Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
The problem of water pollution by pesticides can be understood only in context, as part of the world to which it belongs- the pollution of the total environment of making. The pollution entering our waterways comes from many sources, radioactive wastes from reactors, laboratories, and hospitals; fallout from nuclear explosions; domestic wastes from cities and towns; chemical wastes from factories. To these is added a new kind of fallout the chemical sprays applied to crop lands and gardens, forests and fields. Many of the chemical agents in this alarming melange initiate and augment the harmful effects of radiation, and within the group of chemicals themselves there are sinister and little- understood interactions, transformations, and summations of effect.
Even since the chemists began to manufacture substances that nature never invented, the problems of water purification have become complex and the danger to user of water has increased. As we have seen, the production of these synthetic chemicals in large volume begin in the 1940’s. It has now reached such proportion that an appalling deluge of chemical pollution is daily poured into the nation’s waterways. When inextricably mixed with domestic and other wastes discharged into the same water, these chemicals sometimes defy detection by the methods in ordinary use by purification plants. Most of them are so complex that they cannot be identified. In rivers, a really incredible variety of pollutants combine to produce deposits that sanitary engineers can only despairingly refer to as “gunk”.

The word ‘gunk’ in the last line refers:

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 one of the following is most similar in meaning to “INTREPID” ?

Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words / phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.

Princess Chandravati was very beautiful. She loved all kinds of ornaments and always wanted to wear the most precious and lovely jewels. Once, a jeweler came to the palace and gifted the King a wonderful diamond necklace. It glittered with big and small diamonds. It was certainly a very expensive necklace. The princess fell in love with it as soon as she saw it. So, the king presented it to her.
 From that day on, the princess always wore that necklace, wherever she went. One day before, going for a swim in the pond, she took the necklace off and put in the hands of her oldest and the most trustworthy servant. "Hold this and be careful. This is the most precious necklace in the whole world, " she said. The Servant was an old woman. She sat under tree, holding the ornament tightly and waited for the princess. It was a hot afternoon and the servant was very tired so she dozed off under the tree. Suddenly the servant felt that someone was tugging at the necklace and she woke up with a start. She looked around but it no one was there and the necklace was gone. Scared out of her wits, the old servant started screaming. On hearing her scream the royal guards rushed to her. She pointed towards the direction in which the thief may have gone and the guards ran off that way.
 There was a poor and dim-witted farmer walking on the same road. As soon as he saw the royal guards running towards him, he thought that they wanted to catch him and started running. But he was not a strong man and could not outrun the hefty guards. The royal guards caught him in no time. “Where is it? " they demanded. shaking him. “Where is what? " the poor farmer stammered back. The necklace you stole!" thundered one of the royal guards. The farmer had no idea what they were talking about. He only understood that some precious necklace was lost and he was supposed to have it. He quickly replied, " I don't know where it is now. I gave it to my landlord.”

The guards ran towards the landlord 's house. "Give us the necklace right now ! " the guards demanded of the at landlord. "Necklace? I don’t have any!" the stunned landlord replied. Then tell us quickly who “does demanded the soldiers. In order to get the royal guards off his back, the landlord pointed towards a priest who was walking by his house and said, "He does." The guards now caught hold of the priest who was walking towards the temple and thinking about the lunch he had just eaten. The priest was stunned when one of the burly guards jumped on him and asked about the necklace. He remembered that the minister, Bhupathi, was at the temple. He took the guards to the temple and pointed towards the praying minister, “I gave it to him, "he said. Bhupati too was caught and all four men were thrown in jail. The Chief Minister of the kingdom knew Bhupati well and was sure that Bhupati would never steal. He decided to find out who the culprit was. He hid near the jail where all four men were put and heard them talking First, Bhupati asked the priest, “Panditji, why did you say that you gave the necklace to me? I was quietly praying at the temple and now you have landed me in jail for no fault of mine.” The priest looked apologetic. He pointed towards the landlord and said, " I didn’t know what to say. He set the " guards on me. I was simply passing by his house and was on my way to the temple." The landlord looked at the priest sheepishly. Then he turned towards the poor farmer and yelled. “You lazy good-for-nothing man! Why did you say that I had the necklace? " The farmer, trembling under the angry gaze of all three men, said, " I was just walking home. The guards caught me and I did not know what to say." On hearing, this conversation, he Chief Minister understood that all the four men were innocent. He immediately ordered the royal guards to search thoroughly, near the pond. The guards searched high and low till they saw something clinging the tree. On the tree sat a monkey with the princess’ favorite necklace around his neck. It took a lot of coxing and bananas before the monkey threw the necklace on the ground. The’ king apologized to at the four men and gave them gold coins as compensation. He requested his daughter to wear the necklace only indoors.

What did the Chief Minister do in order to find out who the actual culprit was? 

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.
If the census tells us that India has two or three hundred languages, it also tells us, I believe, that Germany has about fifty or sixty languages. I do not remember anyone pointing out this fact in proof of the disunity or disparity of Germany. As a matter of fact, a census mentions all manner of petty languages, sometimes spoken by a few thousand persons only; and often dialects are classed for scientific purposes as different languages. India seems to me to have surprisingly few languages, considering its area. Compared to the same area in Europe, it is far more closely allied in regard to language, but because of widespread illiteracy, common standards have not developed and dialects have formed. The principal languages of India are Hindustani (of the two varieties, Hindi and Urdu), Bengali, Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Kannada. If Assamese, Oriya, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Pushtu and Punjabi are added, the whole country is covered except for some hill and forest tribes. Of these, the Indo-Aryan languages, which cover the whole north, centre and west of India, are closely allied; and the southern Dravidian languages, though different, have been greatly influenced by Sanskrit, and are full of Sanskrit words. 

In the passage the author. 

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it.
 It is generally acknowledged that children learn a lot from their parents. It is not so commonly admitted that parents learn a great deal from their children. As adults, it is easy to assume that we are always right, but the laugh was on me one beautiful day.
 My daughter Kashmira knew how much I loved flowers. One day when she was of nine years, she picked some branches from our neighbour's blossoming fruit tree. Realising she intended to please me, I didn't scold her, but chose a different approach. "These are lovely, dear, but do you realise that if you had left them on the tree, each of these blossoms would have become a cherry?" "No, they wouldn't have", she said firmly.
"Oh, yes they would have. Each of these blossoms would have grown into a cherry". "Well okay, mother, if you insist", she finally conceded, "but they were plums last year".

The mother did not scold the daughter because- 

Direction :Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
 The Emperor had inherited a peaceful and prosperous kingdom at a young age after the untimely death of his father. A few months later a man arrived at court. He stated that he was from a far off land and had the gift of foresight. He impressed the Emperor with his witty remarks and was appointed a courtier. The Emperor and those at court all enjoyed hearing accounts of his travels. One day the newly appointed minister said, "Your Majesty, you are destined to great things. It is written in the stars. I have learnt the art of fortune telling. Do not be content with your kingdom along. Travel, See the world and conquer. There are many who are oppressed. They will bless you for rescuing them from the tyranny of their rulers." The Emperor was stunned to hear this but he refused to discuss the matter at the time. The courtiers too were astonished to hear this and began debating among themselves. "It is true," they said, "Our Emperor's father was a great warrior and he ruled wisely. Perhaps there is truth in this." So the newly appointed courtier shrewdly planted the idea of waging war against other kingdoms at court. After hearing several repeated arguments in favour of this idea the Emperor finally agreed. He was a young man and a battle seemed to be exciting against a smaller neighbouring kingdom The Emperor knew the ruler was cruel and felt justified in waging war against him. Having the superior army the easily defeated the king. Everyone celebrated. But the campaign did not stop there. With every victory the new minister would urge the Emperor on to the next battle. The soldiers grew tired after over two years at war but did not complain out of respect and loyalty to their ruler. Meanwhile the situation in his kingdom began to deteriorate. With no one to look after the daily administration and to resolve disputes, signs of neglect began to be seen.
The Emperor was no longer bothered if he wars. The new minister who was in charge of these funds kept a large part for himself and grew richer. An old man who had been a minister in the Emperor's father's court grew worried and decided to do something about this situation. A few days later when the Emperor was out riding in the forest he suddenly saw the old man. He greeted him like an old friends and inquired what he was doing there. The man pointed to two owls in the trees. "I am listening to their conversation". What are they saying?" the Emperor asked unbelieving. "They are negotiating the marriage of their children. The first owl wants to know wheter the other will be gifting his daughter fifty villages on her would have to gift her one hundred and fifty as the villages were in ruins and as such were worthless but with the Emperor as ruler there would be many such villages." When the Emperor heard this he realized the error of his ways. He returned home immediately, rewarded the old minister putting him in charge of reconstructing the ruined villages and dismissed the fortune teller from his court. 

Direction  : Choose the word which is most nearly the SAME in meaning as the word given in bold as used in the passage. 
STUNNED

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.

Non-violence, according to the writer, means:

A passage is given with Five questions following it. Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives and click the button corresponding to it.
It's nothing short of a revolution in how we eat, and it's getting closer every day. Yes, a lot of people are obese, and yes, the definition of "healthy eating" seems to change all the time. But in labs and research centres around the world, scientists are racing to match our genes and our taste buds, creating the perfect diet for each of us, a diet that will fight disease, increase longevity, boost physical and mental performance, and taste great to boot. As food scientist J.Bruce German says, "The foods we like the most will be the most healthy for us."
Is that going to be a great day, or what?
All this will come to pass, thanks to genomics, the science that maps and describes an individual's genetic code. In the future, personalized DNA chips will allow us to assess our own inherited predispositions for certain diseases, then adjust our diets accordingly. So, if you're at risk for heart disease, you won't just go on a generic low-fat diet. You'll eat foods with just the right amount and type of fat that's best for you. You'll even be able to track your metabolism day-to-day to determine what foods you should eat at any given time, for any given activity. "Since people differ in their genetics and metabolism, one diet won't fit all," says German.
 As complex as all this sounds, it could turn out to be relatively simple.

What will be possible in the future?