English Language

English Reading Comprehension

3,503 Questions

English reading comprehension questions assess the ability to understand, analyze, and interpret written passages. Formats include paragraph rearrangement, cloze tests, and fact finding from text. Regular practice is essential for scoring well in the English sections of banking, SSC, and railway exams.

Passage based inferenceParagraph rearrangementCloze test fillingVocabulary replacementReading accuracy tests

English Reading Comprehension Questions

Multiple choice

Which attitudes is the author referring to when he compares two biographies of Moliere?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Among the considerable number of men dedicated to the task of keeping Louis XIV entertained, several met bizarre ends. In 1671 at Chantilly, the great chef Vatel, after providing the king and some 2,000 courtiers with three superb meals on the first day of their visit, killed himself on the next, when a consignment offish he had ordered failed to appear (it turned up shortly thereafter). Jean-Baptiste Lully, in charge of music for all the royal festivities, managed to stab himself in the foot with his conductor's baton while directing a performance of one of his own works in 1687; he died soon afterwards when gangrene set in.
Nothing, however, quite equals the death of Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, the self-styled sieur de Moliere. a man established by 1672 as actor/manager and chief playwright of la troupe du ropi, performing at the Palais Royal in Paris and much in demand at court. But might it not be a bit dangerous to counterfeit death? Moliere, as Argan, the hypochondriac protagonist of his last comedy, Le Malade Imaginaire, enquired, when about to do just that, during the play's fourth performance on February 17th, 1673. No, no, the maid Toinette reassured him, what danger could there be? But Moliere did, in fact, die: not actually on stage - though he finished Argan's part with considerable difficulty - but an hour or two later at home. Predictably, a strictly Catholic France where actors were excommunicated and refused burial in consecrated ground (though churchmen patronised the theatre and wrote plays themselves), the usual dour moral lessons were drawn.
The stage chair in which Moliere as Argan was stricken in earnest, not in jest, can still be seen on permanent display in the upper lobby of the Comedie Francaise - the theatre which, in effect, he founded. It is, apart from the plays themselves and their prefaces, almost the only tangible relic of a man much written about by friends and enemies during and immediately after his lifetime, who nevertheless remains in many ways mysterious, despite endlessly proliferating scholarly and critical research. Virginia Scott, author of the latest attempt at a biography, is well aware of the difficulties. No one can disentangle legend from fact, fiction from truth - not even in the brief life attached to the collected edition of Moliere's works produced by his associate La Grange in 1682, or in the 1705 biography by Grimmarest. Moliere himself left no letters, no diaries, no memoirs. None of the various houses in which he is said to have lived remains, nor do any of his personal possessions. Not only do his contemporaries provide ambiguous and conflicting reports, but the basic facts are wanting. Shakespeareans may complain about a certain paucity of information, but at least they know where their man was buried and whom he married. Molieristes do not.
Ms. Scott is engagingly candid about her biographical method. "My agenda is to express those intersections between myself and the past that I experience imaginatively...I order what I know or believe I know so as to create characters whom I choose to call Moliere and Madeleine - who could have made with some degree of probability the choices I believe the real Moliere and Madeleine to have made." So she is free to decide that Armande Bejart, the teenager Moliere married in 1662, was indeed the daughter of his former mistress Madeleine Bejart by the Comte de Modene, rather than her youngest sister. (But not, as some of his enemies suggested, also Moliere’s daughter.) As to where and when the respectable Jean-Baptiste Poquelin first met the distinctly bohemian Madeleine, and how he was drawn away from the solid family upholstery business into the theatre, she does not pretend to offer more than speculation. Like everyone who writes about Moliere, Ms. Scott combs the plays themselves for clues about his private life and comes up with suggestions that mayor may not be right. Most innovative of all, perhaps, is her hypothesis that Moliere's relationship with his young protégé Baron was homoerotic - though even that was hinted at by the more malicious of his contemporaries.
The last biography of Moliere published in English, John Palmer's Moliere (1930; reprinted in 1970), is still worth reading. To compare it, however, with Ms. Scott's is to realise how enormously attitudes have changed during the intervening years. Nervous even about Moliere's illicit relationship with Madeleine, Palmer could not bring himself to say more than that probably they had an affair. Over Baron's possibly sexual appeal to Moliere he maintained total silence. Also very much of its period was his slight regard for that improvised Italian theatre which provided Moliere with many dramatic types, and his contempt for lavish baroque spectacle of the kind that Louis XIV loved and on which Moliere wasted his talents. The ballet de cour and comedies-ballets are now regarded with far more interest and respect than was the case in 1930 (as indeed are the court masques that Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones created for James I). Both the delicious Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme and Le Malade Imaginaire are, after all, comedies-ballets - a category that a more flexible 21st-century idea of theatre can once again accommodate.
Ms. Scott provides valuable correctives here. The strength of her book (as might be expected from the author of The Commedia dell' Arte in Paris, 1990) lies less in its portrait of Moliere himself than in the densely researched and persuasive background against which she is able to situate him. This is made up of families and places (she is particularly good on the 13 years during which Moliere and his troupe wandered the French provinces before returning to Paris), while also including portraits of his enemies, as well as eminent friends such as Boileau, La Fontaine and Racine. She does not offer much in the way of commentary on the plays themselves. What she does do is arrestingly illuminate the complex world of theatre and court, both in Paris and elsewhere, that finally constitutes almost all that can really be known of Moliere's life.

  1. Sexual and moral attitudes

  2. Attitudes towards playwrights and actors

  3. Catholic attitudes

  4. All of the above

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

Directly stated, "how enormously attitudes have changed during the intervening years. Nervous even about Moliere's illicit relationship with Madeleine..."

Multiple choice

"But might it not be a bit dangerous to counterfeit death?" What can we infer from this line about Moliere's death?

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Among the considerable number of men dedicated to the task of keeping Louis XIV entertained, several met bizarre ends. In 1671 at Chantilly, the great chef Vatel, after providing the king and some 2,000 courtiers with three superb meals on the first day of their visit, killed himself on the next, when a consignment offish he had ordered failed to appear (it turned up shortly thereafter). Jean-Baptiste Lully, in charge of music for all the royal festivities, managed to stab himself in the foot with his conductor's baton while directing a performance of one of his own works in 1687; he died soon afterwards when gangrene set in.
Nothing, however, quite equals the death of Jean-Baptiste Poquelin, the self-styled sieur de Moliere. a man established by 1672 as actor/manager and chief playwright of la troupe du ropi, performing at the Palais Royal in Paris and much in demand at court. But might it not be a bit dangerous to counterfeit death? Moliere, as Argan, the hypochondriac protagonist of his last comedy, Le Malade Imaginaire, enquired, when about to do just that, during the play's fourth performance on February 17th, 1673. No, no, the maid Toinette reassured him, what danger could there be? But Moliere did, in fact, die: not actually on stage - though he finished Argan's part with considerable difficulty - but an hour or two later at home. Predictably, a strictly Catholic France where actors were excommunicated and refused burial in consecrated ground (though churchmen patronised the theatre and wrote plays themselves), the usual dour moral lessons were drawn.
The stage chair in which Moliere as Argan was stricken in earnest, not in jest, can still be seen on permanent display in the upper lobby of the Comedie Francaise - the theatre which, in effect, he founded. It is, apart from the plays themselves and their prefaces, almost the only tangible relic of a man much written about by friends and enemies during and immediately after his lifetime, who nevertheless remains in many ways mysterious, despite endlessly proliferating scholarly and critical research. Virginia Scott, author of the latest attempt at a biography, is well aware of the difficulties. No one can disentangle legend from fact, fiction from truth - not even in the brief life attached to the collected edition of Moliere's works produced by his associate La Grange in 1682, or in the 1705 biography by Grimmarest. Moliere himself left no letters, no diaries, no memoirs. None of the various houses in which he is said to have lived remains, nor do any of his personal possessions. Not only do his contemporaries provide ambiguous and conflicting reports, but the basic facts are wanting. Shakespeareans may complain about a certain paucity of information, but at least they know where their man was buried and whom he married. Molieristes do not.
Ms. Scott is engagingly candid about her biographical method. "My agenda is to express those intersections between myself and the past that I experience imaginatively...I order what I know or believe I know so as to create characters whom I choose to call Moliere and Madeleine - who could have made with some degree of probability the choices I believe the real Moliere and Madeleine to have made." So she is free to decide that Armande Bejart, the teenager Moliere married in 1662, was indeed the daughter of his former mistress Madeleine Bejart by the Comte de Modene, rather than her youngest sister. (But not, as some of his enemies suggested, also Moliere’s daughter.) As to where and when the respectable Jean-Baptiste Poquelin first met the distinctly bohemian Madeleine, and how he was drawn away from the solid family upholstery business into the theatre, she does not pretend to offer more than speculation. Like everyone who writes about Moliere, Ms. Scott combs the plays themselves for clues about his private life and comes up with suggestions that mayor may not be right. Most innovative of all, perhaps, is her hypothesis that Moliere's relationship with his young protégé Baron was homoerotic - though even that was hinted at by the more malicious of his contemporaries.
The last biography of Moliere published in English, John Palmer's Moliere (1930; reprinted in 1970), is still worth reading. To compare it, however, with Ms. Scott's is to realise how enormously attitudes have changed during the intervening years. Nervous even about Moliere's illicit relationship with Madeleine, Palmer could not bring himself to say more than that probably they had an affair. Over Baron's possibly sexual appeal to Moliere he maintained total silence. Also very much of its period was his slight regard for that improvised Italian theatre which provided Moliere with many dramatic types, and his contempt for lavish baroque spectacle of the kind that Louis XIV loved and on which Moliere wasted his talents. The ballet de cour and comedies-ballets are now regarded with far more interest and respect than was the case in 1930 (as indeed are the court masques that Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones created for James I). Both the delicious Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme and Le Malade Imaginaire are, after all, comedies-ballets - a category that a more flexible 21st-century idea of theatre can once again accommodate.
Ms. Scott provides valuable correctives here. The strength of her book (as might be expected from the author of The Commedia dell' Arte in Paris, 1990) lies less in its portrait of Moliere himself than in the densely researched and persuasive background against which she is able to situate him. This is made up of families and places (she is particularly good on the 13 years during which Moliere and his troupe wandered the French provinces before returning to Paris), while also including portraits of his enemies, as well as eminent friends such as Boileau, La Fontaine and Racine. She does not offer much in the way of commentary on the plays themselves. What she does do is arrestingly illuminate the complex world of theatre and court, both in Paris and elsewhere, that finally constitutes almost all that can really be known of Moliere's life.

  1. That he died a natural death

  2. That his death was a spectacular one

  3. That he had a premonition of his death

  4. That while faking death during a performance he was actually stricken and died thereafter

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
D Correct answer
Explanation

"The stage chair in which Moliere as Argan was stricken in earnest, not in jest... "

Multiple choice

What is the main reason for the writer mentioning Rowley?

Read the text and answer the multiple-choice question by selecting the correct response. Only one response is correct.
“Rightly is they called pigs,” said Rowley, a farm laborer looking at the wallowing animals before passing on to the cow sheds, in Aldous Huxley's novel Chrome Yellow. Those who heard his words commented on his wisdom.
This raises all sorts of questions about language and how we perceive the world, questions that range from the philosophical to the, politically correct (PC) use of language and the question of causing offence - for example, calling someone a pig.
Those who believed in being PC tried to adjust language to take into account people's sensitivities in the areas of race, sexuality and disability, and a theologian has recently written that we should do the same for the animal kingdom. To call them "wild" or "beasts" is, he says, "derogatory and offensive". I'm all in favor of animal welfare, but, in arguing his case, he says that language is the means by which we understand and conceptualize the world around us.
But is it? Isn't it the other way round? To put it another, very simple, way: do you believe that the language you use has made you think of the world in a certain way, or that you have an idea of the world as it is and your place in it, and you use language to understand and describe it?
Is Rowley's wisdom based on his many years working with farm animals, and what he has seen is just pigs being pigs and there's nothing more to be said? Or has he decided that the name "pig" suits these creatures because they behave piggishly? If we cleaned them up, taught them table manners and made them wear a tie, would we have to call them something else?

  1. Because he is a farm laborer.

  2. To illustrate his view about the use of language.

  3. To support the idea that we should be politically correct when talking about animals.

  4. To bring some humor into his text.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

1 is incorrect because although Rowley is a farm laborer, that's not the main reason he is mentioned.

3 is incorrect because Rowley does not support that view.
4 is incorrect because although Rowley speaks in a slightly humorous way, that's not the main reason he is mentioned. 2 is correct because the writer says: "Rightly is they called pigs," said Rowley, a farm laborer looking at the wallowing animals before passing on to the cow sheds ... This raises all sorts o f questions about language and how we perceive the world ...

Multiple choice

What is the main reason for the writer mentioning Rowley?

Read the text and answer the multiple-choice question by selecting the correct response. Only one response is correct.
“Rightly is they called pigs,” said Rowley, a farm laborer looking at the wallowing animals before passing on to the cow sheds, in Aldous Huxley's novel Chrome Yellow. Those who heard his words commented on his wisdom.
This raises all sorts of questions about language and how we perceive the world, questions that range from the philosophical to the, politically correct (PC) use of language and the question of causing offence - for example, calling someone a pig.
Those who believed in being PC tried to adjust language to take into account people's sensitivities in the areas of race, sexuality and disability, and a theologian has recently written that we should do the same for the animal kingdom. To call them "wild" or "beasts" is, he says, "derogatory and offensive". I'm all in favor of animal welfare, but, in arguing his case, he says that language is the means by which we understand and conceptualize the world around us.
But is it? Isn't it the other way round? To put it another, very simple, way: do you believe that the language you use has made you think of the world in a certain way, or that you have an idea of the world as it is and your place in it, and you use language to understand and describe it?
Is Rowley's wisdom based on his many years working with farm animals, and what he has seen is just pigs being pigs and there's nothing more to be said? Or has he decided that the name "pig" suits these creatures because they behave piggishly? If we cleaned them up, taught them table manners and made them wear a tie, would we have to call them something else?

  1. Because he is a farm laborer.

  2. To illustrate his view about the use of language.

  3. To support the idea that we should be politically correct when talking about animals.

  4. To bring some humor into his text.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

1 is incorrect because although Rowley is a farm laborer, that's not the main reason he is mentioned.

3 is incorrect because Rowley does not support that view.
4 is incorrect because although Rowley speaks in a slightly humorous way, that's not the main reason he is mentioned. 2 is correct because the writer says: "Rightly is they called pigs," said Rowley, a farm laborer looking at the wallowing animals before passing on to the cow sheds ... This raises all sorts o f questions about language and how we perceive the world ...

Multiple choice
  1. The speaker tells us that clichés are the enemy of literature and art. They are words, phrases and images that have become stale through overuse and therefore have nothing new to say to us. They are an enemy to clear and original thinking, although they are sometimes useful in advertising to get a simple message across.

  2. While clichés in writing reveal lazy thinking and are to be avoided at all costs, in the graphic arts they become essential, helping to get the message across quickly, clearly and with emotional force. This is especially true of advertising and propaganda where the impact must be immediate.

  3. Clichés are worn out, overused and over-familiar phrases, and the etymology of the word helps to explain this. Originally, a cliché or stereotype was a printer's term for a pre-set block of type with phrases used frequently in the newspapers. The word has since adopted a negative meaning and careful writers avoid them where they can.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The speaker says: A cliche, as you know, is an overused and worn out phrase ... there is no greater danger to either education or thinking than the popular phrase ... Now, if you think o f graphic design as a language with its own vocabulary, grammar, and so on, it too must have its cliches.... the visual cliche is essential in the world of graphic communication. This is certainly true when it comes to advertising and propaganda. The visual cliche can give immediate life to an idea and a clear meaning to what could be a mere abstraction.

Multiple choice
  1. Dolphins, whales and porpoises are all social animals, but some species are more sociable than others. This depends on the environment because a species adopts the lifestyle most suitable for this. Among dolphins, forming groups makes it easier for them to find food, reproduce and gain knowledge. They are safer, too, because dolphins can communicate danger when there are threats around.

  2. The speaker explains that whales, dolphins, and porpoises have evolved differently and face different threats. River dolphin numbers are declining, while ocean dolphins are doing well in spite of the threats they face. The reason for this is that ocean dolphins are better adapted for finding food and avoiding predators.

  3. Dolphins have adopted group living as a response to living in close contact with other animals in the ocean, some of which kill dolphins for food. Living in social groups makes it easier to hunt for food and, in a dangerous environment, it makes sense in terms of safety to move about in large numbers.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

The speaker says: All whales, dolphins and porpoises are social animals, although the degree of sociability varies greatly from one species to another. ... we can expect the group size adopted by a species to be the most suitable for its environment and lifestyle.... Some o f the reasons for living in groups include greater efficiency in searching for and catching food, benefits for mating, learning, defence, and sensory integration.... For example, i f one animal discovers a shoal of fish or a hungry shark, it can immediately pass on this information to the others in the group so that all may benefit.

Multiple choice
  1. In the end they can teach you to write well.

  2. There are certain important aspects of writing they can teach.

  3. It is better to read well than take writing classes.

  4. They aim to develop a love of language in students.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

1 is incorrect because the speaker says classes will improve someone's writing, but you can't teach someone to write extremely well.

Multiple choice
  1. ignored people speaking

  2. participated in conversations

  3. understood spoken language

  4. understood foreign languages

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

The text is about how the brain works and, in particular, how different areas of the brain perform different functions. It describes a patient who had damage to one part of the brain. This affected his ability to talk, but not his ability to understand. So, the missing words are: understood spoken language.

Multiple choice
  1. Prospero had an apartment to keep his books

  2. Prospero practised magic on the spirits

  3. Prospero freed the spirits imprisoned by Sycorax

  4. Prospero had brought home Caliban to help him with the books

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

It is apparent from the passage that Prospero had a great love for books, for he maintained a separate study where he kept his books, especially based on magic.

Multiple choice

Which of the following words is nearly the same in meaning to the word ‘astray’ as given in the passage?

Directions: Read the passage given below carefully and choose the best answer to the question from the given alternatives.

Once there lived an old scholar in a village. He was a well-respected man in his region that had fallen on bad times after a terrible flood.
Late one night, a thief broke into his house and stealthily crept around the sleeping household. Suddenly, the thief heard a rustling sound. Someone was coming. He looked around for a place to hide himself, but the room had little furniture in it – there was nowhere to hide. In desperation he looked around again and this time he looked upwards, up to the roof beams.
With a running jump he scrambled up onto one of the roof beams. He pressed his body along the length of the pole, and stayed as still and quiet as he could – hardly breathing , not moving a muscle.
The door below opened, and in walked an old man. He took a few steps into the room and stopped. He seemed to be lost in thought as he waited near the door.
Then he called out to a servant to wake his sons. He then walked over to a chair in the middle of the room, sat down, and waited.
Soon, his three sleepy sons shuffled into the room.
“What’s wrong father?” asked the youngest son and yawned.
“I just wanted to ask you boys a question.” answered the wise old scholar.
The eldest son was surprised, “You woke us all up in the middle of the night because you wanted to ask us a question? Couldn’t it have waited till the morning?”
“It is an important question. Now sit down all of you. My question is: If a person does bad things, is he a bad person?”
The room was silent for a while.
Then, the middle son spoke. “I’ve heard of the phrase, ‘Hate the sin, but not the sinner’, I think that people can be good inside, but they get led astray or get driven to do bad things.”
He nodded and replied, ”Yes, I do think that man is born good. But sometimes, people get lax, and conveniently forget what the right thing to do is, and slowly they turn bad. It’s easier to be bad and much, much harder to be good, and do what is right all the time. It takes work and perseverance not to give in.
The old man told his sons about how important working and honesty were. “You must always strive to be honest, to people you know and also people you don’t know. What do YOU think sir?” The man looked directly up at the unwelcome visitor in the beam.
The thief was so surprised, he almost fell off. Regaining his balance, he slowly climbed down, trembling. When the sons saw the loot in the thief’s bag, they closed in on him, ready to punish him, but the old man stood between the thief and his sons.
“Hate the sin and not the sinner”, he repeated, then turned to the thief and to everyone’s surprise ordered his servant to give the man a bolt of silk.
Full of shock, shame and gratitude, the thief apologized sincerely.
The wise old scholar said, “I have faith in you to become good again. Use this cloth to start over, and live your life with dignity and a healthy amount of pride in yourself.” Then the wise old scholar led the man out of the front door.

The dismayed man sold the cloth and began afresh by starting a small business, and never forgot about his night on the beam.
  1. Awry

  2. Missing

  3. Disoriented

  4. Dead

  5. Unhinged

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

’1’ is correct. To go awry is to move away from the course. This is correct as the old man referred to people going astray or leaving the right course. Missing implies being lost in the physical sense. Disorientated means confused and muddled. Unhinged means unsettled or distraught; also the reference is not to death, so this is also incorrect.

Multiple choice

How did the thief know that someone was coming?

Directions: Read the passage given below carefully and choose the best answer to the question from the given alternatives.

Once there lived an old scholar in a village. He was a well-respected man in his region that had fallen on bad times after a terrible flood.
Late one night, a thief broke into his house and stealthily crept around the sleeping household. Suddenly, the thief heard a rustling sound. Someone was coming. He looked around for a place to hide himself, but the room had little furniture in it – there was nowhere to hide. In desperation he looked around again and this time he looked upwards, up to the roof beams.
With a running jump he scrambled up onto one of the roof beams. He pressed his body along the length of the pole, and stayed as still and quiet as he could – hardly breathing , not moving a muscle.
The door below opened, and in walked an old man. He took a few steps into the room and stopped. He seemed to be lost in thought as he waited near the door.
Then he called out to a servant to wake his sons. He then walked over to a chair in the middle of the room, sat down, and waited.
Soon, his three sleepy sons shuffled into the room.
“What’s wrong father?” asked the youngest son and yawned.
“I just wanted to ask you boys a question.” answered the wise old scholar.
The eldest son was surprised, “You woke us all up in the middle of the night because you wanted to ask us a question? Couldn’t it have waited till the morning?”
“It is an important question. Now sit down all of you. My question is: If a person does bad things, is he a bad person?”
The room was silent for a while.
Then, the middle son spoke. “I’ve heard of the phrase, ‘Hate the sin, but not the sinner’, I think that people can be good inside, but they get led astray or get driven to do bad things.”
He nodded and replied, ”Yes, I do think that man is born good. But sometimes, people get lax, and conveniently forget what the right thing to do is, and slowly they turn bad. It’s easier to be bad and much, much harder to be good, and do what is right all the time. It takes work and perseverance not to give in.
The old man told his sons about how important working and honesty were. “You must always strive to be honest, to people you know and also people you don’t know. What do YOU think sir?” The man looked directly up at the unwelcome visitor in the beam.
The thief was so surprised, he almost fell off. Regaining his balance, he slowly climbed down, trembling. When the sons saw the loot in the thief’s bag, they closed in on him, ready to punish him, but the old man stood between the thief and his sons.
“Hate the sin and not the sinner”, he repeated, then turned to the thief and to everyone’s surprise ordered his servant to give the man a bolt of silk.
Full of shock, shame and gratitude, the thief apologized sincerely.
The wise old scholar said, “I have faith in you to become good again. Use this cloth to start over, and live your life with dignity and a healthy amount of pride in yourself.” Then the wise old scholar led the man out of the front door.

The dismayed man sold the cloth and began afresh by starting a small business, and never forgot about his night on the beam.
  1. The servant knocked and entered the room.

  2. The sleepy sons were talking as they entered the room.

  3. He heard the soft sounds of someone moving.

  4. He heard the old man ask his sons a question.

  5. He heard the old man ask for a bolt of silk.

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

'3' is correct. The thief heard a rustling sound and knew someone was coming. Rustling means the soft sounds of someone moving.

Multiple choice
  1. proud

  2. careless

  3. envious

  4. understanding

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

Correct option is (3).

Multiple choice
  1. They ran way.

  2. They all attacked the snake.

  3. They all were afraid of the cobra.

  4. They all obeyed the cobra.

  5. dummy

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

It is mentioned that ants swarmed up (to move or fly together) the king cobra biting him everywhere

Multiple choice
  1. He ate small creatures.

  2. He ate big snakes.

  3. He ate a lot of insects.

  4. He ate lizards.

  5. dummy

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

It is the best option as it is mentioned that he started eating small creatures.

Multiple choice
  1. We always enjoy.

  2. We always suffer.

  3. We always learn.

  4. We always remain happy.

  5. dummy

Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

When the the did not obey his mother he got stomach pain.