Reading Comprehension - 11

The passage depicts a picture of

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

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

The presentation of London in the opening paragraph of the passage is

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

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

Which of the following, according to the passage, is the most cogent explanation for England's failure to compete with the rest of the world, an explanation it is loath to accept?

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

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

Which of the following can definitely not be inferred from the passage?

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

Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

Which of the following aptly sums up the theme of the essay?

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

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

According to the passage 'the eradication of landlordism and casteism' was

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

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

The author backs a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists because he believes

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

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

When the author writes about ‘ruinous results’, the reference is to

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

For decades, the working class in South Asia has been politically smothered by Stalinist parties. With ruinous results, the Stalinists have systematically subordinated the working class to one or another section of the national bourgeoisie on the grounds that the unresolved problems of the democratic revolution—including the eradication of landlordism and casteism and the establishment of genuine equality among the subcontinent’s myriad peoples—is possible only through a bourgeois-led ‘national’ movement.

On the basis of the suppression of an examination of the key strategic experiences of the international working class, those experiences that have formed the substance of the disputes between the various currents claiming to represent the continuation of the revolutionary Marxism, Stalinists, Maoists and Centrists for decades have subordinated the working class to bourgeois nationalism, social democracy and petty bourgeois radicalism.

The counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism on the world stage and all the variants of Indian Stalinism, from the CPI through the Naxalites for their adherence to the Menshevik-Stalinist theory of two-stage revolution, need to be laid bare and exposed as counter revolutionary currents inside the working class movement.

Failure of Stalinists and Maoists to present a real opposition and a viable alternative to the bourgeois rule has left the space open for bourgeois nationalist and reformist movements to occupy space.

We must therefore develop a systematic and historically-grounded critique of Stalinists, the role the Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy and its satellite Communist parties played in propping up world capitalism. But this is a complicated problem, because of the political-ideological domination the various Stalinist currents including its Maoist variant, have exerted, and continue to exert, over the working class and socialist-minded toilers and intellectuals in India. Such a critique is not only fundamental for understanding how capitalism survived the 20th century and the political problems that the working class now confronts, but also sheds critical light on the programme and perspective that must guide the working class in the next period of revolutionary upheavals.

Stalinism was the ideology of a privileged bureaucracy that succeeded in usurping power from the working class in the then USSR under conditions where the revolution (notwithstanding the post-World War I revolutionary upsurge of the German working class) had remained isolated in what was an extremely backward country. The bureaucracy with its doctrine of ‘socialism in one country’ repudiated the internationalist programme on which the revolution had been based and with increasing self-consciousness oriented toward securing a recognized placed in the capitalist-dominated world order, in the process, transformed the national Communist Parties into instruments of its counter-revolutionary foreign policy.
We must understand what Stalinism was and why it arose, the key revisions of Marxism with which it is associated (including socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, social fascism, popular frontism, and peaceful co-existence with world bourgeois), point to the key strategic experiences of the world working class that demonstrate the counter-revolutionary role of Stalinism, lay bare its destructive impact on the South Asian revolution, and indict the Soviet and Chinese bureaucracies for ultimately serving as the mechanism through which capitalism has been restored in the former USSR and the People’s Republic of China.

The Soviet Stalinist bureaucracy systematically strangled the world socialist revolution, promoted a nationalist-opportunist ideology and politics that acted, as Trotsky said, as the syphilis of the world labour movement, and mercilessly persecuted and sought to physically annihilate the revolutionary cadres of the Fourth international.
It is also necessary to review the record of Stalinism in India, tracing back to the origins and evolution of the CPI and its various offshoots including the Naxalite movement. This overview would clearly show how Stalinism systematically confused and disorganized the revolutionary-minded elements, making both the Stalinist parties—CPI and CPM—an integral part of the bourgeois order.

There is an allusion to ''better times'' in the passage. The reference is to

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

Passage 5       
Imagination can scarcely compass the vastness of modern London whose population exceeds that of the whole of Scotland, or the kingdom of Holland, whose traffic and trade are almost fabulous, and whose wealth as displayed in the miles and miles of the richest shops in every direction, and in every part of the town, are almost beyond the dreams of Aladdin!
And yet there is a shady side to this picture. The cry of depression in trade has gone on increasing year after year, and the “better times” so hopefully prophesied and wished for have not come. There is capital in the country which can find no investment, there are goods produced year after year which find no market, there are millions of English labourers in the towns, and in the country willing to work for their bread, but who can find no work and are on the brink of starvation. Clear-sighted if somewhat pessimist thinkers and writers offer an explanation which is sufficiently intelligible, though one is loath to accept it as correct. They say that the insular position of England, her comparative freedom from revolutions and foreign invasions, and the wonderful enterprise of her sons gave them a start in the commerce of the world which cannot for ever be maintained. For a time Englishmen monopolised the carrying trade of the world, they manufactured goods for the great marts of the world, and they alone reaped the profits of this wonderful monopoly. Population multiplied accordingly in England more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe, and far exceeded what the produce of the little island could support. But this monopoly could not last forever. Other nations have waked to a consciousness of the benefits of trade—steady hard-working nations like the Germans, who deserve to succeed, are competing with Englishmen all over the world, are cutting out the English abroad, and even in England. London traders complain with a bitterness which one can understand, that in London itself there are many thousand Germans who have ousted so many Englishmen from work, who are daily ousting more because they can live on so much less than Englishmen of the same class. Frugal, abstemious, almost stingy in their habits, the Germans work hard and spend little—which even the London shopboy has not yet learnt to save, but must needs enjoy his holiday, and spend his little saving with his chums or his sweetheart in the Crystal Palace. Abroad, there is the same competition, continental labour is cheaper, continental goods compete with English goods even in English colonies and sell cheaper! At the same time all over Europe—the French, the Germans, and other nations are protecting their home industries against English products by heavy protective import duties, and England vainly asks them to be free traders, and to repeal these duties. The United States does just the same thing, and even the English Colonies, Canada, Cape Colony, and the Australian States protect their own goods and keep out English products by heavy duties, and England cannot ask them to repeal such duties as she had made India do. Thus the circle of foreign markets is gradually shrinking, the competition of other nations in the old markets is increasing, and even in England labourers are cutting out Englishmen…

The writer does not seem to be entirely dismissive of all sermons. They could be useful if

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer seems to imply that

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer indicates that a typical sermonizer we encounter

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

Writer’s attitude towards the sermonizers is

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?

The writer views a sermonizer as

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

One of the easiest things to do in the world, one may be forgiven to say, is to sermonize. Also, one of the commonest things to do is to sermonize. It costs nothing to the one who sermonizes and gives some food for thought to the ones who are at the receiving end of these sermons, although there have been some victims of sermons as well. This might sound queer, but the fact of the matter is—there are quite a few victims in our own midst. What, imagine for a while, must be passing through the minds of those who harangue others with their sermons and what must be passing through the minds of those subjected to these unsolicited dose of words that sound more like hyperbole than anything else? And why people take to sermonizing? Well, those speaking from the pulpit have this uncanny tendency of believing that they only know what is right or wrong for the people below and that the ignoramus ones who gather there to listen to their sermons need to be told again and again that this and not that is the right thing for them to do. Hence sermons become essential. By constantly lending them ears, we only help embolden them to get away with this impression.
Sermons are not always innocuous these days. In fact, more often they are not. They could be inflammatory. Religious and political sermons could be deadly if they are taken to heart. This usually happens with the fanatics, and there is no dearth of these. They tend to take the sermons in letter and not in spirit. This creates situations that have wide ramifications. In the recent past some of these religious sermons have caused many conflagrations than have brought amity which is what a religion is supposed to aim at. Obviously, because of the excessive dose of religious sermons, there have been more fragmentations in our society than there had ever been before.
But it is the political sermons, of all the sermons, that are amusing. Political sermons are so only in the sense that politicians make them, and not because they are political in character. But the occasions they choose to make these sermons are quite sombre and there is nothing ludicrous about them. While celebrating Martyr’s Day, we are told by our leaders to inculcate the qualities of the Father of the nation. Fine indeed! But the very next day when we are celebrating the birth day of Netaji (not exactly the next day), we are asked to emulate his qualities. On another day we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Shivaji and so on and so forth. There is obviously nothing wrong with these sermons. The trouble would begin when someone decides to take these sermons seriously and sets out on inculcating the qualities of those personages who are no longer on the scene. Not all of them had similar qualities. For instance, the only agenda on which both Gandhiji and Netaji agreed was India’s freedom. Imagine the condition of the man who inculcates the qualities of all these great persons. What then will remain of him?