Comprehension Test Questions and Answers Practice Question and Answer
8 Q:Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below it. Certain words/phrases are printed in bold to help you to locate them while answering some of the questions.
Survival is the most essential factor for every living organism. People resort to different tricks to make both ends meet. One such live instances is mentioned here. Villagers of Makhrada village believed that a witch lived in the denseforest near Makhrada. The passers by were much harassed by the witch who used to frighten them and also took their belongings. In the village there lived a young man named Dhiru who was fond of adventures. When he heard about the witch, he did not believe that it was one of the witches who ate flesh. But there was something elseabout the witch, which made Dhiru curious. She did not eat flest but took away the belongings of the people. Therefore, he was keen to solve this mystery.
He set out with a bag of mangoes. He walked through the forest till it was midway. He took shelter under a shady tree and pretended to be fast asleep. However, after some time, he really fell as leep. After a while, he felt that someone was trying to snatch his bag of mangoes, Suddenly, he woke up and caught hold of the person. It was the witch who tried to frighten Dhiru and run away. But Dhiru was strong and bold enough to hold the withc fast. The witch finally surrendered. Dhiru forced has to tell him who she really was. The witch removed her mask and narrated her and story. She told that she was a poor old widow and she had nobody to look after her. Therefore, she used to live in the forest, wearing a fearful-looking mask. People passing through the forest got frightened due to her appearance and took her for a witch. She then robbed the people of their belongings to make both ends meet. Dhiru took pity on her and gave her the bag of ranages.
How was the ‘witch’ described in this passage different from other witches?
1285 0619f1f99c1c85f0fbf4eda9d
619f1f99c1c85f0fbf4eda9d- 1Other witches used to eat flesh; this witch didn’ttrue
- 2Other witches were not as fearful as this witch wasfalse
- 3While other witches used to frighten the people, this witch didn’tfalse
- 4Other witches used to take people’s belonings; this witch didn’tfalse
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 1. "Other witches used to eat flesh; this witch didn’t "
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 1. "Productive "
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 2. "Constructive "
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 2. "Only B and D"
Q:Directions: Read the following passage and answer the questions as directed.
Start-ups troubled by the so-called angel tax may soon receive some (A)______from the government. On Monday, the Centre set up a five-member working committee to look into revising the (B)norms of the angel tax imposed on start-ups. The tax, which was first introduced in 2012 to curb money-laundering through the (i) at bloated prices, has caused a lot of anguish among start-up investors in the country. Start-up owners have complained that income tax officials have asked many start-ups to cough up money when they try to attract capital into their entities by issuing new shares. For its part, the IT department fears that start-ups may be used as convenient tools to launder illegally acquired money, so a tax on investments beyond a certain threshold is (ii). (C) But while the (1) unintended of such an angel tax may be (2) benefits, the arbitrary nature of it means the cost of (3) intent consequences could be larger than the supposed (4) justifiable. In trying to curb money-laundering, Section 56(2)(viib) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 gives income tax officials a free hand to harass even genuine start-ups looking to raise investments for their growth. Under the Act, the IT department is free to arbitrarily decide the fair value of a company’s share and tax start-ups if the price at which their new shares are sold to investors is higher than the fair value of these shares. The broad-brush tax on all investments means an unnecessary cost is (iii)community simply because of the lack of better means at the government’s disposal to tackle black money.
The committee set up by the government will, among other things, consider raising the threshold beyond which new investments into start-ups will be taxed. It is expected that start-ups with aggregate paid-up share capital and share premium of less than ₹25 crore, against the previous threshold of only ₹10 crore, will not be taxed while attracting new investment. This would definitely make life easier to a certain extent for angel investors and start-ups. But it will not address the real problem with the angel tax, which has to do with the unbridled power that it vests in the hands of the income tax authorities. Investors, foreign or domestic, may become wary of investing in new ideas when they are taxed while risking money on untested ventures. So the government should look to withdraw the angel tax and focus instead on building the capability to better identify and rein in illegal wealth. Otherwise it risks killing the nascent start-up ecosystem in the country.
As per the information given in the passage, out of the following options which option does best explain the term “angel investor”?
1283 05fd07dbc1ebe713f9401eb49
5fd07dbc1ebe713f9401eb49- 1Angel investors are those who don’t look for the low risk investment that might yield a more reliable return, because those start-ups fail too.false
- 2Angel investors are those who own shares in the business, not revenue, and not profitsfalse
- 3An angel investor is an affluent individual who provides capital for a business start-up.true
- 4Angel investors are often retired entrepreneurs or executives, who may be interested in angel investing for reasons that go beyond pure monetary return.false
- 5None of the abovefalse
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 3. "An angel investor is an affluent individual who provides capital for a business start-up."
Q:Direction : Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the question.
Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.
What prompted leaders throughout the world to take action to boost the agriculture sector in 2008?
1283 05ea6a151fb6adc33ce5bf531
5ea6a151fb6adc33ce5bf531Governments have traditionally equated economic progress with steel mills and cement factories. While urban centers thrive and city dwellers get rich, hundreds of millions of farmers remain mired in poverty. However fears of food shortages, a rethinking of anti-poverty priorities and the crushing recession in 2008 are causing a dramatic shift in world economic policy in favour of greater support for agriculture.
The last time when the world’s farmer felt such love was in the 1970s. At that time, as food prices spiked, there was real concern that the world was facing a crisis in which the planet was simply unable to produce enough grain and meat for an expanding population. Government across the developing world and international aid organisations plowed investment into agriculture in the early 1970s, while technological breakthroughs, like high-yield strains of important food crops, boosted production. The result was the Green Revolution and food production exploded. But the Green Revolution became a victim of its own success. Food prices plunged by some 60% by the late 1980s from their peak in the mid-1970s. Policy makers and aid workers turned their attention to the poor’s other pressing needs such as health care and education. Farming got starved of resources and investment. By 2004 aid directed at agriculture sank to 3.5 % and Agriculture lost its glitter. Also as consumer in high-growth giants such as China and India became wealthier they began eating more meat so grain once used for human consumption got diverted to beef up livestock. By early 2008 panicked buying by importing countries and restrictions slapped on grain exports by some big producers helped drive prices upto heights not seen for three decades. Making matters worse land and resources got reallocated to produce cash crops such as biofuels and the result was that voluminous reserves of grain evaporated. Protests broke out across the emerging world and fierce food riots toppled governments. This spurred global leaders into action. This made them aware that food security is one of the fundamental issues in the world that has to be dealt with in order to maintain administrative and political stability. This also spurred the US which traditionally provisioned food aid from American grain surpluses to help needy nations to move towards investing in farm sectors around the globe to boost productive for themselves and be in a better position to feed their own people.
Africa, which missed out on the first Green Revolution due to poor policy and limited resources, also witnessed a 'change'. Swayed by the success of East Asia the primary poverty-fighting method favoured by many policy-makers in Africa was to get farmers off their farms and into modern jobs in factories and urban centers. But that strategy proved to be highly insufficient. Income levels in the countryside badly trailed those in cities while the FAO estimated that the number of poor going hungry in 2009 reached an all time high at more than one billion. In India on the other hand with only 40% of its farmland irrigated, entire economic boom currently underway is held hostage by the unpredictable monsoon. With much of India’s farming areas suffering from drought this year, the government will have a tough time meeting its economic growth targets. In a report Goldman Sachs, predicted that if this year, too receives weak rains it could cause agriculture to contract by 2 % this fiscal year making the government 7%GDP growth target look "a bit rich". Another green revolution is the need of the hour and to make it a reality, the global community still has much backbreaking farm work to do.
- 1Coercive tactics by the US which restricted food aid to poor nationsfalse
- 2The realisation of the link between food security and political stabilitytrue
- 3Awareness that performance in agriculture is necessary in order to achieve the targeted GDPfalse
- 4Reports that high-growth countries like China and India were boosting their agriculture sectors to capture the international marketsfalse
- 5Their desire to influence developing nations to slow down their industrial developmentfalse
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 2. "The realisation of the link between food security and political stability"
Q: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.
Why a beautiful landscape ‘will fill us with infinite satisfaction’ ?
1282 05fa3c7cb0d1e5327c47e7be0
5fa3c7cb0d1e5327c47e7be0- 1We love beautyfalse
- 2It is full of green vegetationfalse
- 3It will ensure our future existencetrue
- 4It will show our command over naturefalse
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice
Answer : 3. "It will ensure our future existence"
- Show AnswerHide Answer
- Workspace
- SingleChoice

