given four choices.
Q.
Revive : Extinguish
Top Courses for CLAT
Important Questions for English
English MCQs with Answers
Online Tests for English
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
