English Reading Comprehension

We can say that the tone of the essay is _______________.

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:
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 defenseless 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 an attempt at/to _______________.

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

According to the author, the primary charm of the Titanic is in ________________.

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

Who deal(s) with the words?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

As every moron knows, an ad comprises words and pictures. The word component is the domain of the copywriter and the visuals, the Art person. Interestingly, although their combined creativity, skills and crafts went into the making/creation of this ad, they functioned separately. This meant that the copywriter wrote his stuff and handed it over to the art person - usually with some guidelines - who then proceeded to visualize it in an appropriate meaningful manner. But you also came from different social stratospheres. The copywriter, usually, came from a convent/public school background, was fluent in English and totally comfortable with both the command and nuances of the language.

Who was/were better educated?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

As every moron knows, an ad comprises words and pictures. The word component is the domain of the copywriter and the visuals, the Art person. Interestingly, although their combined creativity, skills and crafts went into the making/creation of this ad, they functioned separately. This meant that the copywriter wrote his stuff and handed it over to the art person - usually with some guidelines - who then proceeded to visualize it in an appropriate meaningful manner. But you also came from different social stratospheres. The copywriter, usually, came from a convent/public school background, was fluent in English and totally comfortable with both the command and nuances of the language.

According to the passage

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

Appy Fizz belongs to

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

According to the passage, Appy Fizz as compared to alcohol

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

According to the passage, which of the following is/are true?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

According to the passage, which of the following is true?

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question:

Directions: Read the paragraph and answer the question that follows.

Most people do not know that Juliette Gordon Low, the founder of the Girl Scouts of America, was deaf. She began to lose her hearing when she was 17, and became almost totally deaf in her adulthood. Juliette married William Mackay Low and they went to England to live. Juliette became interested in the Girl Guides Association there. Juliette organized several Girl Guides troops in both England and Scotland. Since she could not do all the work herself, she had to ask other women to help her. Sometimes the women were reluctant to give their time due to family responsibilities. However, Juliette was a very determined woman. When the women refused, she would pretend that she didn't understand what they said. As a result, the women helped her in spite of being busy. When Juliette came back to America for a visit, she started the first Girl Guides troop in the country in her home town, Savannah. By the time she went back to England six months later, there were six Girl Guide troops in Savannah. At that time, the girls each made their own uniforms. In 1913, the Girl Guides changed its name to the Girl Scouts. Juliette Low came back to Savannah that same year. The main idea of this passage can best be stated as:

What do you infer from the passage?

Lorimer was a good editor because

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

During his early days as editor of the popular magazine, Saturday Evening Post. George Lorimer did much of the reading of unsolicited stories. This meant endless hours of sitting at the desk, pouring over big stacks of manuscripts, trying to decide which were worthy of publication and which were not. Lorimer became an expert at making these decisions.

One day he received a huffy letter from a would-be writer who had a complaint. “Last week you rejected my story,” she wrote, “I am positive you did not read it, because, as a test, I pasted together pages 14, 15 and 16. The manuscript came back with the pages still pasted. There is no question in my mind but that you are a sham and a disgrace to your profession.”

The author of the above passage says that the classics and the Bible were read by his ancestors

Lorimer read the stories

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

During his early days as editor of the popular magazine, Saturday Evening Post. George Lorimer did much of the reading of unsolicited stories. This meant endless hours of sitting at the desk, pouring over big stacks of manuscripts, trying to decide which were worthy of publication and which were not. Lorimer became an expert at making these decisions.

One day he received a huffy letter from a would-be writer who had a complaint. “Last week you rejected my story,” she wrote, “I am positive you did not read it, because, as a test, I pasted together pages 14, 15 and 16. The manuscript came back with the pages still pasted. There is no question in my mind but that you are a sham and a disgrace to your profession.”

Lorimer’s reply was

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the given questions.

During his early days as editor of the popular magazine, Saturday Evening Post. George Lorimer did much of the reading of unsolicited stories. This meant endless hours of sitting at the desk, pouring over big stacks of manuscripts, trying to decide which were worthy of publication and which were not. Lorimer became an expert at making these decisions.

One day he received a huffy letter from a would-be writer who had a complaint. “Last week you rejected my story,” she wrote, “I am positive you did not read it, because, as a test, I pasted together pages 14, 15 and 16. The manuscript came back with the pages still pasted. There is no question in my mind but that you are a sham and a disgrace to your profession.”