English Reading Comprehension

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.

Which of the following is true in context of the passage?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

Directions: Choose the option which is most similar in meaning to the given word (printed in bold) as used in the passage.

Open

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

Why, according to the author, is genetic modification of crops not an answer to the problem of hunger in the world? (A) People being highly doubtful of the long term effects of genetically modified crops do not buy the products grown by such methods. (B) The problem of hunger in the world is not due to inadequate production of food but due to unequal distribution of it. (C) Many developing countries have banned genetically modified products as developed countries have been using these countries as dumping grounds for new genetically modified products.Which of the above mentioned reasons hold(s) true?

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

The author of the given passage seems to be definitely ____________.

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

Directions: Choose the option which is most opposite in meaning to the given word (printed in bold) as used in the passage.

Volatile

Directions: Read the following passage carefully and answer the question given below it. Certain words/phrases have been printed in bold to help you locate them while answering the question.

Modern bio-technology, especially the creation of genetically modified crops, is often presented as a magic solution or universal panacea for the problems of poverty, inadequate nutrition and even environmental degradation across the world. Conversely, there are people who present the picture of tech generated monsters and major human health hazards being created by science. Many of the technological changes currently in the process of being utilised in agriculture can have unforeseen consequences, and their safety and future viability are far from secure.
The reality, as always, is far more complex than either of these two extremes. Even today the total food production in the world is adequate to feed the hungry of the world; the problem is rather one of unequal distribution, which deprives a large part of the population of even their minimal nutritional requirements. Similarly farmers, especially in developing countries, face many problems such as lack of infrastructure, poor or unstable market access, volatile input and output prices etc. that biotechnology does not address, much less solve.
It is true that transgenic plants can offer a range of benefits which are above and beyond those which emerged from more traditional innovations in cultivation. It is suggested that such new technology offers more effective pest resistance of seeds and crops through genetic control mechanisms, which also reduces the need for pesticide use and leads to improved yield. A basic question, of course, is whether the new GM technology is safe, and whether this is absolutely crucial since the effects may only be known much later. The jury is still very much out on this matter, and the controversy does not appear to be resolved quickly.
The trouble is that most governments in developing countries have relatively low food and beverage regulatory standards, and public systems for monitoring and surveillance of such items are poor or non-existent. This leaves them open for entry and even dumping of a range of agricultural products of the new technology, which may not pass regulatory standards in the more developed countries.

The effectiveness of a Repartee is essentially decided by

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
I have used the word "artless" in my title for good reason, for if there be even a suggestion of premeditation about a repartee, it ceases to be what it is meant for – its power is gone. It is true that repartee has been diagnosed, analyzed and defined in many ways from early times down to our own day; but, instead of wearying my readers with the results of such investigations, I prefer to state briefly that in my opinion a good repartee is the saying of something on the spur of the moment which, by the unanimous consent of its hearers, leaves the person replied to practically destitute of further speech by way of defence.
We are told by some authorities that a repartee should be courteous in form, though severe in substance, and difficult either to mistake or to resent. It is undoubtedly so in its most polished guise –where it takes on a high form of wit and leaves no ranking sting behind – but in as much as some of the best repartees ever delivered are not of that highly polished order, crammed though they may be with cleverness, I do not see that they should be altogether excluded in treating of the subject. I agree rather with the Irishmen who defined repartee as "an insult with its dress– suit on," because, like the quick and well directed knock out blow of a champion of the prize ring, it cannot be dissociated altogether from brutality. A collection of smart replies which conformed too closely to the more polite and diplomatic standard might possesses the elements of instruction, but would certainly be lacking in more amusing qualities.
No one is altogether immune from a witty reply: kings and others of exalted birth or high official standing, down to the man in the street, they all have bad their turn, but the humorist is, of course, treading on rather dangerous ground when he knowingly takes too great a liberty with those of the highest rank, and when dealing with such the repartee has to be wrapped up with more than ordinary care if trouble is to be avoided.

That Repartee is best which leaves the addressee

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
I have used the word "artless" in my title for good reason, for if there be even a suggestion of premeditation about a repartee, it ceases to be what it is meant for – its power is gone. It is true that repartee has been diagnosed, analyzed and defined in many ways from early times down to our own day; but, instead of wearying my readers with the results of such investigations, I prefer to state briefly that in my opinion a good repartee is the saying of something on the spur of the moment which, by the unanimous consent of its hearers, leaves the person replied to practically destitute of further speech by way of defence.
We are told by some authorities that a repartee should be courteous in form, though severe in substance, and difficult either to mistake or to resent. It is undoubtedly so in its most polished guise –where it takes on a high form of wit and leaves no ranking sting behind – but in as much as some of the best repartees ever delivered are not of that highly polished order, crammed though they may be with cleverness, I do not see that they should be altogether excluded in treating of the subject. I agree rather with the Irishmen who defined repartee as "an insult with its dress– suit on," because, like the quick and well directed knock out blow of a champion of the prize ring, it cannot be dissociated altogether from brutality. A collection of smart replies which conformed too closely to the more polite and diplomatic standard might possesses the elements of instruction, but would certainly be lacking in more amusing qualities.
No one is altogether immune from a witty reply: kings and others of exalted birth or high official standing, down to the man in the street, they all have bad their turn, but the humorist is, of course, treading on rather dangerous ground when he knowingly takes too great a liberty with those of the highest rank, and when dealing with such the repartee has to be wrapped up with more than ordinary care if trouble is to be avoided.

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.

The unprecedented expansion of the language press was due to (I) political and technological reasons (II) the effective communication of the political leaders on the freedom struggle (III) the good use of the organic bond forged during the freedom struggle (IV) the language press playing a crucial rule in moulding the politics of the new rulers

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
Any survey of the Indian press cannot but reflect the different stages of growth and development that Indian democracy has gone through in the last 50-60 years. When freedom came, the press was proud of its role, as the bulk of the fraternity had actively participated or contributed to the awakening of the people through different phases of the struggle against foreign rule. The press, particularly those owned by the Indians, served as an auxiliary of the freedom struggle. With each phase of the national movement, it moved forward and faced the consequences for doing so.
An overwhelming number of newspapers at that time were published in the Indian language whereas the more affluent and well-established were the British-owned newspapers, mostly reflecting the views and actions of the colonial ruler. The language newspapers, on the other hand, reflected the nationalist viewpoint. By their very origin and activity, these newspapers were extremely badly off economically. In contrast, the English language papers were well-placed.
The transfer of power upset this arrangement. Those who came to power had so long depended mainly on the language newspapers to communicate to the millions, their main weapons, in fighting the foreign rule. When power was transferred from the colonial ruler to the national leaders, this linkage between the press and politics did not break down. Rather, it took a new form. The press, by and large, supported the new dispensation, though it did not spare the rulers whenever differences arose. Particularly on the issue of the bloodbath that accompanied the partitioning of the country, the press was normally divided. However, after the first phase, the press on its own formulated and accepted norms which helped strengthen a democratic approach, untainted by communal hatred. The press as a whole stood for communal harmony in the new setup. It is worth measuring the role of the Indian press in the building of the democratic order.
The regularisation of the formation of the linguistic States, as a result of the State Reorganisation Commission of 1956, marked a watershed for Indian journalism. Although the language newspapers experienced a sudden spurt in their development on the morrow of Independence, it was the formation of the linguistic States which shook them out of the old grooves and the leading ones in every language group blossomed into first class newspapers. In circulation, size and content, there was a marked improvement. More than the English language newspapers, most of the leading journals in different languages became the virtual mouthpiece of the puling establishment.
This phenomenal expansion of the language press was mainly due to two reasons: political and technological. An overwhelming majority of the language press had grown up along with the struggle for independence, as its active organ. The political leaders, on their part, grew up into effective communicators in the freedom struggle. After the State reorganisation in the mid-Fifties, when many of the leaders of the freedom struggle days took over the reins of administration, it was but natural that the leaders of the newly-recognised State Governments should try their best to establish a rapport with the press, particularly the language press of the region. This political bond did not mean that the press became the docile camp follower of the new establishment. But the organic bond that had been forged during the freedom struggle came into good use during this period as the language press, by and large, played a crucial role in moulding the politics of the new rulers.
This new development of the regional press brought about a marked change in the focus both in news presentation and the comments on contemporary events. The newspapers, by and large, concentrated on provincial or regional politics with a progressively conspicuous change of emphasis from national to provincial news- from Centre to State politics. This shift, however, did not make much difference so far as the content was concerned. Instead of the excitement in Parliament and the doings of the Central Government, it was certainly a change in the scenario for the newspapers particularly in the languages, but not necessarily in the content of the news and comments presentation to the readers.
Since the preoccupation of the newspapers was at the regional level and was mostly political related to power, there was a noticeable absence of other developments whether at the Central or the State level. No doubt in this very period many items concerning environment found their way into the newspapers but this was mainly due either to the striking event of the controversy such as the Sardar Sarovar dam or because such issues threw up thousands and lakhs of people whom even politicians engaged in mundane politicking could hardly ignore. In a sense, environment as a news issue has forced itself into the-newspapers, rather than due to the foresight and perspicacity of the newspapers themselves.
This shift in the press focus to the politics of the regional or state level has also had an effect on the content of the newspapers. One of the features of our national press during the freedom struggle was the extraordinary attention to what is called "foreign" news as distinct from domestic news.
The fact that Jawaharlal Nehru himself was at the very epicentre of power and that he was throughout aware of the interplay of national and international happenings, the Indian press did take up international issues seriously and the national - newspapers posted correspondents abroad. But in course of time, most of the newspapers - with, of course, honourable exceptions- have withdrawn their correspondents and come to depend by and large on the wire services, National and International, mostly Western.
The ownership pattern of the press has undergone striking changes. At the time of Independence, the prosperous were a few connected largely to the British-owned or controlled newspapers. They had the best-paid staff, advanced technology and indirect government patronage. Most of the Indian language newspapers which participated in the freedom struggle or stood by it were poorly financed, with primitive printing arrangements.
After Independence, two developments took place: first, the Nationalist Press, though materially weak, got a boost and the new political elite became aware of the power of the press in the running of the new edifice of freedom. Although still weak in terms of resources, these newspapers found a free field of activity and independence that they had never enjoyed before.
The second development was that most of the British - owned newspaper establishments sold off their assets and overnight these papers became Indian-owned. The change in the pattern of ownership entailed new developments in the newspaper world.