General English - 1 (eLitmus)

Why does the author say ‘We are a nation of the hypocrites’? How is it demonstrated, if at all?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

The article leads to the conclusion that the author is

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

What is the central theme of this passage?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

Which of the following is one of the conclusions the author appears to have drawn?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

After India became independent, one angry citizen asked Nehru as to what the difference was between the regime they had overthrown and the one they had ushered in. That he was able to speak to the prime minister of the nation in this manner was the difference between the two regimes, Nehru replied, politely.
What Nehru said was the essence of democracy. In a democracy, one should be able to voice one’s concern on any matter without fear or favor. As long as this element is present, there is no danger to democracy.
After over half a century if we are able to give an affirmative answer to this question, we may claim to be on the right track. If not, something is definitely amiss. But mere expression of it is not enough unless it seems to have been heard where it was intended to be heard in the first place; and is not merely heard, but necessary remedial action is taken wherever and whenever feasible and desirable. In other words, in a democracy public opinion should matter without exception.

A kind of ennui appears to have gripped everyone. Lack of governance during the past six decades and the growing unconcern displayed by those at the helm and the failings of the various pillars of democracy have added to this ennui. Ordinary citizens are not just victims of neglect and unconcern, even the judiciary has been suffering from the same kind of neglect and unconcern. 
We are a nation of hypocrites. On one hand, we make a demonstration of our allegiance to the constitution, while on the other we keep trampling over it whenever it suits us. We have more than 400 Articles in our constitution (it began with 395 Articles and has steadily been growing in number). One thought that since all articles are the product of the same constitution, all of them would carry equal weight, or would at least have the same degree of importance. But no, that is not the position. Some articles continue to be treated with complete disregard. For instance, most of the articles under Part IV, especially 44, 45, 46, 47 and 49 remain as mere embellishments. Talk of the Uniform Civil Code for citizens, many politicians will be up in arms as if it was blasphemous to talk about it; as if it was not a part of the constitution they seemingly VENERATE.

When will the time be ripe? With the kind of politicians lurking around, it is anybody’s guess if the time will ever be ripe. Indeed many politicians in private admit that reservation has done a great deal of harm to the nation in as much as it kept merit from surfacing in full bloom. I do not know if reservation on the basis of caste is allowed in any part of the world. I also do not know if considerations other than merit (nepotism excepted) are of any consequence in any part of the world. Is it not self-condemnation of those who led the country this long and failed to meet the basic requirements of the people and the nation? These people have much to answer to for the present ills.

Why does William Price state that ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling’?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The passage is an exposition on

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

The author while talking about barter system in India refers to jajmani system. Besides highlighting the barter system prevalent in India, what else does this system convey?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

Some of the following give forth many ingredients that define money. Which one of them can be taken as the chief ingredient?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The history of money and coins takes us back to when man first felt the need to exchange goods and services. Early palaeolithic man lived by hunting and fishing, sharing the flesh or fish obtained by the members of a group, each a self-sufficient unit in clash or conflict with neighbouring groups, from whom things of value could be had only through robbery or violence. With more peaceful forms of contact, trade began as simple barter of commodities; and gradually, instead of jealously guarding their resources, men began to go in search of products of other tribes and regions.

In India a form of barter of goods and services survived till recently in its jajmani system, where services rendered by members of hereditary castes of potters, carpenters, masons, weavers of goods, barbers, washer men, weavers, cooks, pundits and astrologers were traditionally paid for in kind—gram, oil, raw sugar, dairy products etc.But barter had its limitations: there had to be a simultaneous need to buy and sell and there had to be some standards of value. It therefore gave way, as the market place developed and widened choices, to a more precise way of using some durable products of intrinsic value. A seller could accept in exchange a product, which although he did not need to buy then, or not at all, could be used as a store of value and medium of exchange in the future.

Limestone money was in use in the Yap Islands till after the Second World War. Not cheap by current standards, a stone ‘a foot in diameter cost about seventy-five US dollars. A stone man-high was worth many villages and plantations, and a stone two-men high was beyond price’, according to William Price. He adds, ‘our experience in trying to make United States dollars legal tender on Yap is somewhat humbling. Yesterday it was the Japanese; today it is the Americans; tomorrow it could be somebody else.

Shells, particularly cowries, remained in universal use in Asia, China, Africa and Europe till not so long ago. In the Punjab, till the late 1920s, cowries valued at much less than a pice (sixty-four to a rupee) were sold by old women in markets from heaps piled in front of them as a subsidiary currency for marginal adjustment of prices. The cowry shell had a special value for rituals and ceremonies, for warding off the evil eye because of its resemblance to an eye, and a as a symbol of fertility and reproduction for its shape.

According to the passage, ‘fall of the favourite’ is a

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Although it is generally best not to mix work with friendship, there are times when a friend can be used to greater effect than an enemy. A man of power, for example, often has dirty work that has to be done, but for the sake of appearances it is generally preferable to have other people do it for him; friends often do this the best, since their affection for him makes them willing to take chances. Also, if plans go awry for some reason, the friend can be used as a convenient scapegoat. This ‘fall of the favourite’ was a trick often used by kings and sovereigns. They would let their closest friend at court take the fall for a mistake, since the public would not believe that they would deliberately sacrifice a friend for such purpose. Of course, once the card is played out, the friend is lost forever. It is best, then, to reserve the scapegoat role for someone who is close but not too close.
Finally, the problem about working with friends is that it confuses the boundaries and distances that working requires. But if both partners in the arrangement understand the dangers involved, a friend often can be employed to great effect. One must never let one’s guard down in such a venture, however; always be on the lookout for any signs of emotional disturbance such as envy and ingratitude. Nothing is stable in the realm of power, and even the closest of friends can be transformed into the worst of enemies.
When a friend is hired, his qualities kept hidden for long and let it come to fore by and by. Strangely enough, it is the act of kindness that unbalances everything. People want to feel they deserve their good fortune. The receipt of a favour can become oppressive. He may get a feeling that he has been chosen because he is a friend and not because he merited it. There is almost a touch of condescension in the act of hiring friends that secretly afflicts them. The injury will come out slowly. A little more honesty, flashes of resent and envy here and there, and before it is realized the friendship has faded away. The more favours and gifts one bestows to revive friendship, the less gratitude is received.
Ingratitude has a long and deep history. It has demonstrated its powers for so many centuries, that it is truly amazing that people continue to underestimate them. Better to be wary. One should never expect gratitude from a friend. It will be a pleasant surprise to find that they are actually grateful. The problem with using or hiring friends is that it will inevitably limit the power one intended to have. The friend is rarely the one who is most able to help; and in the end, skill and competence are far more important than friendly feelings.
All working situations require a kind of distance between people. People try to work, not to make friends; friendliness (real or false) only obscures that fact. The key to power is the ability to judge who is best suited to further the interests of an organization in all situations. Keep friends for friendship, but work with the skilled and competent. (Robert Greene in Power)

What, according to the author, do people continue to underestimate?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Although it is generally best not to mix work with friendship, there are times when a friend can be used to greater effect than an enemy. A man of power, for example, often has dirty work that has to be done, but for the sake of appearances it is generally preferable to have other people do it for him; friends often do this the best, since their affection for him makes them willing to take chances. Also, if plans go awry for some reason, the friend can be used as a convenient scapegoat. This ‘fall of the favourite’ was a trick often used by kings and sovereigns. They would let their closest friend at court take the fall for a mistake, since the public would not believe that they would deliberately sacrifice a friend for such purpose. Of course, once the card is played out, the friend is lost forever. It is best, then, to reserve the scapegoat role for someone who is close but not too close.
Finally, the problem about working with friends is that it confuses the boundaries and distances that working requires. But if both partners in the arrangement understand the dangers involved, a friend often can be employed to great effect. One must never let one’s guard down in such a venture, however; always be on the lookout for any signs of emotional disturbance such as envy and ingratitude. Nothing is stable in the realm of power, and even the closest of friends can be transformed into the worst of enemies.
When a friend is hired, his qualities kept hidden for long and let it come to fore by and by. Strangely enough, it is the act of kindness that unbalances everything. People want to feel they deserve their good fortune. The receipt of a favour can become oppressive. He may get a feeling that he has been chosen because he is a friend and not because he merited it. There is almost a touch of condescension in the act of hiring friends that secretly afflicts them. The injury will come out slowly. A little more honesty, flashes of resent and envy here and there, and before it is realized the friendship has faded away. The more favours and gifts one bestows to revive friendship, the less gratitude is received.
Ingratitude has a long and deep history. It has demonstrated its powers for so many centuries, that it is truly amazing that people continue to underestimate them. Better to be wary. One should never expect gratitude from a friend. It will be a pleasant surprise to find that they are actually grateful. The problem with using or hiring friends is that it will inevitably limit the power one intended to have. The friend is rarely the one who is most able to help; and in the end, skill and competence are far more important than friendly feelings.
All working situations require a kind of distance between people. People try to work, not to make friends; friendliness (real or false) only obscures that fact. The key to power is the ability to judge who is best suited to further the interests of an organization in all situations. Keep friends for friendship, but work with the skilled and competent. (Robert Greene in Power)

What is the most striking message one gets after reading this passage?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Although it is generally best not to mix work with friendship, there are times when a friend can be used to greater effect than an enemy. A man of power, for example, often has dirty work that has to be done, but for the sake of appearances it is generally preferable to have other people do it for him; friends often do this the best, since their affection for him makes them willing to take chances. Also, if plans go awry for some reason, the friend can be used as a convenient scapegoat. This ‘fall of the favourite’ was a trick often used by kings and sovereigns. They would let their closest friend at court take the fall for a mistake, since the public would not believe that they would deliberately sacrifice a friend for such purpose. Of course, once the card is played out, the friend is lost forever. It is best, then, to reserve the scapegoat role for someone who is close but not too close.
Finally, the problem about working with friends is that it confuses the boundaries and distances that working requires. But if both partners in the arrangement understand the dangers involved, a friend often can be employed to great effect. One must never let one’s guard down in such a venture, however; always be on the lookout for any signs of emotional disturbance such as envy and ingratitude. Nothing is stable in the realm of power, and even the closest of friends can be transformed into the worst of enemies.
When a friend is hired, his qualities kept hidden for long and let it come to fore by and by. Strangely enough, it is the act of kindness that unbalances everything. People want to feel they deserve their good fortune. The receipt of a favour can become oppressive. He may get a feeling that he has been chosen because he is a friend and not because he merited it. There is almost a touch of condescension in the act of hiring friends that secretly afflicts them. The injury will come out slowly. A little more honesty, flashes of resent and envy here and there, and before it is realized the friendship has faded away. The more favours and gifts one bestows to revive friendship, the less gratitude is received.
Ingratitude has a long and deep history. It has demonstrated its powers for so many centuries, that it is truly amazing that people continue to underestimate them. Better to be wary. One should never expect gratitude from a friend. It will be a pleasant surprise to find that they are actually grateful. The problem with using or hiring friends is that it will inevitably limit the power one intended to have. The friend is rarely the one who is most able to help; and in the end, skill and competence are far more important than friendly feelings.
All working situations require a kind of distance between people. People try to work, not to make friends; friendliness (real or false) only obscures that fact. The key to power is the ability to judge who is best suited to further the interests of an organization in all situations. Keep friends for friendship, but work with the skilled and competent. (Robert Greene in Power)

What, according to the author, should one be wary of?

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question that follows.

Although it is generally best not to mix work with friendship, there are times when a friend can be used to greater effect than an enemy. A man of power, for example, often has dirty work that has to be done, but for the sake of appearances it is generally preferable to have other people do it for him; friends often do this the best, since their affection for him makes them willing to take chances. Also, if plans go awry for some reason, the friend can be used as a convenient scapegoat. This ‘fall of the favourite’ was a trick often used by kings and sovereigns. They would let their closest friend at court take the fall for a mistake, since the public would not believe that they would deliberately sacrifice a friend for such purpose. Of course, once the card is played out, the friend is lost forever. It is best, then, to reserve the scapegoat role for someone who is close but not too close.
Finally, the problem about working with friends is that it confuses the boundaries and distances that working requires. But if both partners in the arrangement understand the dangers involved, a friend often can be employed to great effect. One must never let one’s guard down in such a venture, however; always be on the lookout for any signs of emotional disturbance such as envy and ingratitude. Nothing is stable in the realm of power, and even the closest of friends can be transformed into the worst of enemies.
When a friend is hired, his qualities kept hidden for long and let it come to fore by and by. Strangely enough, it is the act of kindness that unbalances everything. People want to feel they deserve their good fortune. The receipt of a favour can become oppressive. He may get a feeling that he has been chosen because he is a friend and not because he merited it. There is almost a touch of condescension in the act of hiring friends that secretly afflicts them. The injury will come out slowly. A little more honesty, flashes of resent and envy here and there, and before it is realized the friendship has faded away. The more favours and gifts one bestows to revive friendship, the less gratitude is received.
Ingratitude has a long and deep history. It has demonstrated its powers for so many centuries, that it is truly amazing that people continue to underestimate them. Better to be wary. One should never expect gratitude from a friend. It will be a pleasant surprise to find that they are actually grateful. The problem with using or hiring friends is that it will inevitably limit the power one intended to have. The friend is rarely the one who is most able to help; and in the end, skill and competence are far more important than friendly feelings.
All working situations require a kind of distance between people. People try to work, not to make friends; friendliness (real or false) only obscures that fact. The key to power is the ability to judge who is best suited to further the interests of an organization in all situations. Keep friends for friendship, but work with the skilled and competent. (Robert Greene in Power)

Directions: In the following question, five statements are provided. These statements form a coherent paragraph when properly arranged. Select the alternative representing the proper and logical sequencing of these statements.

A. A variety of measures will have to be introduced to put the family planning campaign back on its feet.
B. For this, the programme has to look inwards and treat itself as a development input in its own right.
C. In fact, development is the best method of controlling population growth though the reverse is also true that high population growth is a sure recipe for slow, if not negative development.
D. Family planning needs to be salvaged from the morass into which it has drifted.
E. Legal measures may help, but what is urgently required is social awareness and involvement to create responsible parenthood.

Directions: Select the most appropriate fillers for the blanks such that the sentence makes coherent sense.

At a public meeting where the great masses are gathered together, the best speaker is not he, whose way of ________ a subject is most akin to the spirit of intellectuals who may happen to be present, but the speaker who knows how to win the ________ of the masses.

Directions: In the following item, the passage consists of six sentences. The first and the sixth sentence are given in the beginning as S1 and S6, respectively. The middle four sentences have been removed and jumbled up. These are labelled P, Q, R and S. You are supposed to find out the proper sequence of the four sentences and mark the answer accordingly.

S1: In almost all the developing countries, estimates indicate that every six seconds, one child dies and another becomes disabled as a consequence of diseases that can be prevented with immunisation.
S6: After each round of immunisation during the IIP, all computerised data were brought up-to-date.
P: At the start of the programme, local Anganwadi centres for pre-school children operating as a part of the National Integrated Child Development Services Scheme were involved in conducting house-to-house surveys.
Q: The experiment has been launched with the objective of introducing new and efficient strategies for large-scale immunisation programmes, which, if successful, could be used as models for similar endeavours in the future.
R: Two areas were included in the IIP: Trilokpuri and Khanjawala.
S: Between December 1983 and March 1984, a large-scale experiment – the Intensive Immunisation Programme (IIP) – was conducted in Delhi.