Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

Pollution befouls the air and poisons water. Pollution induces the release of toxicants into the biosphere which makes the air unsuitable for breathing, harms the quality of water and soil, and causes the emission of substances that may cause damage to humans, plants and animals.
To cater to the needs of an increasing population, agriculture has been intensified through the use of a wide spectrum of fertilizers and pesticides. Diverse industries have been set up to produce chemicals including those that pose a danger to all life forms.

Rapid industrialisation has led to deterioration in the quality of air. Widespread use of coal and fossil fuels in industries and petroleum fuel in motor vehicles has aggravated the air pollution problem. Our atmosphere seems to have become a waste basket into which dust, noxious fumes, toxic gases and other pollutants are callously thrown.

The intensity of air pollution in Indian cities is increasing primarily due to our vintage vehicles and their poor performance. Water pollution, too has increased with the growth of our population and also that of our industries. Water pollution has acquired dangerous dimensions ever since sewage and industrial effluents have started being disposed of into the rivers.

Once considered sacred, the rivers are now turning murky and stink. It is sad that almost three-fourths of our fellow citizens have no choice but to drink filthy water. The severely polluted rivers due to mindless dumping of sewage and industrial wastes are a cause for concern not only to us humans but also to myriads of life forms that exist in water.

On the French and Italian rivier as we can no longer see the sparkling blue waters. The Mediterranean Sea is reported to be turning grey. Rivers and canals pour sewage, detergents and industrial waste into the sea; tankers flush their contents near the river or sea; bottles, rotting garbage and oil slicks are washed into the beaches. The phosphates and nitrates applied to farmlands as inorganic fertilizers, concentrate in lakes and estuaries causing algal blooms due to which wide expanses of water get choked, plants rot, oxygen is used up and fish die.

Which of the following factors is responsible for algal blooms?

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language-so the argument runs-must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes. 
Now it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits, one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. 

What causes bad language in the end?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions.
   
Indeed the western recession is really the beginning of good news for India! But to understand that we will have to move away for a while from the topic of western recession . . . . . . . to the Japanese recession! For years the Japanese style of management has been admired. However, over the last decade or so, one key question has sprung up ‘if Japanese management style is as wonderful as described then why has Japan been in a recession for more than a decade?'
The answer to this question is very simple. Culture plays a very important part in shaping up economies. What succeeds in one culture fails in another. Japanese are basically nonmaterialistic. And however rich they become, unlike others, they cannot just keep throwing and buying endlessly. And once they have everything they need; there is a saturation point. It was only when companies like Toyota realized that they cannot keep selling cars endlessly to their home market that they went really aggressive in the western markets-and the rest is history. Japanese companies grew bigger by catering to the world markets when their home markets shrunk.

served equally well. They were lured through advertising and marketing techniques of ‘dustbinisation' of the customer; and then finally, once they became ready customers, they were given loans and credits to help them buy more and more. When all the creditworthy people were given loans to a logical limit, they ceased to be a part of the market. Even this would have been understandable if it could work as an eye-opener. Instead of taking the 'Right Step' as Toyota did, they preferred to take a 'shortcut'. Now banks went to the noncredit worthy people and gave them loans. The people expectedly defaulted and the entire system collapsed.

Now like Toyota western companies will learn to find new markets. They will now lean towards India because of its common man! The billion-plus population in the next 25 years will become, a consuming middle-class. Finally, there will be a real surge in income of these people and in the next fifty odd years, one can really hope to see an equal world in terms of material plenty, with poverty being almost nonexistent! And this will happen not by selling more cars to Americans and Europeans. It will happen by creating markets in India, China, Latin America and Africa, by giving their people purchasing power and by making products for them.
The recession has made us realize that it is not because of worse management techniques, but because of limits to growth. And they will realize that it is great for planet earth. After all, how many cars and houses must the rich own before calling it enough? It's time for them to look at others as well. Many years back, to increase his own profits, Henry Ford had started paying his workers more, so that they could buy his cars. In similar fashion, now the developed world will pay the developing world people so that they can buy their cars and washing machines.
The recession will kick - start the process of making the entire world more prosperous, and lay the foundation of limits to growth in the west and the foundation of real globalization in the world - of the globalization of prosperity. And one of its first beneficiaries will be India. 

How does the author foresee the future globalization as an analogy to Henry Ford's example?
(A) Car companies would start selling cars in developing countries as well.
(B) By paying the developing world the developed world would increase its own profit, in turn bring in affluence to developing world as well.
(C) To earn profit, the companies in developing countries would move to foreign land. 

Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow based on the information given in the passage.

IN GORILLA society, power belongs to silverback males. These splendid creatures have numerous status markers besides their back hair: they are bigger than the rest of their band, strike space-filling postures, produce deeper sounds, thump their chests lustily and, in general, exude an air of physical fitness. Things are not that different in the corporate world. The typical chief executive is more than six feet tall, has a deep voice, a good posture, a touch of grey in his thick, lustrous hair and, for his age, a fit body. Bosses spread themselves out behind their large desks. They stand tall when talking to subordinates. Their conversation is laden with prestige pauses and declarative statements. The big difference between gorillas and humans is, of course, that human society changes rapidly. The past few decades have seen a striking change in the distribution of power—between men and women, the West and the emerging world and geeks and non-geeks.

Women run some of America’s largest firms, such as General Motors (Mary Barra) and IBM (Virginia Rometty). More than half of the world’s biggest 2,500 public companies have their headquarters outside the West. Geeks barely out of short trousers run some of the world’s most dynamic businesses. Peter The, one of Silicon Valley’s leading investors, has introduced a blanket rule: never invest in a CEO who wears a suit. Yet it is remarkable, in this supposed age of diversity, how many bosses still conform to the stereotype. First, they are tall: in research for his 2005 book, “Blink”, Malcolm Gladwell found that 30% of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are 6 feet 2 inches or taller, compared with 3.9% of the American population. People who “sound right” also have a marked advantage in the race for the top. Quantified Communications, a Texas-based company, asked people to evaluate speeches delivered by 120 executives. They found that voice quality accounted for 23% of listeners’ evaluations and the content of the speech only accounted for 11%.
 Academics from the business schools of the University of California, San Diego and Duke University listened to 792 male CEOs giving presentations to investors and found that those with the deepest voices earned $187,000 a year more than the average.
 Physical fitness seems to matter too: a study published this month, by Peter Limbach of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology and Florian Sonnenburg of the University of Cologne, found that companies in America’s S&P 1500 index whose CEOs had finished a marathon were worth 5% more on average than those whose bosses had not.

Choose the word which is most nearly the OPPOSITE in meaning to the word printed in bold as used in the passage.
Relying

Read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.
Design has manifold applications and usages ranging from the most obvious or surface-level usages to the subtler and indirect usages that have far-reaching and deeper impact. The significance of design lies in its ability to fulfil these demands, whether aesthetic, teleological or semiotic. By aesthetics, it is broadly understood as its sensory and beauty values, i.e. Concerned with the judgment of visual taste, here it is meant as the sensory appreciation of graphic design. While by functionality is meant the practical aspects of a given graphic design such as usability, communicability, readability and making an impact. Its efficiency lies in its ability to do so. Design has function as well as some purpose. In theoretical terms the ability of design to fulfil the function or purpose is called ‘teleology’ of design. Apart from the above two, there is one more aspect of design called ‘content’ or meaning of design that can be broadly called as semiotic value of design. A simple discussion might elaborate this case. Food has taste that caters to our taste buds which is a sensory quality of food. Sometimes the colour of food is attractive therefore we like it and probably other times we get attracted towards it because it is presented in an appealing manner. Aroma, taste and decoration or garnishing cater to our sensory expectations. Food also has nutritional value that is concerned with supplying energy to the body that helps in its overall physical growth and maintenance of general health and work efficiency and at times such food may not be visually attractive. This is the teleological significance. Now if the food is cooked by a mother, sister or wife, then it has a special meaning and a highly personal significance attached to it. It may not be very nutritious or properly garnished, still the food will have its own unique significance which is the semiotic value of the food. 

What is the passage mainly about?

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 are scientists doing?

Read the passage carefully and give answer the following question.

We should preserve Nature to preserve life and beauty. A beautiful landscape, full of green vegetation, will not just attract our attention but will fill us with infinite satisfaction. Unfortunately, because of modernization, much of nature is now yielding to towns, roads and industrial areas. In a few places some natural reserves are now being carved out to avert the danger of destroying nature completely. Man will perish without nature, so modern man should continue this struggle to save plants, which give us oxygen. Moreover, Nature is essential to man’s health.

According to the passage Which one of the following is the correct statement?

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 is the most similar in meaning to the word “PATRONISING” ?