English Reading Comprehension

Find out the appropriate word to fill blank (ix).

Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words/phrases are suggested, one of which best fits the blank appropriately.

There was a man who had four sons. He ____(i)____ his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So he sent them each on a _____(ii)____, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away. The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in autumn. When they had all gone and come back, he _____(iii)_____ them together to ____(iv)_____ what they had seen. The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said, “No! It was covered with green buds and full of promise.” The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that ____(v)_____ so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ____(vi)_____ seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment. The man then _____(vii)_____ to his sons that they all were right, because they had each seen but only one _____(viii)_____ in the tree’s life. He told them that you _____(ix)_____ judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the _____(x)_____ of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that comes from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are over.

Find out the appropriate word to fill blank (ii).

Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words/phrases are suggested, one of which best fits the blank appropriately.

There was a man who had four sons. He ____(i)____ his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So he sent them each on a _____(ii)____, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away. The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in autumn. When they had all gone and come back, he _____(iii)_____ them together to ____(iv)_____ what they had seen. The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said, “No! It was covered with green buds and full of promise.” The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that ____(v)_____ so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ____(vi)_____ seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment. The man then _____(vii)_____ to his sons that they all were right, because they had each seen but only one _____(viii)_____ in the tree’s life. He told them that you _____(ix)_____ judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the _____(x)_____ of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that comes from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are over.

Find out the appropriate word to fill blank (vi).

Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words/phrases are suggested, one of which best fits the blank appropriately.

There was a man who had four sons. He ____(i)____ his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So he sent them each on a _____(ii)____, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away. The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in autumn. When they had all gone and come back, he _____(iii)_____ them together to ____(iv)_____ what they had seen. The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said, “No! It was covered with green buds and full of promise.” The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that ____(v)_____ so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ____(vi)_____ seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment. The man then _____(vii)_____ to his sons that they all were right, because they had each seen but only one _____(viii)_____ in the tree’s life. He told them that you _____(ix)_____ judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the _____(x)_____ of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that comes from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are over.

Find out the appropriate word to fill blank (iv).

Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words/phrases are suggested, one of which best fits the blank appropriately.

There was a man who had four sons. He ____(i)____ his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So he sent them each on a _____(ii)____, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away. The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in autumn. When they had all gone and come back, he _____(iii)_____ them together to ____(iv)_____ what they had seen. The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said, “No! It was covered with green buds and full of promise.” The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that ____(v)_____ so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ____(vi)_____ seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment. The man then _____(vii)_____ to his sons that they all were right, because they had each seen but only one _____(viii)_____ in the tree’s life. He told them that you _____(ix)_____ judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the _____(x)_____ of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that comes from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are over.

Find out the appropriate word to fill blank (i).

Directions: In the following passage there are blanks, each of which has been numbered. These numbers are printed below the passage and against each, five words/phrases are suggested, one of which best fits the blank appropriately.

There was a man who had four sons. He ____(i)____ his sons to learn not to judge things too quickly. So he sent them each on a _____(ii)____, in turn, to go and look at a pear tree that was a great distance away. The first son went in the winter, the second in the spring, the third in summer, and the youngest son in autumn. When they had all gone and come back, he _____(iii)_____ them together to ____(iv)_____ what they had seen. The first son said that the tree was ugly, bent, and twisted. The second son said, “No! It was covered with green buds and full of promise.” The third son disagreed; he said it was laden with blossoms that ____(v)_____ so sweet and looked so beautiful, it was the most graceful thing he had ____(vi)_____ seen. The last son disagreed with all of them; he said it was ripe and drooping with fruit, full of life and fulfillment. The man then _____(vii)_____ to his sons that they all were right, because they had each seen but only one _____(viii)_____ in the tree’s life. He told them that you _____(ix)_____ judge a tree, or a person, by only one season, and that the _____(x)_____ of who they are and the pleasure, joy, and love that comes from that life can only be measured at the end, when all the seasons are over.

According to the author, the reason that women still get special privileges is that

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Passage – III
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?
You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"
Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                             
But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?
Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenceless and blameless.
That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.
"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.
But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?
The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.
The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.
But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.
But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.
Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.
Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

The reason that women were given preferential treatment on the Titanic was

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Passage – III
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?
You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"
Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                             
But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?
Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenceless and blameless.
That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.
"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.
But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?
The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.
The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.
But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.
But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.
Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.
Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

The essay is

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

Passage – III
Titanic, the leviathan, the colossal ship met its end on that fateful day of April, 1912. Hundreds of passengers lost their lives, various men, women & children. There were around 701 – 713 survivors, most of them being women & children. This arises in front of us an important question – why were more women & children alive after the mishap? Would we call it sheer co–incidence or a foolish show of chivalry on the part of men of the twentieth century?
You're on the Titanic II. It has just hit an iceberg and is sinking. And, as last time, there are not enough lifeboats. The captain shouts, "Women and children first!" But this time, another voice is heard: "Why women?"
Why, indeed? Part of the charm of the cosmically successful movie Titanic is the period costume, period extravagance, period class prejudice. Oddly, however, of all the period mores in the film, the old maritime tradition of "women and children first" enjoys total acceptance by modern audiences.                                             
But is not grouping women with children a raging anachronism? Should not any self–respecting modern person, let alone feminist, object to it as patronizing and demeaning to women?
Now, children are entitled to special consideration for two reasons: helplessness and innocence. They have not yet acquired either the faculty of reason or the wisdom of experience. Consequently, they are defenceless and blameless.
That is why we grant them special protection. In an emergency, it is our duty to save them first because they, helpless, have put their lives in our hands. And in wartime, they are supposed to enjoy special immunity because they, blameless, can have threatened or offended no one.
"Women and children" attributes to women the same pitiable dependence and moral simplicity we find in five–year–olds. Do the women agree to it? Such an attitude made sense perhaps in an era of male suffrage and "Help Wanted: Female" classifieds. Given the disabilities attached to womanhood in 1912, it was only fair and right that a new standard of gender equality not suddenly be proclaimed just as lifeboat seats were being handed out. That deference a somewhat more urgent variant of giving up your seat on the bus to a woman–complemented and perhaps compensated for the legal and social constraints placed on women at the time.
But in this day of the most extensive societal restructuring to grant women equality in education, in employment, in government, in athletics, in citizenship, what entitles women to the privileges–and reduces them to the status of children?
The evolutionary psychologists might say that ladies–to–the–lifeboats is an instinct that developed to perpetuate the species: women are indispensable child bearers. You can repopulate a village if the women survive and only a few of the men, but you cannot repopulate a village if the men survive and only a few of the women. Women being more precious, biologically speaking, than men, evolution has conditioned us to give them the kind of life–protecting deference we give to that other seed of the future, kids.
The problem with this kind of logic, however, is its depressing reductionism. It recapitulates in all seriousness the geneticist's old witticism that a chicken is just an egg's way of making another egg.
But humans are more than just egg layers. And chivalrous traditions are more than just disguised survival strategies. So why do we say "women and children"? Perhaps it's really "women for children". The most basic parental bond is maternal. Equal parenting is great-it has forced men to get off their duffs-but women, from breast to cradle to cuddle, can nurture in ways that men cannot. And thus, because we value children-who would deny them first crack at the lifeboats? Women should go second. The children need them.
But kiddie-centrism gets you only so far. What if there are no children on board? You are on the Titanic III, a singles cruise. No kids, no moms, no dads.
Here's my scenario. The men, out of sheer irrational gallantry, should let the women go first. And the women, out of sheer feminist self–respect, should refuse.
Result? Stalemate. How does this movie end? How should it end? Hurry, the ship's going down.

Which is not false as per the passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – I
Those who scorn the idea that spooks and spectres prowl and shimmer through the world do so because no one has so far caught a ghost in a bottle, because they are sceptical by habit, or because they resist the notion that death may not be final.
For many the word "ghost" conjures up an anonymous white-robed figure, a spirit who has come back from the grave to haunt the living. But in the annals of ghostdom, spectral beings come in a variety of forms and shapes, and some never put in an appearance at all, although they make their presence felt. Ghosts also differ in behaviour - they may be aimless, purposeful, playful, angelic, and even demonic.
There are three lines of explanation for ghostly phenomena: the spiritual, mechanical, and psychological. The most firmly established is the spiritual thesis, which holds that ghosts are intelligent beings. The first version of this idea is that ghosts are the spirits of dead humans. They continue to resemble their earthly forms in appearance and dress and are found re-enacting things they did in the past, bound to their haunting grounds by guilt, remorse, desire, or habit. They may be malevolent, kindly, or indifferent toward human beings. People who take this view of ghosts regard them as marking time in a spiritual halfway house between this world and heaven, purgatory, or hell.
According to another version of the spiritual view, a ghost's resemblance to a formerly living person or animal is actually a masquerade adopted for its own purpose, the real appearance of ghosts being quite different. Some ghosts, for instance, appear as vaporous columns or clouds of light.
In the third view of ghosts as a spiritual phenomenon, these apparitions are not beings in either of the senses described above. Instead, they are illusions created by powerful classes of angelic or demonic beings for the purpose of helping or harming those who see them. Miracles are an example of intervention by angelic or enlightened powers, while most poltergeist episodes are held to be demonic.
The mechanical interpretation is that ghosts are images without substance, somehow recorded in an etherised medium and visible under certain conditions to those of a certain case of mind. This idea accords well with some frequently observed phenomena - the way some ghosts have of disappearing into thin air. It does not explain those cases where the ghost interacts intelligently with those who see it.
In the psychological view of the phenomenon, ghosts reveal a spectrum of powerful but not yet understood capacities of the human mind. In these terms, some ghosts are the product of telepathic powers, as when a relative or friend appears to another at the time of death: others - poltergeist phenomena - suggest unwitting and uncontrolled psychokinetic abilities. And some - the appearance of phantom doubles - suggest that out-of-body experiences may sometimes be manifest to others.
In fact, most believers in ghosts are probably willing to accept all of these theses as helping to explain a complex and varied phenomenon. Sceptics, on the other hand, resorting to the dry but sturdy arguments to what they consider to be commonsense, are apt to maintain that stories of ghosts are lies, hallucinations, or earnest reports of misperceptions. But the most convincing evidence of the existence of spectres still seems to be their appearance on the scene.

Which of the following statements is not true as per the passage?

Directions: The passage below is followed by a question based on its content. Answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage.

PASSAGE – I
Those who scorn the idea that spooks and spectres prowl and shimmer through the world do so because no one has so far caught a ghost in a bottle, because they are sceptical by habit, or because they resist the notion that death may not be final.
For many the word "ghost" conjures up an anonymous white-robed figure, a spirit who has come back from the grave to haunt the living. But in the annals of ghostdom, spectral beings come in a variety of forms and shapes, and some never put in an appearance at all, although they make their presence felt. Ghosts also differ in behaviour - they may be aimless, purposeful, playful, angelic, and even demonic.
There are three lines of explanation for ghostly phenomena: the spiritual, mechanical, and psychological. The most firmly established is the spiritual thesis, which holds that ghosts are intelligent beings. The first version of this idea is that ghosts are the spirits of dead humans. They continue to resemble their earthly forms in appearance and dress and are found re-enacting things they did in the past, bound to their haunting grounds by guilt, remorse, desire, or habit. They may be malevolent, kindly, or indifferent toward human beings. People who take this view of ghosts regard them as marking time in a spiritual halfway house between this world and heaven, purgatory, or hell.
According to another version of the spiritual view, a ghost's resemblance to a formerly living person or animal is actually a masquerade adopted for its own purpose, the real appearance of ghosts being quite different. Some ghosts, for instance, appear as vaporous columns or clouds of light.
In the third view of ghosts as a spiritual phenomenon, these apparitions are not beings in either of the senses described above. Instead, they are illusions created by powerful classes of angelic or demonic beings for the purpose of helping or harming those who see them. Miracles are an example of intervention by angelic or enlightened powers, while most poltergeist episodes are held to be demonic.
The mechanical interpretation is that ghosts are images without substance, somehow recorded in an etherised medium and visible under certain conditions to those of a certain case of mind. This idea accords well with some frequently observed phenomena - the way some ghosts have of disappearing into thin air. It does not explain those cases where the ghost interacts intelligently with those who see it.
In the psychological view of the phenomenon, ghosts reveal a spectrum of powerful but not yet understood capacities of the human mind. In these terms, some ghosts are the product of telepathic powers, as when a relative or friend appears to another at the time of death: others - poltergeist phenomena - suggest unwitting and uncontrolled psychokinetic abilities. And some - the appearance of phantom doubles - suggest that out-of-body experiences may sometimes be manifest to others.
In fact, most believers in ghosts are probably willing to accept all of these theses as helping to explain a complex and varied phenomenon. Sceptics, on the other hand, resorting to the dry but sturdy arguments to what they consider to be commonsense, are apt to maintain that stories of ghosts are lies, hallucinations, or earnest reports of misperceptions. But the most convincing evidence of the existence of spectres still seems to be their appearance on the scene.

Directions: This question presents a sentence, all or part of which is underlined. Beneath the sentence you will find five ways of phrasing the underlined part. The first of these repeats the original; the other four are different. If you think the original is best, choose the first answer; otherwise choose one of the others.

This scheme of marriage that Father Maurice had opened to him, even all that had said to him of her virtue and good sense, made him pause to think.

Fill blank (ii).

Directions: Read the following passage having some numbered blanks.

Pigeon is a working bird. Carrier pigeons are trained to carry messages to people. The note is placed into a small skinny can, and then it is tied to the pigeon’s leg. Pigeons are good messengers because they are fast and can fly long distances. They also can reach places that people can’t. From high up in the __(i)__, specially trained pigeons can __(ii)__ orange coloured life jackets in the ocean, as __(iii)__ it is difficult for humans to spot people at __(iv)__, especially in bad __(v)__.

What is the meaning of the word 'orphan'?

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

Experts decided that Clover was not fit for the wild because he was

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

The place where a bear lives is known as a

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