English Reading Comprehension

Fill blank 6.

Directions: Read the following passage with numbered blanks.

“Between the year 1964 and the year 1973, I did not file any income tax returns.” With that _____1_____ statement, Hitesh embarked on an account of his encounter with the famed Income Tax Department. “I originally owed 2,00,000 in unpaid taxes. With ____2_____ and ___3___, the 2,00,000 became 6,00,000. The Income Tax Department then went into action, and I learned first hand just how much power the Tax Department wields. Royalties and trust funds can be ____4____; automobiles may be ____5____, and auctioned off. Nothing belongs to the ___6_____ until the case is settled.”

According to the passage, the Triple Underpass is most probably

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

In paragraph 3 of the passage, what does the author mean by the expression 'the crowds thinned out'?

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

The word phalanx as used in the passage means

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

According to the passage how many people were in Kennedys car when he was shot?

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

According to the passage, Mrs. Connally was

Passage –III

With a phalanx of Dallas police motorcycle officers clearing the way ahead, the big limousine carrying the Kennedy family made a 90-degree turn from Main onto Houston in front of the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Almost two dozen deputies and other lawmen stood on the sidewalk watching.

Atop the building was a large Hertz Rent-A-Car sign that had a digital time and temperature display. In front of the Depository, the limousine slowed to a crawl to make a 120-degree turn onto Elm Street, although turns of more than 90-degrees were prohibited by the Secret Service. The turn was so tight that Greer almost ran the limousine up onto the north curb near the Depository's front door, according to Depository Superintendent Roy Truly.
The car continued a slow glide down the incline of Elm into Dealey Plaza, maintaining its position in the center lane of the three-lane street. The crowds thinned out as the Triple Underpass approached and security men began to relax. About three car lengths ahead of the presidential limousine in the lead car, Agent Lawson, a former Army counterintelligence man now with the Secret Service White House detail was sitting in the right front seat. He looked at his watch. It was 12:30 p.m. Picking up the car's microphone; he radioed the Trade Mart saying: 'We'll be there in about five minutes.’
In the presidential limousine, Kennedy was waving to his right hand at a group of people standing near a sign reading STEMMONS FREEWAY. His right arm and hand was slightly over the side of the car. Mrs. Kennedy had been waving to her left, but her thoughts were on the Texas heat. Mrs. Kennedy later told the Warren Commission: 'And in the motorcade, I waved to the left side and Mr. Kennedy was waving mostly to the right and that explains why we were not looking at each other very often. The climate also was very inhospitable; it was extremely hot and the heat was blinding us.’ Sensing her discomfort, Mrs. Connally, an old acquaintance of Mrs. Kennedy’s, turned and said: 'We'll soon be there.'

Mrs. Kennedy recalled seeing the Triple Underpass ahead: We saw that we were approaching an underpass, which I thought at the time was a blessing for us as it would offer respite from the heat.’ Mrs. Connally had wanted to mention the warm and enthusiastic welcome for some time, but she had held back. Now she could contain herself no longer. Turning to Kennedy, she said: 'Mr. President, you can't say that Dallas doesn’t love you.' According to Mrs. Kennedy, the President smiled and replied: 'No, you certainly can’t.’

Soon after this remark Mrs. Connally heard a frightening noise off to her right. She looked in that direction and caught a peripheral glimpse of Kennedy raising both hands to his neck. She heard no sound from the President, but noticed a blank, ‘nothing' expression on his face. Kellerman, sitting directly in front of Connally and Kennedy, noticed they had just passed a highway sign when he heard a 'pop' to his right and immediately looked in that direction, surveying the easternmost slope of the Grassy Knoll. Kellerman told the Warren Commission: turning to the right to view whatever it was ...I heard someone saying that he had been hit and I was pretty sure that it was the president. Also I remember him putting his hands up here like this [indicating both hands up near the head] . . . [It] was enough for me to verify that the man was hit.

Immediately after this I grabbed the speaker and said to the driver, “Let’s get out of here we’re hit,” and agin I spoke into the microphone, ’Lawson, this is Kellerman………we are hit and need to go to the hospital immediately.’ And just as I talking , I heard a flurry of shells come into the car. 

Mrs. Connally testified she heard Kellerman say: 'Pull out of the motorcade. Take us to the nearest hospital.' The limousine indeed pulled out of the motorcade and raced to Parkland Hospital.
Driver Greer said he was busy looking ahead to the railroad overpass when he heard a noise he thought was a motorcade backfire. Then he heard the noise again and caught a glimpse of Connally starting to slump over. He then heard two more noises that seemed to come one on top of the other. Greer said after the second noise and a glance over his right shoulder at Connally, he stepped on the accelerator. However, a film taken that day shows the limousine brake lights remained on until after the fatal shot to Kennedy.

Which of the following options in the paragraph means “cosmopolitan“?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Ratan Tata is an Indian businessman. He was the chairman of the most famous Indian brand Tata Group. Ratan Tata was born on 28 December 1937 in Bombay, India. Ratan Tata’s father was Naval Tata and mother was Sooni. Naval Tata was adopted by Jamsetji’s younger childless son Ratan Tata (Grandfather’s name was same). At an age of seven Ratan Tata’s parents got separated. He was raised by his grandmother, Navajbai. From his childhood he was interested in cars. He was made chairman of the Tata Group in 1991 after J.R.D Tata’s resignation. At that time many people criticized that decision, as he did not have that level of experience to run a company as big as Tata’s. But Ratan Tata answered them with achievements and not words. Under the leadership of Ratan Tata, Tata Group became a global brand. Tata Group acquired many companies including Tetley, Jaguar, Land Rover and Corus. TCS was also built under his leadership. His interest in cars also helped to build Tata Nano and Tata Indica. On 28 December 2012, Ratan Tata resigned from the post of chairman of Tata Group. Cyrus Mistry took over his post. Ratan Tata won Padma Bhushan in 2000 and Padma Vibhushan in 2008. He was awarded Lifetime Achievement Award by Rockefeller Foundation in 2012.

Directions: In this question, two sentences I and II are given. Each sentence has a blank. Five words, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are suggested. Out of these, only one fits at both the places in the context of each sentence. The number of that word is the answer.

I ______ the book over the cupboard. II There is no _________ for jealousy if you look for the fault within.

By giving the examples of theories of Freud and Roger in the passage, the author wants to convey that

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.

The word ramifications in the passage means

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.

An appropriate title to this passage would be

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.

What according to the passage is the difference between technicians and scientists?

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.

'Kelly's theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable'. What evidence in the passage proves it?

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.

One can conclude from the passage that

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.

An invitational mood may be helpful to all of the following, except

Passage-III

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.

Much of Kelly’s thinking, including his view on science, is based on the philosophical position of constructive alternatives. According to this position, there is no objective reality or absolute truth to discover, instead, there are efforts to construe events–to interpret phenomena in order to make sense of them. There are always alternative constructions available from which to choose. This is true for the scientists as it is for people who behave as scientists. In Kelly's view the scientific enterprise is not the discovery of truth or, as Freud might have suggested, the uncovering of things previously hidden in the mind. Rather the scientific enterprise is the effort to develop construct systems that are useful in anticipating events.
Kelly was concerned about the tendency toward dogma in psychology. Psychologists believed that constructs of inner states and traits actually existed rather than understanding them as "things" in a theoretician's head. If someone is described as an introvert, we tend to check whether he is an introvert, rather than checking the person who is responsible for the statement. Kelly's position against "truth" and dogma is of considerable significance. It leads, for instance, to the view that subjective thinking is an essential step in the scientific process. Subjective thinking allows one to establish the "invitation mood" in which one is free to invite many alternative interpretations of phenomena, and to entertain propositions that, initially, may seem absurd. The invitational mood is a necessary part of the exploration of the world, for the professional scientist as well as for the patient in therapy. It is the mood established by the creative novelist. But where a novelist publishes his make-believe and may even be unconcerned with the evidence supporting his constructions, a professional scientist tends to minimise the wind of make-believe and to focus on objective evidence.
According to Kelly, it is the freedom to make believe and to establish the invitational mood that allows for the development of hypothesis. A hypothesis should not be asserted as a fact, but instead should allow the scientist to pursue its implications as if it were true. Kelly viewed a theory as a tentative expression of what has been observed and of what is expected. A theory has a range of convenience, indicating the boundaries of phenomena the theory can cover, and a focus of convenience, indicating the points within the boundaries where the theory works best. For example, Freud\\\\\\'s theory has a broad range of convenience and the focus of convenience is the unconscious and abnormal behaviour. Rogers’ theory has a narrower range of convenience and its focus of convenience is more on the concept of the self and the process of change. Different theories have different ranges of convenience and different foci of convenience.
Kelly theories were modifiable and ultimately expendable. A theory is modified or discarded when it stops leading to new predictions or leads to incorrect predictions. Among scientists, as well as among people in general, how long one holds on to a theory in the face of contradictory information is partly a matter of taste and style.
Kelly\\'s view on science is not unique, but is important in terms of its clarity of expression and its points of emphasis. It also has a number of important ramifications. First, since there are no “facts,” and also different theories have different ranges of convenience, we need not argue about whether the facts are "psychological" or "physiological" or whether one theory is right and another wrong – they are different constructions. Second, Kelly's approach involved criticism of an extreme emphasis on measurement. Kelly felt that such an approach can lead to viewing concepts as "things" rather than as representations, and to making a psychologist into a technician rather than a scientist. Third, Kelly's view of science leaves room for the clinical as opposed to the experimental method, which he considered useful because it speaks the language of hypothesis, because it leads to the emergence of new variables and focuses on important questions. The fourth significant thing about Kelly\\'s view of science–it should focus on important issues. In Kelly\\'s belief, many psychologists are afraid of doing anything that might not be recognised as science, and they have given up struggling with important aspects of human behaviour. His suggestion was that they stop trying to be scientific and that they get on with the job of understanding people. Kelly believed that a good scientific theory should encourage the invention of new approaches to the solution of the problems of people and society.

Finally, as noted, Kelly took a firm stand against dogma. It was his contention that many scholars waste time trying to disprove their colleagues' claims to make room for their own explanations. It is a tribute to Kelly's sense of perspective, sense of humour, and lack of defensiveness concerning his own work that he could describe one of his own theoretical papers as involving "half-truths" only, and that he could view his theory as contributing to its downfall. It is this theory–the theory of personal constructs–that we now discuss.