Comprehension Test Questions and Answers Practice Question and Answer
8- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 3. "Only II "
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 3. "Great increase "
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 2. "B and C only"
Q:Violence has played a great part in the would's history. It is today playing an equally important part and probably it will continue to do so for a considerable time. It is impossible to ignore the importance of violence in the past and present. To do so is to ignore life. Yet violence is undoubtedly bad and brings an unending trail of evil consequences with it. And worse even than violence are the motives of hatred, cruelty, revenge and punishment which very often accompany violence. Indeed violence is bad, not intrinsically, but because of these motives that go with it. There can be violence without these movies there can be violence of a good object as well as for an evil object. But it is extremely difficult to separate violence from these motives, and therefore, it is desirable to avoid violence as far as possible. In avoiding it, however someone can not accept a negative attitude of submitting to bad and far greater evils. Submission to violence or the acceptance of an unjust regime based on violence is against the spirit of non-violence. The non-violent method, in order to justify itself, must be dynamic and capable of changing such a regime of social order.
“Indeed, violence is bad, not intrinsically, but because of these motives that go with it'. This suggests
1316 05dddf8d8b025ff571dd976f7
5dddf8d8b025ff571dd976f7- 1Violence is basically good.false
- 2Violence is bad only when it is associated with certain motives.true
- 3Violence is bad because the people who exercise it are bad.false
- 4Violence is basically badfalse
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 2. "Violence is bad only when it is associated with certain motives. "
Q:Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain parts are given in bold to answer some of the questions based on the passage.
Sometimes to upend entrenched power structures, a revolution is required. Naming and shaming powerful men in the #Metoo campaign is in many ways a revolutionary act. The truth about most was known, spoken in whispers, but not to their face. But now that omerta has been broken by some intrepid women , there’s a palpable sense of power and possibility.
Revolutions are by definition anarchic, as they are aimed against those who make and enforce the rules. So it has been with #MeToo. Men are named, sometimes anonymously, and the naming itself requires punitive action to be taken against them. There isn’t really any room for discussion on context or degree of culpability. Some have raised questions about due process, and the response has been, somewhat reasonably, that due process has failed. And it is true, arguing for due process when due process has failed feels a bit like batting for status quo. So let it be said, #MeToo despite its limitations is unreservedly a good development. However, the question is, what next? The #MeToo movement is more than just outing powerful men, it is about shifting the balance of power between men and women, transferring the punitive aspects — shame, denial of work opportunities — from the victim to the perpetrator. It is about ending impunity embedded in our social construct by shaping new social mores. This is and has to be a collective effort, and it is important for the #MeToo movement to have these discussions.
Let the burden of shame now be shifted to where it is supposed to- the perpetrators and not the women; the victims. It’s the woman who has to hide from the world. And by and large, due to this very fact prevailing in Indian society that many women ultimately choose to leave their jobs, or seek employment elsewhere, when they confront inappropriate behaviour from their colleagues.
Another very important aspect which should be taken care of is that of equality, where there’s no inhibitions, no sense of caution. Women need healthy camaraderie in place of needless caution. Respect, not condescension. They would like colleagues to engage with them, not be patronising. And the fact that they are still having to demand these is telling.
Which of the following statements is not true according to the passage ?
1312 05eaa4d5ee6ace92d5515ea18
5eaa4d5ee6ace92d5515ea18Sometimes to upend entrenched power structures, a revolution is required. Naming and shaming powerful men in the #Metoo campaign is in many ways a revolutionary act. The truth about most was known, spoken in whispers, but not to their face. But now that omerta has been broken by some intrepid women , there’s a palpable sense of power and possibility.
- 1just naming and shaming the perpetrators does not account for culpabilitytrue
- 2due process has failed leading to crimesfalse
- 3sexual harassment is anything that makes a woman uncomfortablefalse
- 4the campaign has broken the power structuresfalse
- 5Both 2 and 3false
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 1. "just naming and shaming the perpetrators does not account for culpability"
Q:What, one wonders, is the lowest common denominator of Indian culture today? The attractive Hema Malini ? The songs of Vinidh Barati? The attractive Hema Malini? The sons of Vinidh Barati?
Or the mouth-watering Masala Dosa? Delectable as these may be, each yield pride of place to that false (?) symbol of a new era-the synthetic fibre. In less than twenty years the nylon sari and the terylene shirt have swept the countryside, penetrated to the farthest corners of the land and persuaded every common man, woman and child that the key to success in the present day world lie in artificial fibers: glass nylon, crepe nylon, tery mixes, polyesters and what have you. More than the bicycles, the wristwatch or the transistor radio, synthetic clothes have come to represent the first step away form the village square. The village lass treasures the flashy nylon sari in her trousseau most delay; the village youth gets a great kick out of his cheap terrycot shirt and trousers, the nearest he can approximate to the expensive synthetic sported by his wealthy citybred contemporaries. And the Neo-rich craze for ‘phoren’ is nowhere more apparent than in the price that people will pay for smuggled, stolen, begged borrowed second hand or thrown away synthetics. Alas, even the uniformity of nylon.
The tern ‘Neo-rich’ means –
1312 05d8f17111afb4111d6e679a7
5d8f17111afb4111d6e679a7Or the mouth-watering Masala Dosa? Delectable as these may be, each yield pride of place to that false (?) symbol of a new era-the synthetic fibre. In less than twenty years the nylon sari and the terylene shirt have swept the countryside, penetrated to the farthest corners of the land and persuaded every common man, woman and child that the key to success in the present day world lie in artificial fibers: glass nylon, crepe nylon, tery mixes, polyesters and what have you. More than the bicycles, the wristwatch or the transistor radio, synthetic clothes have come to represent the first step away form the village square. The village lass treasures the flashy nylon sari in her trousseau most delay; the village youth gets a great kick out of his cheap terrycot shirt and trousers, the nearest he can approximate to the expensive synthetic sported by his wealthy citybred contemporaries. And the Neo-rich craze for ‘phoren’ is nowhere more apparent than in the price that people will pay for smuggled, stolen, begged borrowed second hand or thrown away synthetics. Alas, even the uniformity of nylon.
- 1The aristocracyfalse
- 2The industrialistsfalse
- 3The newly rich peopletrue
- 4The common peoplefalse
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 3. "The newly rich people "
Q:Read the following passage carefully and answer the given questions.
It is impossible for a well-educated, intellectual or brave man to make money the chief object of his thought, just as it is for him to make his dinner the principal object of them. All healthy people like their dinners, but their dinner is not the main object of their lives. So all healthy-minded people like making money-ought to like it, and to enjoy the sensation of winning it, but the main object of their life is not money, it is something better than money. A good soldier, for instance mainly wishes to do his fighting well. He is glad of his pay, very properly so, and justly grumbles when you keep him ten years without it - still his main notion of life is to win battles not to be paid for winning them. So of the doctor. They like fees, no doubt, ought to like them, yet if they are brave and well-educated, the entire object of their lives is not fees. They, on the whole, desire to cure the sick, and if they are good doctors, and the choice were fairly put to them, they would rather cure their patient, and lose the fees, than kill him and get it. And so with all other brave and rightly trained men, their work is first, their fees second - very important, no doubt, but still second. But in every nation, there are a vast number of people who are ill-educated, cowardly and stupid. And with these people, just as certainly the fee is first and work second, as with brave people the work is first and fee second.
The writer’s main argument in the passage is -
1311 061277b5cb05363065a01842d
61277b5cb05363065a01842dIt is impossible for a well-educated, intellectual or brave man to make money the chief object of his thought, just as it is for him to make his dinner the principal object of them. All healthy people like their dinners, but their dinner is not the main object of their lives. So all healthy-minded people like making money-ought to like it, and to enjoy the sensation of winning it, but the main object of their life is not money, it is something better than money. A good soldier, for instance mainly wishes to do his fighting well. He is glad of his pay, very properly so, and justly grumbles when you keep him ten years without it - still his main notion of life is to win battles not to be paid for winning them. So of the doctor. They like fees, no doubt, ought to like them, yet if they are brave and well-educated, the entire object of their lives is not fees. They, on the whole, desire to cure the sick, and if they are good doctors, and the choice were fairly put to them, they would rather cure their patient, and lose the fees, than kill him and get it. And so with all other brave and rightly trained men, their work is first, their fees second - very important, no doubt, but still second. But in every nation, there are a vast number of people who are ill-educated, cowardly and stupid. And with these people, just as certainly the fee is first and work second, as with brave people the work is first and fee second.
- 1that money is not the main object in life for all right-thinking peopletrue
- 2that money is the main object in life for all right-thinking peoplefalse
- 3that money is the main object in life for some right-thinking peoplefalse
- 4that society is not important at all for all right-thinking people.false
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 1. "that money is not the main object in life for all right-thinking people"
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice

